Oral Reply by Acting Minister for Transport to Parliamentary Questions on Rail Reliability

Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport as regards the two breakdowns on the Sengkang-Punggol LRT in August 2025

a.     when will the final investigation results be released; 

b.     what safeguards have been put in place for adequate maintenance and safety checks for commuters and rail workers; and 

c.     what new technology and safety enhancements will be put in place to prevent future breakdowns.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Acting Minister for Transport

a.     whether the Ministry can provide an update on the status of the investigation and the design review by LTA project team following the recent major disruptions of the Bukit Panjang LRT on 3 July 2025 and 19 July 2025; and 

b.     whether the power trips which were identified as the cause of both incidents could have been prevented.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Acting Minister for Transport 

a.     in each year over the past five years (a) what is the number of regulatory breaches for each of the rail operators under the New Rail Financing Framework (NRFF); and 

b.     what are the corresponding financial penalties that have been imposed, including for the failure to provide and maintain an adequate, safe and satisfactory service.

Ms Poh Li San asked the Acting Minister for Transport 

a.     what improvements has the Ministry made to prevent a recurrence of the North East MRT Line (NEL) and Sengkang-Punggol LRT (SPLRT) disruptions on 12 August 2025;

b.     what issues caused the SPLRT disruption to last around ten hours; and

c.     what steps will the operator take to respond more quickly to future service disruptions.

Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport 

a.    what factors resulted in MRT reliability falling to its lowest level since 2020;

b.     whether any trend is observed across the spate of MRT and LRT disruptions since August 2025; 

c.      whether the rail infrastructure needs refreshing; and

d.     what will be done to improve rail reliability and sustain achievement of the target of Mean Kilometres Between Failure to meet public expectations.

Mr Ng Chee Meng asked the Acting Minister for Transport 

a.    whether he can provide an update on the investigation into the root causes of the recent breakdown on the Sengkang-Punggol LRT on 15 August 2025; and 

b.     what remedial actions will be taken by the operator to prevent future occurrences.

Mr Jackson Lam asked the Acting Minister for Transport 

a.    what long-term engineering upgrades are LTA, SBS and SMRT planning for point machines and track components, including sensors, on all MRT lines; 

b.     what are the current inspection and maintenance regimes for the East-West Line (EWL) point systems; and 

c.     whether warning signs had preceded the EWL track point fault on 6 August 2025.

Mr Jackson Lam asked the Acting Minister for Transport 

a.     how many signalling-related disruptions have occurred on the North–South MRT Line in the past year; 

b.     what is the aggregate duration of such disruptions and the number of commuters impacted; 

c.     what caused the 2 September 2025 fault between Woodlands and Yishun MRT stations; and 

d.     what remedial steps are planned to address such cause.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Acting Minister for Transport with regard to the two power fault incidents on the Sengkang-Punggol LRT between 12 August 2025 and 15 August 2025

a.     whether lapses in routine maintenance have contributed to the breakdowns; and

b.     if not, whether LTA considers the current maintenance schedule adequate.

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Acting Minister for Transport

a.     what are the key learning points from the two Bukit Panjang LRT disruptions in July 2025; and 

b.     whether the issues point to an upstream design flaw or a shortage of a specific type of engineering expertise.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport 

a.     whether the Ministry is monitoring the work hours of our rail workers on the repair and maintenance work required following the series of recent train disruptions; and

b.      what measures have been put in place to ensure the safety and well-being of our rail transport workers during this period.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Acting Minister for Transport over the past five years

a.     whether there have been instances where train operators have failed to inform commuters of MRT service delays in excess of ten minutes as required by LTA;

b.     what are the penalties borne by the operators should they fail to adhere to these requirements; an

c.     whether LTA has penalised any train operators for non-adherence.

Mr Sharael Taha asked the Acting Minister for Transport 

a.     whether the Ministry will reconsider increasing the Mean Kilometres Between Failures (MKBF)) target for the MRT network to above 1 million MKBF and introduce a yearly improvement target to reflect the need for continuous improvement; and

b.     how does Singapore’s MKBF target compare with rail networks in other countries.

Mr Jackson Lam asked the Acting Minister for Transport 

a.     what is the extent to which current emergency protocols are effective during train disruptions including in managing (i) staff deployment (ii) public communication and (iii) provision of alternative transport for commuters; and

b.     whether LTA plans to enhance these existing protocols.

Mr Yip Hong Weng asked the Acting Minister for Transport 

a.     why has MRT reliability fallen to its lowest levels since 2020 with even newer lines showing significant declines;

b.     what proportion of breakdowns are due to under-maintenance and poor equipment quality;

c.     how effective are the upgraded signalling systems; and (d) what measures are being taken to address the root causes.

Mr Sharael Taha asked the Acting Minister for Transport 

a.     what systemic issues have been identified in the reduction of MRT reliability between June 2024 and June 2025;

b.     how will LTA and rail operators collaborate to improve reliability and share best practices; and

c.     how reliability upgrades will be funded to ensure that costs are not directly passed on to commuters.

