Handover of Sv 172 to TIBS in the past
-
I still wondering the main reason to hand over 172 to tibs( not say i don like).
is it due tat 172 will have to terminate @ CCK instead of looping @ upp bt timah? (since CCK was under tibs tat time)
but i rmb tibs shorten the route immediately aft taking over it.. (is it due tat cos BOON LAY under SBS and starting a route from SBS int isnt rite? but cant b cos 927 oso start from SBS CCK int then..
or is it cos of the routes issue? since 172 will be the only SBS route to ply CCK aft hand over CCK town so SBS hand over everything?(likewise the same scanrio for 171 which was handover together with Bt p'jang svc)
but i doubt it.. cos SBS 190 still serve bt p'jang tat time despite Bt P'jang under tibs..
so wat was the main reason????
if tat was the case svc 66, 157, 174, 174e, 506 shld fall under TIbs ten. strangely, tise 5 svc still under SBS due to their terminating pt.
-
Originally posted by TIB1010Y:
if tat was the case svc 66, 157, 174, 174e, 506 shld fall under TIbs ten. strangely, tise 5 svc still under SBS due to their terminating pt.
Luckily didn't, else these 5 services will be totally screwed up now.
Sad to see 172 go then, missed all the MK2s used in 172. Hope one day SBST will take all these services back.
-
172 was shortened to CCK Int because the demand wasnt high for the sector between Choa Chu Kang Road and Upper Bukit Timah Road.
But it was a good move actually, 172 is now picking loads of commuters over at CCK Int to the army camps.... A direct link to CCK MRT.
175's sector from Choa Chu Kang Road and Upper Bukit Timah Road was also subsequently removed due to lack of demand and shortened to terminate at Bukit Panjang Int.
Tibs, as we are know, is a company started by some of our ministers, while SBS is a merger of all the former Chinese and private bus companies. So you know the reason why. -
Originally posted by SBS 1000U:
Luckily didn't, else these 5 services will be totally screwed up now.Sad to see 172 go then, missed all the MK2s used in 172. Hope one day SBST will take all these services back.
Yes luckily these 5 services still under SBST and ppl in BB can compare the difference and also u will be seeing UD and crap bendies instead of wright on svc 174. When I was studying in NP, I took svc 172 or svc 174 from jalan anak bukit to BNL int and change 242 to JW st 91.I still believe for CCK and BP, SMRT should not be the only sole operator, both SBST and SMRT should operate together. Same applies to punggol and sengkang as SMRT should also operate there...
-
Originally posted by Junyang700:
172 was shortened to CCK Int because the demand wasnt high for the sector between Choa Chu Kang Road and Upper Bukit Timah Road.
But it was a good move actually, 172 is now picking loads of commuters over at CCK Int to the army camps.... A direct link to CCK MRT.
175's sector from Choa Chu Kang Road and Upper Bukit Timah Road was also subsequently removed due to lack of demand and shortened to terminate at Bukit Panjang Int.
Service 172's cutback to terminate at CCK was part of the BP LRT rationalisation. It was also the same day when 172 went under Tibs control.
For service 175, Tibs continued to loop along Upp Bt Timah Road since its takeover in Dec 1999. It was only in early 2005 due to some road works at Upp Bt Timah Road which made service 175 amended to loop at Bt Panjang instead. On the same day 175 was renumbered to 975. -
Originally posted by TIB1010Y:
I still wondering the main reason to hand over 172 to tibs( not say i don like).
is it due tat 172 will have to terminate @ CCK instead of looping @ upp bt timah? (since CCK was under tibs tat time)
but i rmb tibs shorten the route immediately aft taking over it.. (is it due tat cos BOON LAY under SBS and starting a route from SBS int isnt rite? but cant b cos 927 oso start from SBS CCK int then..
or is it cos of the routes issue? since 172 will be the only SBS route to ply CCK aft hand over CCK town so SBS hand over everything?(likewise the same scanrio for 171 which was handover together with Bt p'jang svc)
but i doubt it.. cos SBS 190 still serve bt p'jang tat time despite Bt P'jang under tibs..
so wat was the main reason????
if tat was the case svc 66, 157, 174, 174e, 506 shld fall under TIbs ten. strangely, tise 5 svc still under SBS due to their terminating pt.
even if 172 still ran the original route to upp bt timah rd, it would still be transfered to TIBS due to the crossing of territory. on the other hand 66 138 157 174 506 was supposed to be transferred to TIBS as well but after further study were given grace to continue its operations under SBS, with restrictions to the amendment of any of the routings within SMRT's territory for the abovementioned services .
-
Lucky 506 still under SBS's
-
"I still believe for CCK and BP, SMRT should not be the only sole operator, both SBST and SMRT should operate together. Same applies to punggol and sengkang as SMRT should also operate there..."
I agree: i miss those days where Tibs serves sengkang / jln kayu / ponggol... only svc 965 left... (no link as well cos SBS took over then tibs start new svc..)
things not much change for the north west area since SBS still able to maintain its bus operations... (66, 157,170, 174, 174e, 506) 160 start aft SBS handover
overall SBS still the winner...
-
927 was a special case
-
Originally posted by Junyang700:
172 was shortened to CCK Int because the demand wasnt high for the sector between Choa Chu Kang Road and Upper Bukit Timah Road.
But it was a good move actually, 172 is now picking loads of commuters over at CCK Int to the army camps.... A direct link to CCK MRT.
