POSSIBLE ISSUES
The transport experts cited a range of possible reasons for the delay, from glitches during testing to the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Prof Lee noted that the announcement did not identify a specific technical fault and cautioned against interpreting the delay as a sign that something had gone wrong during tests.
“Issues at the interfaces between trains, signalling and station systems can require adjustments and repeat testing. That is a possible explanation for needing more time, but we should not assume it is what has happened here,” he said.
Testing and certification are known requirements that need to be factored in from the outset, including time for rectification.
More information would be needed to determine the cause, such as whether unexpected issues emerged during testing or earlier work took longer than planned, leaving less time for the final stages, Prof Lee added.
Dr Ng said technical glitches are often found during testing, and fixing them takes time to ensure the system is safe.
He said the revised timeline is understandable because a cross-border train system requires close coordination and is more complicated than a domestic one.
Given the team’s expertise, he does not expect a further delay to the opening.
Assistant Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship (Education) Terence Fan from the Singapore Management University pointed to changes to the project over the past 16 years. It was suspended in 2019 at Malaysia’s request for a review, before work resumed in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Many construction projects faced delays during the pandemic, and some of those setbacks “could not be completely made up”, he said.
The project also changed when it resumed in 2020. The link would be a standalone light rail transit system instead of leveraging the Thomson-East Coast MRT line as initially planned.
“That might have resulted in some additional workaround and it could very well be that this workaround ultimately led to some delays, and therefore delaying, as a result, the need for certification,” said Asst Prof Fan.
Given the “interruptions” over whether the project would proceed and the later changes to its scope and technical details, he felt the delay was understandable.
“I don’t think the delay is by a huge amount right now, it’s still estimated to be within two months later than the earlier projection of the end of this year.”
A REALISTIC TARGET?
Prof Lee said he would treat February as a “conditional target” rather than a confirmed opening date.
“The important question is whether the remaining work is now sufficiently well understood and whether the revised programme allows for any necessary corrective work and retesting,” he said.
If those steps take longer than expected, further delays could still occur. But public detail is insufficient to conclude whether another delay is likely, he acknowledged.
“I would look for progress against those milestones before expressing greater confidence in the opening date,” he said.
Asst Prof Fan said the February target appeared realistic and he did not expect further delays at this point. Unforeseen issues could still emerge, however, given that the construction works are near the Causeway, where land meets the sea.
These could include early signs of corrosion or cracks caused by soil shifting around the area, though such problems would not typically be expected in Singapore, he said.
What mattered was ensuring the link was safe to operate, he stressed.
“I would definitely want this project to be safe, rather than having it launched and then later on having to interrupt the service for rectification work, for example.”