Originally posted by sbst275:excuse me..
Ever since 1997.. there’s no more newly created joint operated cross harbour rt… KMB 108 triggered it
Haha so funny.
Explain svc 692, which replaced 691 and 693 simultaneously.
Please know yourself well before spouting false facts. KMB svc 108 is not the cause of such phenomenon. Or does it even exist? Hmmm
Duplicate
Originally posted by SMB128B:Haha so funny.
Explain svc 692, which replaced 691 and 693 simultaneously.
Please know yourself well before spouting false facts. KMB svc 108 is not the cause of such phenomenon. Or does it even exist? Hmmm
Originally posted by sbst275:
excuse me... now you answered it yourself.. is 692 a totally new bus sv within any predecessor version? So 968 used to have a 964? 965?
I don't really wanna argue with u, but just to say, 692's main reason is not to replace the svcs, but rather to compete and attack MTR together. So what do u think?
Originally posted by sbst275:
excuse me... now you answered it yourself.. is 692 a totally new bus sv within any predecessor version? So 968 used to have a 964? 965?
And may I know what are you deriving in the previous post?
Originally posted by SMB128B:I don't really wanna argue with u, but just to say, 692's main reason is not to replace the svcs, but rather to compete and attack MTR together. So what do u think?
Actually Juz need reduce sg population since sg is flooded, and could not hold any more ppl. Then no need too much DEP. Would like to hv a Multi-Storey Bus Depot to reduce spaces.
Edited: Since SG want to protect earth? Why still hv so many buses? Rather use the KYD K9 Hybrid or Eco-friendly buses.
Originally posted by sbst275:fwah…
SMB128B dunno Cross Harbour Rt 108 is fully operated by KMB ar…
I do indeed.
Yes, indeed other than 692, all other svcs have been single-operated, including my ex-commute svc 603 and 694. But what is exactly the reason? Define trigger. Anyways from what I can remember there has been a change in strategy and a sort of reform since after CMB closed down. So now the companies BID for the svcs. That's why you get some svcs like 962 and 969 under CTB, and some svcs like 968 under KMB.
But what can these be used to evaluate how useful dual-operating in Singapore will be? What i have to say is that even private PTOs in HK cannot dual operate, so why would LTA allow dual operation when it knows it will be running a losing scheme?
Originally posted by All the Best!:Actually Juz need reduce sg population since sg is flooded, and could not hold any more ppl. Then no need too much DEP. Would like to hv a Multi-Storey Bus Depot to reduce spaces.
Hope so.
The government and PAP just want more ppl without really allowing the space to do so. Yes, multi stories depots would be great.
Originally posted by sbst275:The root of 108 is because CMB was not interested…
you go force marriage people for each n every cross harbour rt… later sure quarrel…
Ok can
Originally posted by SMB128B:I agree on CCL. But what about DTL? That one is exclusive trunk for BPJ and Changi residents eh. 3 car won't work in the long run. Take a look at Guangzhou Metro line 3. 3 car train operation initially with a 6 car train length station structure for all stations. A few years later the Panyu and Tianhe district underwent extensive development and oh god, you should have checked out the crushing load. In the end the trains ended up 3+3 to form 6 car trains and the freq reduced. So LTA could've built a little longer to wait for a while, after all the 6.9 million population is in the near future and more estates are springing from Bukit Timah and Bedok Reservior area. Don't forget the SUTD too.
For the issue on increased freq, have you out into consideration of the how much signalling upgrades and system enhancements will take? Believe me it is easier to run 3 min 6-car trains than 2 min 3-car trains during peak. That's what NEL is good at. It also causes trains to occasionally go empty.
On DTL:
DTL is a partial trunk line to connect BPJ and Bedok North/Kaki Bt. residents into the downtown area, but its not a full trunk line. Residents staying at Upper Changi and Tampines East may not enjoy a signficant benefit on DTL since it takes a longer route into the city.