Ms Rachel Ong asked the Acting Minister for Transport 

a.     why despite upgrades to the North-South and East-West Lines (NSEWL) since 2015, there has continued to be disruptions in MRT services on these lines over 2024 and 2025;

b.     how many of such disruptions are caused by parts that have already been upgraded; and

c.     whether the recent disruptions affect the continued upgrading plans for the NSEWL.

Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Acting Minister for Transport 

a.     whether standards can be established to set out the maximum duration between the start of delays caused by a train disruption and the public announcement of such delays; and

b.     if not, why not.

Reply by Acting Minister for Transport Jeffrey Siow:

1.     Mr Speaker, I seek your permission to take the following six questions 19 to 24 together. There are a total of 18 Parliamentary questions filed on rail reliability for this week’s sittings. I will respond on the issue of rail reliability more generally, before addressing the specific incidents Members have asked about. Thereafter, I invite Members who have filed questions for this and future sittings to seek clarifications and if sufficiently addressed, Members may wish to withdraw their questions filed for subsequent sittings. 

Rail Reliability

2.     Let me begin. Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Yip Hon Weng have noted that our rail reliability, as measured by mean kilometres between failure or MKBF, is at its lowest since 2020. In 2017, then-Minister for Transport Mr Khaw Boon Wan set an MKBF target of 1 million train-kilometres between delays exceeding five minutes. We surpassed this target in 2019, and have remained above it ever since. This number for the 12-month period leading up to August 2025 is approximately 1.7 million train-km. This is lower than our peak MKBF of over 2 million in 2022 and 2023, but still higher than the 1 million target.  

3.     Mr Sharael Taha asked how our MKBF compares internationally. Using MKBF and other indicators where comparisons are available, our MRT remains one of the most reliable train (systems) in the world. Singapore’s MKBF in recent years is higher than Hong Kong MTR’s, though lower than Taipei Metro’s. For the number of service delays exceeding 30 minutes per million train-km, our MRT performs about the same as metros in Tokyo and other Japanese cities. I have asked LTA to publish these comparisons regularly, because Singaporeans often compare our MRT to these systems.  

4.     Our journey to achieve 1 million train-km was by no means easy. It was the result of years of hard work by thousands of  people, including many engineers, technicians, and service staff, who work day and night to keep our train services running (every day). I thank Ms Yeo Wan Ling for asking about the work hours, safety and well-being of our rail (transport) workers, many of whom are Singaporeans. Rail operators are required to ensure that workers maintain appropriate rest periods, and there are strict controls to prevent excessive overtime. I assure Ms Yeo that we take the safety and well-being of our rail transport workers very seriously. I have personally visited workers often since I became Transport Minister. They are part of my One Transport Team, and I am committed to taking good care of them.

5.     Should we set an even higher target for MKBF? Mr Sharael asked this. It is a reasonable question. But beyond 1 million train-km, variations in the MKBF become less meaningful, and this is because the number of disruptions per year are very small. Let me give you an example. For the Downtown Line, the maximum MKBF is about 8 million train-km; it achieved it in 2023 and 2024, but just one additional delay halved it to 4 million. Another drawback of the MKBF indicator is that it does not really measure the length of the disruption, and hence the impact on the commute. For example, a complete service stoppage  is treated the same as small, frequent minor incidents even when e trains are still moving and passengers are  able to carry on with their journeys. LTA does consider commuter impact in the financial penalties that are imposed on operators for serious disruptions. To Mr Louis Chua’s question, LTA has imposed an average of around four such penalties per year (on operators) in the past five years. 

6.     We also use other measures to track the performance of our rail network. Some of these are published, such as the number of delays more than 30 minutes. There are other indicators such as the punctuality of trains reaching each terminus station, and the proportion of scheduled mileage travelled by revenue trains.  I have asked LTA to share more of such data publicly, even though they are fairly technical, so that interested commuters and colleagues can have a fuller picture of our performance. We will be transparent, because we have a good system, and we have nothing to hide

7.     I want to assure Members that I take every single rail incident very seriously. I am personally alerted whenever there is a train incident, even when it is late into the night or during engineering hours. We want to be accountable to commuters because this means that when an incident happens, we will learn from it, we will do our utmost to prevent similar faults from recurring. Accountability is also why I asked LTA last Friday to put out the whole list of incidents that have happened since July this year, with our assessment on the causes, and how these problems were or are being resolved. 

Recent incidents

8.     As Members have also asked questions on specific incidents, I will cover them very briefly in the interest of time, and invite Members to refer to LTA’s news release last Friday for further details. 

