Double Deckers for SMRT
-
Originally posted by dan474:He has a feitish for Citaros...
He does. -
Originally posted by carbikebus:
I suspect more or less like off schedule trip just like SMRT style.Sometimes you will see a Lance suddenly appeared just 3 min gap of the front bendy.
In Perth they call this double banking. -
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
I am of the opinion that "competition" in our context is rubbish.
A single operator makes more sense for us, the same way that cross-modal transport operators make sense from the POV of streamlining operations.
Other countries that adopt "competitive tendering" have been more successful because they divide the different regions into zones and tender zone-by-zone. The market is segregated into intra and inter-zonal bus services, and this is how competition is injected.
SG practically qualifies as a single zone. We attempted to further zone our little zone and the result has been less than happy. Worse, our connection between the little zones have been compromised to an extent, although you could argue that trains take the role of inter-zonal connections.
So you mean SBST providing all bus services in Singapore is good enough.
-
Originally posted by SBS 1000U:
So you mean SBST providing all bus services in Singapore is good enough.
More like bus routes should be nationalised and all bus fleets taken over by PTC/TransitLink. -
Competition is healthy, just that LTA should have more strict monitoring rules on maintenance and operations.
-
I would love to see the 2 operators operate from each other territories in future like 66 start from Bukit Batok to Bedok,178 Woodlands to Jurong East
-
SBST does not operate in SMRT territories except WDL, but SMRT operates in most SBST territories - Tampines, Bedok, Boon Lay, Bukit Merah, Harbourfront, Clementi, AMK, YCK.
Even SBST should have routes starting / terminating at CCK, BPJ, BBT, Sembawag.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
SBST does not operate in SMRT territories except WDL, but SMRT operates in most SBST territories - Tampines, Bedok, Boon Lay, Bukit Merah, Harbourfront, Clementi, AMK, YCK.
Even SBST should have routes starting / terminating at CCK, BPJ, BBT, Sembawag.
Add on Yishun and Geylang for SMRT territories.
SBST side got a few more also..
But I agree there should be more bus interchanges with duo bus operators
-
Originally posted by cheezing:
Add on Yishun and Geylang for SMRT territories.
SBST side got a few more also..
But I agree there should be more bus interchanges with duo bus operators
i prefer to see an equal mix of services of each operator in interchanges (eg. harbourfront) rather than many SBST in 1 place while SMRT in another place.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
SBST does not operate in SMRT territories except WDL, but SMRT operates in most SBST territories - Tampines, Bedok, Boon Lay, Bukit Merah, Harbourfront, Clementi, AMK, YCK.
Even SBST should have routes starting / terminating at CCK, BPJ, BBT, Sembawag.
Mate, there are historical reasons why things are like this. After all, SMB's predecessor, Tibs began operations by taking over SBW and WDL routes in 1984. For the record, route 167 is the longest surviving SMB route. As for YIS, apart from 171, the rest of the bus routes were started from scratch by Tibs, hence their numbers starting with 8XX. It was also Tibs who attempted to improve connectivity in SKG but their expansion plans were halted by MBT in 1999. Whatever happened next is history. -
Originally posted by SBS 1000U:
So you mean SBST providing all bus services in Singapore is good enough.
Perhaps.
The current situation of zoning our little zone has caused some problems with regards to operator flexibility.
And in the case of SMRT, it is clear that it finds it hard to compete with SBST and is disadvantaged inherently from size and coverage.
"Competitive tendering" is supposed to work by making operators bid for routes from LTA. But what is there to bid for when SBST has depots in one area, and SMRT in the other?
But it doesnt absolve SMRT of blame for its fleet woes.
At a time when it can do something about clearing its bendy fleet, its still sitting on the fence!
The fact that SMRT is even considering DD can be construed that the bendy experiment was pretty much a failure.
Consider that if SBST had on the other hand, had as much problems with DDs, with its size and fleet flexibility, it would also have considered bendies in its tenders.
But nope, it didn't.
Because clearly bendies weren't the way to go.
-
If what I highlighted in red is still not convincing enough to many of you, I think you must be blind to reason and reality then.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Perhaps.
The current situation of zoning our little zone has caused some problems with regards to operator flexibility.
And in the case of SMRT, it is clear that it finds it hard to compete with SBST and is disadvantaged inherently from size and coverage.
"Competitive tendering" is supposed to work by making operators bid for routes from LTA. But what is there to bid for when SBST has depots in one area, and SMRT in the other?
But it doesnt absolve SMRT of blame for its fleet woes.
At a time when it can do something about clearing its bendy fleet, its still sitting on the fence!