The key reason why I don't define it as a full trunk line is because the DTL does not connect east and west directly unlike EWL and perhaps the upcoming Cross Island Line. If you want to travel to the east from BPJ, you'd still have to transfer CCL and back (again look at the map). I am not saying it is not possible to travel directly on DTL, but the detour into the city makes it time consuming and is not designed to do so, leaving it as a medium density support line.
On Increasing Frequency:
I am not too sure if you understand why the major trunk lines need to undergo a signalling upgrade in order to increase frequency. The reason here is because the NSEW lines currently uses a fixed block signalling system, i.e. each section of track should not hold more than 1 train. Depending on how sections are defined, the minimum headways between trains would be the length of sections itself since two trains cannot co-exist on the same section.
Therefore, LTA and SMRT is upgrading the system to a moving block signalling system which trains are spaced apart by actual distance between each other (and not the track). This system has been used on NEL and forward, and therefore there is no need to upgrade the signalling even though they are also putting in more trains on the NEL.
For the same reason, there is no need to upgrade to a new signalling system just for frequency increase. But for the NSEWL, without changing the system, the minimum possible headways would not be achievable.
You can read more about this here.
On train cars and maintenance:
Im not quite sure what you are saying here again, since the capacity of the system is directly linked to the number of train cars that is installed in the system. If you buy 66 sets of 3 car trains, or 33 sets of 6 car trains, won't you still have a total of 198 cars to maintain and house? Why would it result in a bigger depot?
By breaking it up to 66 sets, you have even more flexibility to maintain train cars in the depot as taking 1 unit offline would just cause a 1.5% decrease vs a 3% decrease in trains overall.
This is somewhat the same with buses, would you as a resident want 50 SD buses on 1 route or 30 DDs instead? They have approximately the same capacity, but the SDs would be much more frequent (>50%). However you cant do this with buses, since that 20 additional buses would be a nightmare in both driver, fuel costs and road usage.
Originally posted by SMB128B:This is exactly what HK did. However HK dual-operation only applies to cross-harbour routes, where there is a strict and clear boundary between KMB and NWST territory. If you look carefully the South TKO svcs or svcs 701/702 is not dual-controlled becoz of the confusion. The Victoria harbour basically just splits the controls very obviously.
But in SG, there aren't fixed territories. The CBD svcs won't work since the area there is shared. Moreover LTA controls both operators while in HK the operators are private. So LTA may not approve dual control as it may mess up the fare structure and fund division.
You might be surprised. Let me ask you a interesting question: How do you think the current fares are split? If you take a MRT ride and pay $1.47, and transfer to a feeder bus which costs just $0.04, who gets to keep which portion?
Another thinking question for you: For bus routes with BSEP improvements, how is the fare revenue split? Do you pay the bus co when boarding a BSEP bus, or do you actually pay the gov't? What about the purely BSEP routes?
If you think along these lines, we are already starting to move away from such fare systems. Eventually complete routes will be tendered out on a fixed price (like the CityDirect and upcoming feeder enhancement services) and operator gets what they bidded instead of actual farebox revenue. When it reaches that stage, operators will no longer have competitng routes, but rather compete on operating the routes.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I more or less agree with most of your statements... just that on sv 120... it is a waste... it has not really helped share load of sv 195... they don't even have one stop in common on the TBL side... I don't know what you are referring to here... If you are saying at Tiong Bahru... their routes are completely different to and from TB... so again it does not help 195.Have u observed sv 120? What load sharing? If a bus does not have more than 10-15 pax most of the times, it helps in load sharing? Sv 120 routing is so bad that it is a waste of resources. LTA should fix this ASAP.
Apologies for writing in a rather confusing way. I meant that 120 has shared load with rest of the services along the alexendra corridor, and thus partly stablised 195's frequency. I would not jump to conclusions on how this is realised since i do not frequent svc 120 at all. But I can say is that svc 195's frequency has turned for the better after svc 120 was introduced.
