Double Deckers for SMRT
-
Originally posted by TIB1218R:
272, 275, 292, 372?
U also forgotten 358.
-
Originally posted by TIB1218R:
272, 275, 292, 372?
265?
268?
238?
261?
-
238? 261? 265? 269? 293? 410?
-
*shrugs*
Its easy to conclude that you need bendy for this, and DD for that, without realising what kind of scale economics consideration it would entail.
-
like I said... Throw the challenge to be an engineer to design all the infrastructure... see you can dig out many 18m parking lots out of Singapore's BI area... Designing and yakking are 2 diff things...
-
technically, if you could merge the buses under a single company, you could still have this type serving this region etc.
Because the higher-profit margin from other regions can help cross-subsidise.
But its less likely to happen when the market is split.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
technically, if you could merge the buses under a single company, you could still have this type serving this region etc.
Because the higher-profit margin from other regions can help cross-subsidise.
But its less likely to happen when the market is split.
but infrastructure is designed by ah gong... which literally makes a natrural barrier for ppl to chut pattern... lol -
Really, besides some longer lots, I dont really see further concessions for bendies.
The saw-tooth berths are just as short!
And look at the mess coming to roost at YIS and WDL. And their depots at night....or should I say, outside the depots at night.
-
Originally posted by dan474:
standardising the fleet to 12m buses is not an option. its a matter of finding space to park and deploying them to the correct service. what will happen to high-demand routes that cannot have DDs? put more 12m buses? they can't even find enough drivers.
right now they are sticking to merc, MAN and gemilang for a reason. merc (OC/Citaro) and MAN engine spare parts are interchangeable and its easy and fast to get spare parts for bodywork.
stopping the usage of bendy buses will paralyse SMRT. quite a number of their routes need high capacity buses and DDs wont make the cut because of height restrictions along the route. the same as my above point, buy more 12m rigids but nobody to drive them.
stopping their shuttle bus services is as good as throwing out busplus. what for they close down their chartering sector when they are quite well known for their charter services, especially for big events? they just need to improve on their services like introducing school bus service.
no comment for depot issue though, not so familiar with that
Their main business is not charter sercvices, it is public bus services.
If they can't even manage and provide a decent basic public bus service in the first place, they shouldn't even be allowed to run chartered services in the first place. Ironically, you said they have not enough drivers, etc. Then why do they divert their resources to other kinds of services where public bus services is their main core and they are not even provided with satisfactory standards instead? If they are so interested in running chartered services or school bus service, then SMRTB should drop their public bus business and let SBST or another operator run their bus services instead.
What an absurd idea for SMRT to run school bus services. If so, they might as well go private like Comfort Bus and forget about public bus operations.
I can tell you SMRTB will not be paralysed without the use of bendy buses. From what I see yesterday, it has always been paralysed by the problems caused by bendy buses instead all these years. And Singapore land use is very limited, especially when the govt keeps on increasing the population as and when they want.
I am sorry to say that transport is only part of the challenge of land use by the Singapore govt and there are many infrastructures and types of land use that poses more challenges in future for the govt. Do you think the govt will give more land space for bendy buses when standard length fleets can do an equally same job as well?
If SBST can achieve better service standards without the use of bendy buses, why can't SMRTB do it? Is it because of SMRTB poor management of bus fleets or is it the problem with bendy buses? If you are telling me that SMRTB isn't using more standard lenght fleets for their services nowadays, you are wrong. Some services are already converted to almost full single decker fleets, because they are meeting the QoS requirements. Improving more on the frequencies requires more buses, and SMRTB is recruiting more BCs. Moreover if they stop providing shuttle services and RWS services, more of their BCs can be diverted to improve the frequecies.
If areas under SBST can allow double deckers to operate, why must SMRTB areas be at the disadvantaged (or special) situation of not operating double deckers? Or is it they really don't give a damn in seriously improving their bus services? If so, then best is to give up all the bus services to SBST and LTA to assist in improving roads like Dunearn Rd to allow SBST to operate double deckers and take over the role to improve the bus services in the North and Northeastern regions as well.
Lastly my question, is allowing our BCs to have more resting time after driving long hours, a more jam and queue free bus lanes, interchanges and depots, and efficient and easier to manage bus operations more important or is it fulfilling the fantasies have having varieties of bus fleets more important? Go figure yourself.
-
SMRT can't be perfect for you. Like your face, nothing is perfect.
-
yes nothing is ever perfect but SMRT can always strive to be less imperfect by investing in double decker buses like SBS Transit
-
things are never perfect... but does not mean zero degree of trying to manage things... they're 2 diff things
-
Nothing is perfect.
Always look into your glass as half full, not half empty...
-
Originally posted by TIB1218R:
SMRT can't be perfect for you. Like your face, nothing is perfect.
Originally posted by TIB 501 D:Nothing is perfect.
Always look into your glass as half full, not half empty...
That's why SMRTB needs to be improved. They don't have to be as good as SBST nor be perfect but at least show some serious effort to improve and shave off more of the imperfections to make them look better than they were under the old management.
Yes, look at the glass half full and so never assume SMRTB will be paralysed without bendies. Probably SMRTB will be better off without them.
-
Originally posted by vicamour:
Their main business is not charter sercvices, it is public bus services.
If they can't even manage and provide a decent basic public bus service in the first place, they shouldn't even be allowed to run chartered services in the first place. Ironically, you said they have not enough drivers, etc. Then why do they divert their resources to other kinds of services where public bus services is their main core and they are not even provided with satisfactory standards instead? If they are so interested in running chartered services or school bus service, then SMRTB should drop their public bus business and let SBST or another operator run their bus services instead.