175's sector from Choa Chu Kang Road and Upper Bukit Timah Road was also subsequently removed due to lack of demand and shortened to terminate at Bukit Panjang Int.
Tibs, as we are know, is a company started by some of our ministers, while SBS is a merger of all the former Chinese and private bus companies. So you know the reason why.175 used to link up the MRT
172 was more of further MRT rationalisation.
-
Originally posted by TIB1010Y:
"I still believe for CCK and BP, SMRT should not be the only sole operator, both SBST and SMRT should operate together. Same applies to punggol and sengkang as SMRT should also operate there..."
I agree: i miss those days where Tibs serves sengkang / jln kayu / ponggol... only svc 965 left... (no link as well cos SBS took over then tibs start new svc..)
things not much change for the north west area since SBS still able to maintain its bus operations... (66, 157,170, 174, 174e, 506) 160 start aft SBS handover
overall SBS still the winner...
965 has a crappy frequency.I would pick 161 over 965 anyday if I have to get to the north from sengkang.
The other day, the bus came after a 25 min wait on a Sunday and the next bus came 5 min later and unbelievably, when that happened, the 3rd bus had probably only just left Woodlands.
You tell me wtf is SMRT doing? I regretted my bad choice in giving SMRT a chance....because I had to explain why I was late...when I could have taken 161 and taken the train to Sembawang instead.
I was pissed off.
The number of times I dio dua by SMRT....COUNTLESS.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
965 has a crappy frequency.I would pick 161 over 965 anyday if I have to get to the north from sengkang.
The other day, the bus came after a 25 min wait on a Sunday and the next bus came 5 min later and unbelievably, when that happened, the 3rd bus had probably only just left Woodlands.
You tell me wtf is SMRT doing? I regretted my bad choice in giving SMRT a chance....because I had to explain why I was late...when I could have taken 161 and taken the train to Sembawang instead.
I was pissed off.
The number of times I dio dua by SMRT....COUNTLESS.
168 over 969. Chances to get a seat and sleep on SBS double decker is definitely 200% higher than SMRT's bendy.
-
854 over 25 though.
But that's about the only exception.
-
67/171 over 66/170?Originally posted by SBS2601D:854 over 25 though.
But that's about the only exception.
-
I might consider 67....but definitely NOT 171. Its a most terrigible service that is seared in my memory. Its frequency is just plain f*cked up. Amongst the worst I can recall off-hand.
-
Originally posted by Junyang700:
172 was shortened to CCK Int because the demand wasnt high for the sector between Choa Chu Kang Road and Upper Bukit Timah Road.
But it was a good move actually, 172 is now picking loads of commuters over at CCK Int to the army camps.... A direct link to CCK MRT.
175's sector from Choa Chu Kang Road and Upper Bukit Timah Road was also subsequently removed due to lack of demand and shortened to terminate at Bukit Panjang Int.
Tibs, as we are know, is a company started by some of our ministers, while SBS is a merger of all the former Chinese and private bus companies. So you know the reason why.
Why was 175 shortened in 2005 then? Shouldn't 175 just be shortened to Bukit Panjang when TIBS took over it in 1999? -
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
965 has a crappy frequency.I would pick 161 over 965 anyday if I have to get to the north from sengkang.
The other day, the bus came after a 25 min wait on a Sunday and the next bus came 5 min later and unbelievably, when that happened, the 3rd bus had probably only just left Woodlands.
You tell me wtf is SMRT doing? I regretted my bad choice in giving SMRT a chance....because I had to explain why I was late...when I could have taken 161 and taken the train to Sembawang instead.
I was pissed off.
The number of times I dio dua by SMRT....COUNTLESS.
That's because 965 had to ply Yishun first before Sengkang. -
Originally posted by Gus.chong:
That's because 965 had to ply Yishun first before Sengkang.
Uh so?I dont care from the perspective of a commuter.
-
67 & 171
Want e bus dun come, dun want come together.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
854 over 25 though.
But that's about the only exception.
Uppps for this!!!
25 painfully slow and draggy at the competitive stretch.
-
to me, I would still rather take 25
got seats
-
Originally posted by SBS7485P:
even if 172 still ran the original route to upp bt timah rd, it would still be transfered to TIBS due to the crossing of territory. on the other hand 66 138 157 174 506 was supposed to be transferred to TIBS as well but after further study were given grace to continue its operations under SBS, with restrictions to the amendment of any of the routings within SMRT's territory for the abovementioned services .
But 66, 157 & 174 do not start or end in Tibs-controlled areas. JUR/BNL/TPY/BDK are all SBS strongholds.
Shouldn't 190 have been handed over back in 1995 if your argument is true?
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
I might consider 67....but definitely NOT 171. Its a most terrigible service that is seared in my memory. Its frequency is just plain f*cked up. Amongst the worst I can recall off-hand.
That one started from YSN. Sooner or later Tibs would have wanted it too. After all, Tibs started YSN routes from scratch, beginning with 800 and 850.
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
to me, I would still rather take 25
got seats
Hmm whenever I take 854, I usually get a seat :) Lucky me!
-
Originally posted by Y_Shun:
Uppps for this!!!
25 painfully slow and draggy at the competitive stretch.
854 doesnt seem to drive fast....comparative to the other SMRT svcs...The 25 buses that go fast go at hair-raising speeds. I still remember how 7888K went from 0 to 60 in record time.
I've yet to have taken an 854 that goes anywhere as fast.