Double deckers on Sv 163
-
Originally posted by TIB770T:
SBS9600K on 163
It's another Volvo Olympian 3-axle on 163. Probably they will be deploying Volvo Olympians to 163? -
Originally posted by vicamour:
Probably can extend it to Marina Centre via Novena, Orchard, River Valley, Chinatown, Shenton Way and MBS. Anyway, I think 163 needs on double decker will do. 63 should have some double deckers instead.
Can 63 use DDs? -
Originally posted by Gus.chong:
Can 63 use DDs?
no. the rumah tinggi area is not accessible by DDs. -
Originally posted by AEW5001:
no. the rumah tinggi area is not accessible by DDs.
Service 63 in the past ever had LAs running. After becoming FAC in June 1998, only aircon SDs were deployed till then. -
Originally posted by SBS5010P:
in the past, svc 113 had SBS680M , SBS744M , SBS801G , SBS804Z , SBS855B , SBS863C SBS921T , SBS2657T and svc_238, is there a need for political power to preserve 113?
And now SBS801G is back to service 113 again...SBS921T remained perm thruout all these while, SBS680M became SP due to 113 got fleet cut.
-
Originally posted by SBS8675B:
And now SBS801G is back to service 113 again...SBS921T remained perm thruout all these while, SBS680M became SP due to 113 got fleet cut.
SBS801G is now HG 113 perm; replacing 8242S. -
Originally posted by Gus.chong:
Can 63 use DDs?
Last time use Leyland Atlanteans...But 63 really needs double deckers, especially the area in the Ubi industrial estate. Really crowded during peak hours.
-
Originally posted by SBS 1000U:
Last time use Leyland Atlanteans...But 63 really needs double deckers, especially the area in the Ubi industrial estate. Really crowded during peak hours.
I believe 63 same case as 139, where it used to having LO2X and LO3X. Due to some reasons, which I believe was due to Kim Keat Rd for 139 case, DD was withdrawn from it too.
Cheers.
-
Originally posted by SBS8675B:
Service 63 in the past ever had LAs running. After becoming FAC in June 1998, only aircon SDs were deployed till then.
Which means Rumah Tinggi is DD accessible. -
trees can grow and that road now may or may not be cleared for DD..Originally posted by Gus.chong:
Which means Rumah Tinggi is DD accessible.
http://buses.sgforums.com/forums/1279/topics/430197?page=12#post_10278363 -
63 can use DDs provided that they skip Rumah Tinggi and terminate at Bt Merah instead.SBST introduced 1 feeder svc from BTM to Rumah Tinggi.
-
Actually, I don't think 163 needs double deckers at all. I prefer it add about 2-3 single deckets than having a double deck bus on 163. 163's ridership is not that high to begin with, neither is it very low. Even if you guys insist on having a DD on 163. Just 1 will do, or 2 the maximum, NOT MORE THAN THAT. It will end up being like 225W or 225G, got DD but most of the pax sit below, and by the time it gets to the interchange, it's almost empty.
And 113 can't have DD. Look at HG St 11. Look at how sharp is the turn there. Furthermore, the trees grow and hence it will be hard for a DD to ply there. Just like 238, but actually, when i think of it, 238 can have DD's serving there. Most probably why they don't allow a DD to serve 238 is the turn to Lor 8 from Lor 7 and the trees growing near Ex-Braddell Primary or Blks 220-222 there. 238 deserves the DD's more than 113. 113 still can manage with SD. Go see TPY interchange during Peak hours, or rather 3/4 of the day. The line can just go on and on like nobody's business. I'm sure there is a reason why 113 has only 7 buses. Not happy, go write down to MP or SBST. They will answer your questions better than what we can tell you now.
Services like 27, 63, 139 etc actually needs DD but there are reasons why those services can't have them.
So, deal with it. Face it. It's reality .
-
At the current frequency, 27 doesnt need DDs so much though some DDs would be welcomed...
Why give DD to 163 when its peak hour frequency can still be a miserable 20 min and the bus comes half-full only?
It might also surprise folks to know that 163 is marginally faster than the LRT even with traffic-lights and bus-stops where the track and road runs parallel. What stops me from taking 163 is its god-awful frequency and the fact that it plies the ulu areas I wouldn't go to on usual days.
In short: 163 should either have more buses or just leave it at there, otherwise its just plain waste of resources. If they want to do it, fine! Let it pass some MRT station like YCK Int la....walao. THIS would be of so much more use to residents in Sengkang West and justify any improvement in the service!
Case in point: I wanted to travel from Fernvale to Woodlands and figured I would gamble with 163 and then switch to 161 with an intermediate service in-between. Very bad choice.
It actually took longer to get from Sengkang West to East than from Sengkang East to Woodlands BY BUS.
You tell me what use is 163 to me?
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
At the current frequency, 27 doesnt need DDs so much though some DDs would be welcomed...
Why give DD to 163 when its peak hour frequency can still be a miserable 20 min and the bus comes half-full only?
It might also surprise folks to know that 163 is marginally faster than the LRT even with traffic-lights and bus-stops where the track and road runs parallel. What stops me from taking 163 is its god-awful frequency and the fact that it plies the ulu areas I wouldn't go to on usual days.
In short: 163 should either have more buses or just leave it at there, otherwise its just plain waste of resources. If they want to do it, fine! Let it pass some MRT station like YCK Int la....walao. THIS would be of so much more use to residents in Sengkang West and justify any improvement in the service!
Case in point: I wanted to travel from Fernvale to Woodlands and figured I would gamble with 163 and then switch to 161 with an intermediate service in-between. Very bad choice.
It actually took longer to get from Sengkang West to East than from Sengkang East to Woodlands BY BUS.
You tell me what use is 163 to me?
27 cannot use DD la, Airport tunnel
As for 163, every town started from such bus sv level... Hope LTA can do more to enhance the connectivity as more and more flats are completed.
-
105 should also have DDs but because of the flyover at Lor Chuan... (P.S : Hope got Citaros)
-
same thing again last night...I nearly fell asleep waiting for 163 along YCK Rd...and when I got back home, behind was ANOTHER 163.
zzz
-
Maybe 66 can have double deckers because the bus pass by Little India..
-
Maybe 975 should have DDs because it passes through Lim Chu Kang.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Maybe 975 should have DDs because it passes through Lim Chu Kang.
ARE YOU CRAZY OR WHAT?! DON'T YOU KNOW SMRT DOES NOT HAVE DDS? AND WHY DOES BUSES WHICH GOES TO SUCH ULU PLACES NEED DDS?! -
Because 163 has DDs.
-
should transfer the DD on Sv163 to Sv86 lah....
-
Originally posted by Transtar Solitarie:
Maybe 66 can have double deckers because the bus pass by Little India..
Bukit Timah Rd (between Stevens/Whitley Rd and Newton/Scotts Rd) is not DD-friendly.
-
sv163's prob is that e freq is just too erratic.
it's not really due to demand, i tink.
-
dd better go on service during the morning crunch hour. school opening wor
-
there are many 163M recently. 27 frequency high so is ok. though still gt bunching prob sumtimes