Originally posted by SMB128B:Ok can
He knows all the answers liao. There is no room for discussion, really. I'm eagerly waiting for him to save all of us now from our transport woes. This is a promising fellow. The sooner the better.
Originally posted by SMB128B:You can always plan your journey.
And I'm not kidding. Residents at the Greater Tokyo area plan their time. They can schedule for an hourly express train to the city without getting late and without stressing out too. This is something Singaporeans can follow.
Anyway I dunno if this will work or not, but this is just my suggestion and I think that it works to many other svcs too.
Agreed, been there done that. Apps tell you exactly where to board which train/bus at what time, which makes journeys predictable and manages your expectations. And they are a joy to use! In sweltering heat or chilly cold weathers, people wait with an unspoken resilience.
But this is Singapore, people are less tolerant of long waiting times and expect buses to behave like their personal transport.
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
He knows all the answers liao. There is no room for discussion, really. I'm eagerly waiting for him to save all of us now from our transport woes. This is a promising fellow. The sooner the better.
Yeah... Maybe elect him as MOT and kick out Lui?
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:You might be surprised. Let me ask you a interesting question: How do you think the current fares are split? If you take a MRT ride and pay $1.47, and transfer to a feeder bus which costs just $0.04, who gets to keep which portion?
Another thinking question for you: For bus routes with BSEP improvements, how is the fare revenue split? Do you pay the bus co when boarding a BSEP bus, or do you actually pay the gov't? What about the purely BSEP routes?
If you think along these lines, we are already starting to move away from such fare systems. Eventually complete routes will be tendered out on a fixed price (like the CityDirect and upcoming feeder enhancement services) and operator gets what they bidded instead of actual farebox revenue. When it reaches that stage, operators will no longer have competitng routes, but rather compete on operating the routes.
You are right.
This makes the dual control system even more impossible for SG.
our public transport cmi...
especially during morning peak hrs. when reach clementi, the train full already.
Read a report recently, said that HK residents don't even need cars even though the little amount of tax and vast connection of roads. Reason being the convenience of public transport.
Indeed I agree. HK buses are very unique in a way that their BASIC bus services to the CBD don't go from one neighbourhood to another and then another and yet another before reaching CBD. They have several services branching out of the CBD and going to the respective neighbourhoods. And they ply the EXPRESSWAY. This is why it appeals to the drivers of HK.
So LTA and the PTOs need to review their bus services. I can say SMRT has done pretty well in this department (at least in some cases), but SBST CBD svcs are terrible. Singapore's MRT system is still growing and with all the medium-capacity rails the buses have better start kicking and providing faster services.
Aiya SMRT zai zai one la. All they want is $$ what. Even a middle aged woman who ate a small tiny sweet due to motion sickness need to get fined 30$$. I wonder this 30$ go into whos pocket. The cheena staff who fined her or MRT. Seriously the sign there write eating on trains will have to pay 500$. I wonder if MRT see the size of the food then divide the 500$ ... What if that woman faint or throw up due the the BAN of eating even a sweet on the train? Who will pay for her medical fees? SMRT MEH
Originally posted by DrRojak:Aiya SMRT zai zai one la. All they want is $$ what. Even a middle aged woman who ate a small tiny sweet due to motion sickness need to get fined 30$$. I wonder this 30$ go into whos pocket. The cheena staff who fined her or MRT. Seriously the sign there write eating on trains will have to pay 500$. I wonder if MRT see the size of the food then divide the 500$ ... What if that woman faint or throw up due the the BAN of eating even a sweet on the train? Who will pay for her medical fees? SMRT MEH
I 100% agree with your last two sentence...
And SMRT said that eating can fine a MAXIMUM of $500....
Hv more svc to CBD directly.
Originally posted by All the Best!:Hv more svc to CBD directly.
Yes. I think it is good for each neighbourhood to have its dedicated basic bus svc straight to the city. Full day everyday. Instead of serving so many neighbourhoods at one go. This should attract drivers.