History of dual controlled service
-
Anyone with clear info dun mind can share? 5 i know is the distance to either int is far so the need of Arbp and Bndep to control Bt Merah and Pasir Ris respectively
-
i only know 190 was previously controlled by AMDEP and KJDEP :x
-
First and Last bus issues and also space given in a depot.
-
All this have to depend. It also has to depend on how well the depot given manages their fleet.
-
Originally posted by SBS494J:
First and Last bus issues and also space given in a depot.
First and last bus isn't really an issue, Considering last bus from WL and AM are AMDEP blocks for 961's case on weekdays. The rest I am not so sure but will check when I am free.
-
In the past, the old 160 was controlled by AMDEP and KJDEP after 1986, and until 1999 after re-numbering to 980 it was changed many times as AMtEP full-controlled and WLDEP & AMDEP dual-controlled.
-
mistake
-
161 was AMDEP/HGDEP until in 2009 it become only HGDEP controlled
-
Originally posted by TIB783G:
First and last bus isn't really an issue, Considering last bus from WL and AM are AMDEP blocks for 961's case on weekdays. The rest I am not so sure but will check when I am free.
i think priority is first bus timing......
-
I think the very first dual control concept appeared in 1982...
Saw it as a highlight of the SBS's annual report...
-
Originally posted by sinicker:
i think priority is first bus timing......
From what I feel it is the way the depots deal with their fleets.
852's case was because of wrong fleets deployed and getting messier, which resulted in AMDEP taking 5 duties back. 859's case I don't see the need as the fleet is tidy enough, 106 I can close 1 eyes, 171 is steady enough.
-
Originally posted by TIB783G:
From what I feel it is the way the depots deal with their fleets.
852's case was because of wrong fleets deployed and getting messier, which resulted in AMDEP taking 5 duties back. 859's case I don't see the need as the fleet is tidy enough, 106 I can close 1 eyes, 171 is steady enough.
definitely it's not because of one but a few factors....
-
Originally posted by TIB783G:
From what I feel it is the way the depots deal with their fleets.
852's case was because of wrong fleets deployed and getting messier, which resulted in AMDEP taking 5 duties back. 859's case I don't see the need as the fleet is tidy enough, 106 I can close 1 eyes, 171 is steady enough.
In return AMDEP transfer 4 of 980's duties back to WLDEP. Those former Nissan UD perms from 852 were then thrown over to 178 instead.I still remember spam Nissan UDs being deployed on 852 by WLDEP, which was a sudden nightmare.
-
Originally posted by Gus.chong:
In the past, the old 160 was controlled by AMDEP and KJDEP after 1986, and until 1999 after re-numbering to 980 it was changed many times as AMtEP full-controlled and WLDEP & AMDEP dual-controlled.
160 went under partial WLDEP controlled and just a few months later the route was extended to Geylang and renumbered 980.It was due to the closing down of old Crawford St roadside bus terminal.
-
58
BNDEP/AMDEP , now AMDEP
52 SLBP/AMDEP , now SLBP -
Originally posted by SBS8676Z:
In return AMDEP transfer 4 of 980's duties back to WLDEP. Those former Nissan UD perms from 852 were then thrown over to 178 instead.I still remember spam Nissan UDs being deployed on 852 by WLDEP, which was a sudden nightmare.
I won't mind if UDs perm 852 but atleast those lances should be kicked back to AMDEP.
I don't mind if the UDs stayed SP like the AMDEP ones do but WLDEP being WLDEP just like to deploy thrashy fleets around on those not-so-popular services like 178/852 etc. Now the dispatching standard has improved now for 178, to be honest.