Analysis: Are fines the most effective punishment for train disruptions?

CNA

04-06-2025

SINGAPORE: Public transport operator SMRT faces a S$3 million (US$2.3 million) fine over a major incident on its East-West Line last year.
But experts told CNA that in Singapore's context, it would be more crucial to relook the dynamic between operators and the Land Transport Authority (LTA).
For example, a question that needs to be asked is who should be responsible for making decisions on the trade-off between reliability and cost effectiveness, said one observer.
Their comments came after the LTA and the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau (TSIB) released reports on Tuesday (Jun 3) detailing the factors that contributed to the six-day disruption in September 2024.
These included the maintenance schedule for the incident train being extended beyond stipulated intervals.
'I think the more important thing is not the fine, but what will be done at SMRT as well as at LTA to implement improved processes for evaluating maintenance decisions and monitoring reliability,' said Associate Professor Walter Theseira of the Singapore University of Social Sciences' business school.
Transport fares and public funds go towards the running of Singapore's trains, and hence "it is not wrong" to seek more cost-effective ways of maintenance, he said.
'But there may need to be more oversight and collaboration between the operator and LTA in making these decisions.'
The authority said on Tuesday that since the September incident, it has strengthened oversight of areas such as operators' internal procedures to adjust maintenance schedules.
Assoc Prof Theseira added that he did not think operators and their management were motivated by trying to avoid fines.
When deciding how big a fine to impose, LTA said it took into consideration the costs that SMRT bore for repairs and providing free bridging buses, regular bus services and shuttle train services. These came up to more than S$10 million.
An estimated 500,000 out of 2.8 million train journeys were affected on each day of the disruption. Services were disrupted along nine stations from Boon Lay to Queenstown.
Associate Professor Raymond Ong, a transport infrastructure researcher at the National University of Singapore (NUS), said the S$3 million fine was appropriate given the number of stations affected.
He noted that a bigger fine was given for an incident in 2015 that took down the entire North-South Line and East-West Line for hours.
Past fines for train disruptions and incidents
In 2018, SMRT was fined a total of S$1.9 million over the Bishan Tunnel flooding incident in 2017 as well as a separate accident near Pasir Ris station in 2016, which left two SMRT trainees dead.
In 2015, SMRT was fined S$5.4 million for Singapore's worst train disruption at the time, which affected 413,000 commuters. This remains the largest fine to date. SMRT was found to be fully responsible for the incident and to have fallen short in maintenance – failing to address water seepage in the tunnel between Tanjong Pagar and Raffles Place stations, for example.
In 2014, SMRT was fined S$1.6 million for four incidents that took place over 2013 and 2014, which included SMRT train drivers running red light signals.
SBS Transit was fined S$50,000 in 2014 for a 40-minute disruption caused by carelessness during maintenance works at Potong Pasir station.
In 2013, both SMRT and SBS Transit were fined a total of S$1.1 million for incidents over 2012 and 2013. SMRT was fined S$860,000 for rail defects on the Circle Line, a safety breach at Ulu Pandan depot, its handling of a trackside fire at Newton Station (which incurred the highest fine of S$300,000) and for launching only three trains –instead of the scheduled four – from Bukit Panjang LRT Depot. SBS Transit was fined S$250,000 for a service disruption on the NEL which led to stranded commuters having to wait in the haze for shuttle bus services.
In 2012, SMRT was fined S$2 million for two disruptions in Dec 2011 that affected 221,000 commuters.
The effort spent to quickly and safely recover service while minimising disruption to commuters is a key mitigating factor, said Assoc Prof Ong.
He said a fine was a 'logical and handy tool' that could be used, but also stressed it was more important for the operator and regulator to learn from the incident and improve maintenance regimes.
Electrical engineering expert Teo Chor Kok however said the fine could be higher since there were multiple lapses, though he acknowledged that financial penalties were ineffective in leading to change.
Noting that the stipulated overhaul interval for trains was 500,000 km, he questioned SMRT's decision to increase this twice and up to 750,000km a month before the incident.
An overhaul refers to a complete tear-down and rebuild to restore a train to an "as-good-as-new" condition.
By the time of the incident, the train had logged 690,000km since its last overhaul in 2018.
'We can give (an) engineering error of 10 per cent, but 690,000km is (a gross) management lapse,' said Mr Teo.
The extent of damage to the tracks – 46 rail breaks along a 2.55km stretch – signals that the operator did not stop the train when something was wrong, he added.
TSIB noted in its report that this was due to staff believing that a high temperature warning was a false one, due to a system error not detecting which train was experiencing the issue.
CNA also asked experts whether Singapore could consider Hong Kong's approach, where its train operator was made to give commuters a 50 per cent fare concession for a day due to three separate service disruptions this year. This was on top of a HK$19.2 million (S$3.2 million) fine.
Assoc Prof Theseira pointed out that SMRT's S$3 million fine could be used to provide blanket concessions, but in Singapore's case, LTA has already announced that it will go towards helping needy commuters.
He added that in Singapore, fare revenues alone do not cover the operating and maintenance costs for public transport operators.
'Reducing their fare revenue directly would just have the effect of later requiring more public funding to ensure operations are sustainable,' he said.
This is why proposals to cut fares or stop fare increases don't produce the effect of "punishing" the operator, said Assoc Prof Theseira.
'In the end, public subsidies are required, so it is actually punishing the taxpayer.'
ON THE OVERHAUL REGIME
Assoc Prof Theseira said the findings on the causes of the incident pointed to a failure to fully understand the risks of adjusting the maintenance and overhaul regime of the train's axle boxes.
One of these boxes had failed and dropped from the train and onto the tracks.
LTA gives operators flexibility to make tweaks according to operation experience and engineering analysis because operating conditions differ, and the manufacturer's recommendations may not necessarily be appropriate, he said.
Assoc Prof Ong noted that SMRT was in the process of overhauling its first-generation trains when the incident took place.
'It's unfortunate ... because they are already overhauling, and they are all queuing up to be overhauled.'
President of SMRT Trains Lam Sheau Kai said on Tuesday that the operator's overhaul regime had served it well over the past 38 years.
'What may have caught us off-guard this time was the convergence of factors - delays in new train deliveries due to COVID-19, our efforts to balance and adjust overhaul schedules, and the lag in receiving critical spare parts.'
He added that for 'rare, black swan events like COVID-19', it was important that SMRT and LTA come together to 'reassess collectively'.
LTA has said that going forward, it will require rail operators to inform them of extensions to overhaul intervals.
Assoc Prof Theseira said LTA might have been in a better position to question and oversee SMRT's decisions on maintenance schedules, though he acknowledged that the relationship was complex - because of the operator's need to, again, be both reliable and cost-effective.
The operator is expected to take steps to manage costs, but it may be that LTA has more expertise and responsibility to make the decision together with SMRT, he said.
'We should certainly look at whether there was open communication between the operator and LTA on the operating constraints given the pandemic supply chain shortages and (the) need to keep operating the (first-generation) KHI trains,' he said.
If SMRT had shortened the overhaul interval for the defective axle box, it could have prevented the entire incident - but there would have been costs involved, and not just monetary ones, said Assoc Prof Theseira.
Fewer trains would be available for operations due to maintenance, meaning reduce capacity during peak periods.
'Decisions that would have avoided this would have had consequences of their own, that would also affect the public," he noted.