The fact that SMRT is even considering DD can be construed that the bendy experiment was pretty much a failure.
Consider that if SBST had on the other hand, had as much problems with DDs, with its size and fleet flexibility, it would also have considered bendies in its tenders.
But nope, it didn't.
Because clearly bendies weren't the way to go.
I agree.
SMRT is moving in the right direction now to consider about DDs and thinking of ditching bendies for the future.
-
Originally posted by iveco:
Mate, there are historical reasons why things are like this. After all, SMB's predecessor, Tibs began operations by taking over SBW and WDL routes in 1984. For the record, route 167 is the longest surviving SMB route. As for YIS, apart from 171, the rest of the bus routes were started from scratch by Tibs, hence their numbers starting with 8XX. It was also Tibs who attempted to improve connectivity in SKG but their expansion plans were halted by MBT in 1999. Whatever happened next is history.TIBS did a good job on Yishun routes.
851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857... -
*shrugs*
I think we all can see that the competition experiment has also flopped.
1) Nobody else attempted to enter the market despite govt exhortations.
2) Whatever happened to the much touted competitive tendering? Dropped quietly from the public of course....
-
853???? Old Nissan bus...
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
853????
Old Nissan bus…
Back in the 90s the Nissans were still new.
-
Originally posted by TIB1218R:
TIBS did a good job on Yishun routes.
851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857...I would single 852 and 855 for wasting my time waiting for them.
Its the equivalent of waiting for 156....or worse, 85.
-
Originally posted by Gus.chong:
Back in the 90s the Nissans were still new.
towards the end... 853 was often the long forgotten sv -
It's good if BPJ/CCK/BBT handed over to SBST and let BNV/KRT/BTM/HBF with the exception of 74/10/139/153/65
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
I would single 852 and 855 for wasting my time waiting for them.
Its the equivalent of waiting for 156....or worse, 85.
855 has a pretty good loading. I don't know why the frequency is poor. The good thing is that from Macritchie to Alexandra road, there is 93 in parallel - which too off late has a more than 10 minute frequency.
I want to see DDs on 93 again (at least 2 of them). From the time CCL came, DDs on 93 have become a rarity.
-
Anyone considered having a bendy for 857? I see the loading at Yishun and YCK road is quite heavy during peak hours since it is a express service into CBD.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Perhaps.
The current situation of zoning our little zone has caused some problems with regards to operator flexibility.
And in the case of SMRT, it is clear that it finds it hard to compete with SBST and is disadvantaged inherently from size and coverage.
"Competitive tendering" is supposed to work by making operators bid for routes from LTA. But what is there to bid for when SBST has depots in one area, and SMRT in the other?
But it doesnt absolve SMRT of blame for its fleet woes.
At a time when it can do something about clearing its bendy fleet, its still sitting on the fence!
The fact that SMRT is even considering DD can be construed that the bendy experiment was pretty much a failure.
Consider that if SBST had on the other hand, had as much problems with DDs, with its size and fleet flexibility, it would also have considered bendies in its tenders.
But nope, it didn't.
Because clearly bendies weren't the way to go.
Should divide Singapore into 7 Contract Areas and open them up for bidding.NW: Bukit Batok/Chua Chu Kang/Bunit Panjang Nth: Woodlands/Sembawang/Yishun NE: Hougang/Sengkang/Punggol East: Geylang/Bedok/Tampines/Pasir Ris Sth: Bukit Merah/CBD/Kallang-Whampoa West: Queenstown/Clementi/Jurong East/Boon Lay Central: Ang Mo Kio/Serangoon/Bishan/Toa Payoh
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
It's good if BPJ/CCK/BBT handed over to SBST and let BNV/KRT/BTM/HBF with the exception of 74/10/139/153/65
Are you implying that BNV/KRT/MTM/HBF better off under SMRT? -
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Perhaps.
The current situation of zoning our little zone has caused some problems with regards to operator flexibility.
And in the case of SMRT, it is clear that it finds it hard to compete with SBST and is disadvantaged inherently from size and coverage.
"Competitive tendering" is supposed to work by making operators bid for routes from LTA. But what is there to bid for when SBST has depots in one area, and SMRT in the other?
But it doesnt absolve SMRT of blame for its fleet woes.
At a time when it can do something about clearing its bendy fleet, its still sitting on the fence!
The fact that SMRT is even considering DD can be construed that the bendy experiment was pretty much a failure.
Consider that if SBST had on the other hand, had as much problems with DDs, with its size and fleet flexibility, it would also have considered bendies in its tenders.
But nope, it didn't.
Because clearly bendies weren't the way to go.
Considering double deckers does not necessarily mean the other type has sorely failed, my two cents worth.