<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Don't blame system, boost SMRT operations
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->THE letter, 'Steps afoot to speed up train frequency' (May 19), by SMRT Corporation seems to blame low frequency of trains on the system rather than the corporation. I do not share its philosophy of planning train services based on demand, train carrying capacity, time for passengers to board and alight, and safe distances between trains.
Are these factors different from other train operators in Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong? Why can other operators achieve consistent two to 2.5 minutes between trains at peak hour, while SMRT cannot?
Citing infrastructure constraints is like saying Singapore train operators have inherited and will inherit a less efficient rail system from the Land Transport Authority. My observations of operations of the Hong Kong MTR system seem to tell a different story.
Many busy Hong Kong train station platforms were built to accommodate trains with eight to 12 cars instead of six. That may be the only advantage the Hong Kong MTR system has over SMRT, but maintaining frequency of two to 2.5 minutes at peak hour is certainly not due to quadruple tracks and more turnaround points. It has more to do with management control to maintain a sufficient number of trains to feed the system, because at 2.5 minutes frequency and average speed of 70kmh, the safe braking distance is still a good 3km.
From 2007 data released by the two public transport authorities, I notice that Singapore and Hong Kong have about the same length of 190km of rail tracks installed. But the average number of daily passenger trips in Singapore was 1.564 million, while in Hong Kong it was 3.458 million.
I did a calculation based on passenger trips per km of rail. Surprisingly, our system achieved only 14,350 passenger trips per km of track while Hong Kong achieved 31,200. There was a whopping 2.21 times difference in train commuter-carrying capacity between the two cities. The question is why Hong Kong MTR can carry twice as much, while SMRT lags far behind.
SMRT should be more forthcoming to provide up-to-date information based on mass rapid rail transport industry norm and improve its operations. Perhaps, to maintain consistent peak-hour frequency at 2.5 minutes comfortably, it should have doubled the total number of trains to feed its system in 2007 instead of 2012. Paul Chan Poh Hoi
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->THE letter, 'Steps afoot to speed up train frequency' (May 19), by SMRT Corporation seems to blame low frequency of trains on the system rather than the corporation. I do not share its philosophy of planning train services based on demand, train carrying capacity, time for passengers to board and alight, and safe distances between trains.
Are these factors different from other train operators in Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong? Why can other operators achieve consistent two to 2.5 minutes between trains at peak hour, while SMRT cannot?
Citing infrastructure constraints is like saying Singapore train operators have inherited and will inherit a less efficient rail system from the Land Transport Authority. My observations of operations of the Hong Kong MTR system seem to tell a different story.
Many busy Hong Kong train station platforms were built to accommodate trains with eight to 12 cars instead of six. That may be the only advantage the Hong Kong MTR system has over SMRT, but maintaining frequency of two to 2.5 minutes at peak hour is certainly not due to quadruple tracks and more turnaround points. It has more to do with management control to maintain a sufficient number of trains to feed the system, because at 2.5 minutes frequency and average speed of 70kmh, the safe braking distance is still a good 3km.
From 2007 data released by the two public transport authorities, I notice that Singapore and Hong Kong have about the same length of 190km of rail tracks installed. But the average number of daily passenger trips in Singapore was 1.564 million, while in Hong Kong it was 3.458 million.
I did a calculation based on passenger trips per km of rail. Surprisingly, our system achieved only 14,350 passenger trips per km of track while Hong Kong achieved 31,200. There was a whopping 2.21 times difference in train commuter-carrying capacity between the two cities. The question is why Hong Kong MTR can carry twice as much, while SMRT lags far behind.
SMRT should be more forthcoming to provide up-to-date information based on mass rapid rail transport industry norm and improve its operations. Perhaps, to maintain consistent peak-hour frequency at 2.5 minutes comfortably, it should have doubled the total number of trains to feed its system in 2007 instead of 2012. Paul Chan Poh Hoi