12 Aug NEL/SPLRT and 15 Aug SPLRT incidents

9.     Ms Yeo, Ms Poh Li San, Mr Ng Chee Meng, and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about breakdowns for the NEL and SPLRT in August. As LTA had explained, two faults occurred at a substation at Sengkang Depot on 12 Aug, which cut off power to several parts of the NEL and SPLRT. Works to repair the damage commenced that night. Unfortunately, before the repair could be completed, a damaged cable caused a separate power fault on the SPLRT three days later. 

10.    Ms Poh asked why it took a longer time to recover service on the SPLRT on 12 Aug. This was because LTA and SBST had to take some time to determine that it was fully safe for the power to be turned on. 

11.    The root cause of these faults is still being investigated. The faulty components have been sent to the manufacturer for checks. LTA is also investigating whether there were any lapses in maintenance. If so, this will result in regulatory action.

12.    I want to also assure Members that immediate action has been carried out to avoid a recurrence. LTA and SBST have tested cables along the entire SPLRT network and will replace all voltage transformer panels across NEL intake substations. We had already planned to install a secondary power supply source at Sengkang LRT Depot by the end of this year. This will provide further redundancy. 

3 Jul and 19 July BPLRT incidents

13.    Mr Edward Chia and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about our findings on the two Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit (BPLRT) incidents in July. We have traced both incidents to a malfunctioning network switch. As the network switch was intermittently functioning, the defect was only discovered after the second incident. 

14.    Mr Liang asked if the disruption could have been avoided. As the network switch was well within its design life, the malfunction unfortunately was not anticipated. This defective switch has been replaced and sent to the manufacturer for investigation.  

15.    LTA and SMRT have also put in additional measures to detect such network instability, and to enable the power system to automatically recover in such instances. 

6 Aug EWL and 2 Sep NSL incidents

16.    Mr Jackson Lam and Miss Rachel Ong asked about incidents on the North South and East West Lines. The incident on the East West Line on the morning of 6 Aug was caused by a faulty point machine near Jurong East station, one of our busiest stations. Point machines physically move the rails so that trains can transfer from one track to another. Therefore for safety reasons, trains were slowed down until after the morning peak when the point machine could be fixed. This resulted in more crowding than usual during the morning peak hours.

17.    Mr Lam asked about our maintenance regime for point machines (on the EWL), and whether we could have picked up the fault earlier. Operators do carry out periodic inspections and comprehensive regular overhaul, including functional tests, as per industry best practices. Unfortunately, the fault on 6 Aug was detected just before the start of service, and could not be resolved by the morning peak. 

18.    On the separate incident on the North South Line on 2 Sep, this was caused by a stalled train, which had to be physically pushed out to Canberra station to disembark passengers. The problem was traced to a faulty connector, which has since been replaced.

19.    Mr Jackson Lam also asked about the number of signalling-related disruptions on the NSL in the past year. There was only one NSL delay on 13 Jun 2025 caused by a signalling-related fault, where the travelling time between Ang Mo Kio and Choa Chu Kang was extended by 15 minutes. Normal service resumed within an hour.

Taskforce

20.    These recent incidents happened across different MRT lines with different causes. But we want to take a harder look to satisfy ourselves that there is no systemic problem. This is why I announced last week that I had tasked the Chief Executive of the Land Transport Authority, Mr Ng Lang, to chair a Rail Reliability Taskforce, which will include the Chief Executives of the two MRT operators, Mr Ngien Hoon Ping of SMRT and Mr Jeffrey Sim of SBST. 

21.    This Taskforce will focus on three areas. First, it will bring forward the renewal of critical components, especially power supply and signalling, for the NEL and the Circle Line. Second, it will jointly conduct audits on the maintenance and operations of critical systems, including maintenance processes and staff training. Third, it will review service recovery processes, so that we can better support commuters who were caught in a train disruption. The train operators have been informing commuters of service delays in excess of ten minutes, as required by LTA. In response to Mr Louis Chua’s question, LTA has not had to impose any penalties on this in the past five years. But this is still onlya basic requirement, and I think we  can do better. For instance, commuters should have more precise information on alternate travel routes and additional travel time, depending on their specific location rather than through generic advisories. We should also be able to get the information at a single centralised location, possibly on a single app, so that commuters know exactly where to look during a stressful disruption. These can be improved as well as physical things like directional signs, and officer discretion on the ground, or officer reaction on the ground. 

Conclusion

22.    Mr Speaker, the recent disruptions have inconvenienced many commuters. I understand the frustrations, and want to assure commuters that we are doing our best to improve our performance. We know we can do better because our rail reliability has indeed been better in the last few years. But even with the recent disruptions, our MRT system  remains one of the most reliable in the world.

23.    Train delays happen in every system, in every city. Our phones and computers have to be restarted every now and then. Cars will break down too. So will our trains. We want to absolutely minimise disruptions because of the inconvenience to commuters, and we will work doubly hard to do so. What is equally important is when a disruption inevitably happens, we can support commuters, and guide them on continuing their journeys safely, with their understanding and cooperation. 

24.    Thank you, Mr Speaker.