'Weaknesses in incident management plan'
Experts make recommendations including on training, operations
By Christopher Tan, The Straits Times, 10 May 2012
TWO expert witnesses at the Committee of Inquiry presented their findings yesterday and made no fewer than 10 recommendations, which one described as common sense.
The recommendations, made by Mr Andrew Barr (left), a London Underground manager, and Mr Peter Gillen, an operational specialist from consultancy Gtrans International, ranged from more comprehensive staff training to better services provided to commuters in future train disruptions.
Said Mr Barr, who was called to testify by the Attorney-General's Chambers: 'Frankly, they are common sense, they are not rocket science.'
The two were the first expert witnesses to appear at the inquiry that began on April 16.
Mr Barr, who was the officer in charge during the 2005 terrorist attacks on the London Underground, said the structure of SMRT's rail incident management plan (Rimp) was 'too complicated' and involved 'too many links'.
Rimp is an extensive plan laid out to deal with a variety of incidents that can affect rail service.
The network operational planning and integration manager added that SMRT senior management lacked formal operational training, and that its 'competency regime... deals only with theoretical training qualifications'.
He said he was impressed by the number of SMRT employees who turned up to help on Dec 15, but was not sure if they knew what had to be done.
There was no lack of dedication or willingness, but the Rimp itself was activated too late that evening, he added.
'People on the ground have to believe in the plans and processes,' the Londoner noted, adding that 'people at the core are competent'.
Mr Gillen (right), who was called by SMRT, concurred. He added that while SMRT's Rimp structure was in place, 'implementation was not effective'.
The two men said the top priority in any incident must be to evacuate passengers from stranded trains. They said the system also had to ensure that sections of the network unaffected by the breakdowns were not 'paralysed'.
The two made the following 10 recommendations:
- Having a simpler Rimp, 'with fewer words and more diagrams' that can be understood 'by people on the ground';
- Having an integrated command and control framework, with people in charge who are easily identifiable;
- Reviewing the operational rule book to ensure its relevance to today's network;
- Including practical training in the company's Competency Management System framework;
- Reviewing bus bridging plans - for example, if it was more effective to ferry commuters to the nearest working rail line;
- Re-examining customer care, such as providing water to stranded passengers, and having medical services standing by;
- Re-examining the way information is disseminated to commuters, stakeholders, and media;
- Re-examining the way employees are updated with details after an incident;
- Making sure staff tasked with crowd control duties are sufficiently trained for the job;
- Empowering staff, and making sure they are not given too many tasks at once.
Despite the shortcomings, both experts said SMRT did well in responding to both incidents.
Mr Gillen said: 'SMRT handled it as best as they could, with the resources that they had.'
Heated exchange over evacuation
THE most senior SMRT executive to take the stand at the four-week-old inquiry was at the centre of a heated exchange in court yesterday.
Senior vice-president of engineering and projects Vincent Tan - the man in charge of managing the two massive breakdowns in December - was grilled by director of prisons Soh Wai Wah about the length of time it took for SMRT to evacuate passengers on a stranded train.
Mr Soh, who is a member of the Committee of Inquiry, first asked Mr Tan for his assessment of the Rail Incident Management Plan (Rimp), and whether he thought it had achieved its objective.
Mr Tan said the 'overall objective was achieved... we restored services', but acknowledged that SMRT was making several improvements to the plan.
Mr Soh then asked him what he thought of the time it took for SMRT to rescue passengers trapped in trains.
Mr Tan said the 43 minutes taken was within the 45-minute lifespan of the train's batteries which powered the emergency lighting and ventilation.
'You felt that was okay?' Mr Soh shot back.
'That's not okay. By right, there should have been ventilation and lighting... unfortunately, the thing went off,' replied Mr Tan, referring to the shorter-than-expected battery lifespan.
'So it caused a lot of discomfort to passengers,' he added.
Zooming in on Train 134 - which stalled between City Hall and Dhoby Ghaut at 6.48pm on Dec 15 - Mr Soh noted that the first passenger got off at 7.26pm, and the last passenger exited at 8.05pm.
Mr Tan responded that the 'time taken was long, but it was done safely'.
'It's all relative,' he went on. 'Let's say on Dec 17, you have a smaller number of passengers, it would've been faster.'
Not relenting, Mr Soh then asked: 'Are you saying it's an acceptable time?'
Mr Tan said: 'You don't rush things like that... there are different people on board, there was a person who couldn't walk properly.'
The two men went at the issue for several more minutes, sounding testier by the minute.
Mr Soh said it was also a safety issue if so many people were stuck on a train without lighting and ventilation. A woman had fainted on Train134.
Mr Tan said: 'There's tunnel lighting...'
Mr Soh interjected: 'So it's okay for passengers to be on the train without power?'
'I'm not saying that, you're saying that,' Mr Tan shot back.
'When the (evacuation) ramp is down, there is quite a lot of ventilation, so it's not that there is no ventilation,' he said.
At that, Mr Soh went on to another line of questions, including why SMRT did not anticipate a recurrence of the breakdown on Dec 17.
Mr Tan said SMRT had made all the checks and repairs, and staff stayed back well after 1am that night doing so. But he added: 'We will review again, to think of what other scenarios that can happen. But we can't be exhaustive... the Rimp must be robust and flexible enough to handle most scenarios.'
Then, Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye, the committee chairman, asked why free bus services for affected commuters could not be extended to train rides on working rail lines.
The judge had asked two previous witnesses the same question but did not receive a satisfactory answer.
Mr Vincent Tan said if free train services were offered, it might draw a lot of people to the system - including those who are unaffected by the breakdown.
This might jam up the crippled network further, he said.
Judge Tan replied that if that was the reasoning, it would apply to free bus services as well.
Mr Tan then relented. He said if the ticketing system could be 'tweaked' by the Land Transport Authority to allow affected commuters to hop on working trains for free, 'it's a good suggestion'.
Related
No comments:
Post a Comment