What an absurd idea for SMRT to run school bus services. If so, they might as well go private like Comfort Bus and forget about public bus operations.
I can tell you SMRTB will not be paralysed without the use of bendy buses. From what I see yesterday, it has always been paralysed by the problems caused by bendy buses instead all these years. And Singapore land use is very limited, especially when the govt keeps on increasing the population as and when they want.
I am sorry to say that transport is only part of the challenge of land use by the Singapore govt and there are many infrastructures and types of land use that poses more challenges in future for the govt. Do you think the govt will give more land space for bendy buses when standard length fleets can do an equally same job as well?
If SBST can achieve better service standards without the use of bendy buses, why can't SMRTB do it? Is it because of SMRTB poor management of bus fleets or is it the problem with bendy buses? If you are telling me that SMRTB isn't using more standard lenght fleets for their services nowadays, you are wrong. Some services are already converted to almost full single decker fleets, because they are meeting the QoS requirements. Improving more on the frequencies requires more buses, and SMRTB is recruiting more BCs. Moreover if they stop providing shuttle services and RWS services, more of their BCs can be diverted to improve the frequecies.
If areas under SBST can allow double deckers to operate, why must SMRTB areas be at the disadvantaged (or special) situation of not operating double deckers? Or is it they really don't give a damn in seriously improving their bus services? If so, then best is to give up all the bus services to SBST and LTA to assist in improving roads like Dunearn Rd to allow SBST to operate double deckers and take over the role to improve the bus services in the North and Northeastern regions as well.
Lastly my question, is allowing our BCs to have more resting time after driving long hours, a more jam and queue free bus lanes, interchanges and depots, and efficient and easier to manage bus operations more important or is it fulfilling the fantasies have having varieties of bus fleets more important? Go figure yourself.
Then anti-DDs services how, assuming increasing bus fleet cannot work?
-
There's little question that bendies have proven more a liability than what advantages they have.
Its less the inherent goodness/badness of bendies than our external environment and support facilities.
As for SBST being very good, I can only say as far that IRIS is pretty good.
-
Originally posted by SBS8501U:
Then anti-DDs services how, assuming increasing bus fleet cannot work?
Then you can look at SBST's 27, 53, 24 to understand how they dealt with it.
-
Originally posted by SBS8501U:
Then anti-DDs services how, assuming increasing bus fleet cannot work?
So you mean LTA is sitting there just to let the problem be unresolved forever? LTA can work with NParks, URA and NEA, if they are serious in commiting into improving bus services in Singapore.Height limits problems is easier to solve than land space limits problems, especially in land scare city state like Singapore. That's why you see many layers of infrastructures in Singapore, not spreading all over the place. Like what I have said, if SMRTB is really serious about improving their bus services, why would they allow the areas to be at a disadvantaged situation as compared to their SBST areas? Height limitation is just an excuse. The sky has no limits, it's a matter that are they flexible to change or just can't be bothered and rather sit at the problem.
And places like Dunearn Rd will be served by DTL in a few years time. Don't even see the need to increase the bus fleet capacity further when the demand is going to DTL by then. SMRTB may even withdraw or merge some of the current services.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Then you can look at SBST's 27, 53, 24 to understand how they dealt with it.
Other services which I dun think can cope is Svc 66, which is extremely packed during PM peak hours.
All along Dunearn Road I believe the bus has been really really crowded. Two buses SBS8259U and SBS8343J came back to back today and both of them are fully packed.
Just an example - Do note I mentioned nothing about Svc 66 receiving bendies
-
Originally posted by SBS8501U:
Other services which I dun think can cope is Svc 66, which is extremely packed during PM peak hours.
All along Dunearn Road I believe the bus has been really really crowded. Two buses SBS8259U and SBS8343J came back to back today and both of them are fully packed.
Just an example - Do note I mentioned nothing about Svc 66 receiving bendies
Is 66 frequencies very good to start with?SBST can improve the frequencies if they can.
-
Originally posted by vicamour:
So you mean LTA is sitting there just to let the problem be unresolved forever? LTA can work with NParks, URA and NEA, if they are serious in commiting into improving bus services in Singapore.Height limits problems is easier to solve than land space limits problems, especially in land scare city state like Singapore. That's why you see many layers of infrastructures in Singapore, not spreading all over the place. Like what I have said, if SMRTB is really serious about improving their bus services, why would they allow the areas to be at a disadvantaged situation as compared to their SBST areas? Height limitation is just an excuse. The sky has no limits, it's a matter that are they flexible to change or just can't be bothered and rather sit at the problem.
And places like Dunearn Rd will be served by DTL in a few years time. Don't even see the need to increase the bus fleet capacity further when the demand is going to DTL by then. SMRTB may even withdraw or merge some of the current services.
True that DTL will help to lessen the burden of the buses along DTL.
-
Originally posted by vicamour:
Is 66 frequencies very good to start with?SBST can improve the frequencies if they can.
Good point there. But I wonder SBST doesn't do that for some services for BSEP
-
Wouldn't want to talk too much on double deckers and bendies here, or else another stupid debate again like last time...
-
Originally posted by vicamour:
Is 66 frequencies very good to start with?SBST can improve the frequencies if they can.
SMRT is better!! SMRT better frequency and faster!! SBS always bus drive slow slow!!
-
Originally posted by SMB228X:
SMRT is better!! SMRT better frequency and faster!! SBS always bus drive slow slow!!
SMRT is worst. (Except for some services)
Better to be safe than sorry, whats the point of driving fast?
