Originally posted by carbikebus:Did someone mention 170 going to be dual depot?If yes only a few will be under Hgdep?Queen st to Hgdep nearer?Cause those 170 BCs attend briefing or apply leave at Serangoon Interchange
You recognised them?
Originally posted by Yongjunzer:The logic here seems to me that maybe 170 would be dual depot control.otherwise those buses would not have been transfred to HG alr and those HG KUBs would not have Jb stickers alr.Maybe the possibly because queen street is nearer to HGDEP?
I agree with you. HGDEP could minority control 170? Then why SBS 8204C did not transferred to BBDEP when HGDEP can transferred SBS 8204C to BBDEP overnight?
Originally posted by SBS 6238T:You recognised them?
Think it's Yongjunzer who said it cause you've just quote...By the way it's quite impossible but then who knows...
Buses with 3rd brake lights installed: 63 buses
Note: Some of the listed buses also have the information (black), LPKP permit and speed limit stickers.
DM3500 (19)
> SBS2791M (ARBP 92)
> SBS2792K (ARBP 92)
> SBS2793H (HGDEP SP)
> SBS2794E (ARBP 92)
> SBS2795C (ARBP 200)
> SBS2797Y (BBDEP 74)
> SBS2799S (BBDEP SP)
> SBS2800X (ARBP 92)
> SBS2801T (BBDEP 74)
> SBS2802R (ARBP 16)
> SBS2804K (BBDEP SP)
> SBS2808A (BBDEP SP)
> SBS2809Y (HGDEP SP)
> SBS2810S (ARBP 93)
> SBS2811P (ARBP 200)
> SBS2812L (ARBP 93)
> SBS2813J (ARBP 92)
> SBS2831G (ARBP 93)
> SBS2833B (HGDEP SP)
K230UB (44)
> SBS8037T (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8045U (BBDEP 165)
> SBS8046S (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8049J (ARBP 16)
> SBS8050D (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8052Z (BBDEP 95)
> SBS8053X (BBDEP 282)
> SBS8057K (BBDEP 95)
> SBS8059E (ARBP 32)
> SBS8060A (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8062U (ARBP 123)
> SBS8065L (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8066J (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8074K (ARBP 57)
> SBS8075H (ARBP 275)
> SBS8076E (BBDEP 151)
> SBS8079Y (ARBP 16)
> SBS8084G (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8104H (ARBP 32)
> SBS8108Y (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8112J (ARBP 57)
> SBS8114D (ARBP 57)
> SBS8115B (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8116Z (ARBP 32)
> SBS8120K (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8121H (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8122E (ARBP 5)
> SBS8123C (ARBP 123)
> SBS8128P (ARBP 57)
> SBS8130G (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8131D (ARBP 48)
> SBS8191E (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8192C (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8195U (HGDEP 100)
> SBS8197P (HGDEP 100)
> SBS8202H (BBDEP 156)
> SBS8204C (HGDEP SP)
> SBS8207U (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8208S (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8210J (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8212D (HGDEP 43)
> SBS8237H (HGDEP 64)
> SBS8257A (BBDEP SP)
> SBS8443D (BBDEP SP)
Originally posted by carbikebus:Think it's Yongjunzer who said it cause you've just quote...By the way it's quite impossible but then who knows...
You are the one who say 170 BCs attend briefing or apply leave at Serangoon Interchange,anyway how you know that they are 170 BCs??
Added SBS8212D (HGDEP 43) - on 27 today
Will the 19 DM500 will be used on cross border services? If not,i guess SBS Transit have just wasted their time putting the 3rd brake light and the JB stickers?
I heard that those DM3500s that are transferred had their license holders removed. Is it true? If it is true means that they are not going to be JB registered.
Originally posted by SBS9C:I heard that those DM3500s that are transferred had their license holders removed. Is it true? If it is true means that they are not going to be JB registered.
Then,it would be a waste putting on the 3rd brake light and the JB stickers on the DM500
Originally posted by SBS 6238T:Then,it would be a waste putting on the 3rd brake light and the JB stickers on the DM500
It comes back to the same logic: they probably thought initially it was wise to put new DM3500s to replace the outgoing DM3500s, until some wise people up there planning all this all of a sudden come across the greater benefits of lesser admin work in the long-term if they just swap to KUBs once & for all..
Idk, it seems more like they had a sudden abrupt change of plans. And what to do with those DM3500s that had kope-d from the East District depots? Distribute among themselves within the West District lo. Just nice HGDEP needs extra SP SDs to replace those new currently-SP Citaros (which are going to in turn replace the outgoing Striders). And that's why they just threw those DM3500s over.
Originally posted by SBS8676Z:If that's the case SBST should have directly replaced all the JB MK3s with K230UBs back in Aug 2011. It seems that the efforts of registering the DM3500s with JB and making rectangular side destos for 160/170 had gone down the drain if 160/170 is to get full fleet K230UBs soon.
I think you missed out the point you raised in your post. Think about it, they could have used the Mk4 DMs & Striders to replace the outgoing JB Mk3s back then, but yet they picked from the later-registered DM3500 batch instead. And for the handful of Striders that were touched for JB, they are the last few of the Striders.
It's quite an obvious reason why they picked the last few Striders reg-ed and not those Mk4 DMs or 19xx-series Striders - the lifespan expiry dates.
And then if you take a step back, back then when they decided to use DM3500s to replace the JB Mk3s, there was only a limited number of Citaros. The KUBs formed the bulk of their SD WAB fleet. The thought process for the JB fleet renewal is definitely not a one-month exercise, they probably planned for ages and didn't foresee that 160 & 170 would go WAB anytime soon.
So what to do then if that's the case? Pluck the newest non-WAB SDs then, which is the DM3500s & the last few Striders.
Then now with the first few DM3500s due to be gone soon within the next 2-3 years even with max extension, they can only pluck from the next set of newest buses, which is the KUBs. And it becomes inevitable that 160 & 170 will go WAB-status soon.
And did anyone forget that someone posted a pic of a KUB parked in JB Larkin Ter back then when the first few DM3500s went onto JB svc?
The number of years from then till now probably allowed the higher-ups to evaluate fully the possibility of using KUBs for cross-border svcs. And if the measure allowed them to buy time, along with all the admin & prep work like 3rd brake lights, info box stixs, JB speed limit stixs etc for the KUBs, I wouldn't say that was a wasted measure.
And I do think that the gearbox of the Euro IVs would suit the cross-border svcs better at the moment, because the kickdown is much easier to achieve in a Euro IV KUB than a Euro V..
Originally posted by SBS 9631X:It comes back to the same logic: they probably thought initially it was wise to put new DM3500s to replace the outgoing DM3500s, until some wise people up there planning all this all of a sudden come across the greater benefits of lesser admin work in the long-term if they just swap to KUBs once & for all..
Idk, it seems more like they had a sudden abrupt change of plans. And what to do with those DM3500s that had kope-d from the East District depots? Distribute among themselves within the West District lo. Just nice HGDEP needs extra SP SDs to replace those new currently-SP Citaros (which are going to in turn replace the outgoing Striders). And that's why they just threw those DM3500s over.
i agree on what u say. initially i was wondering also why they want to replace later DM3500s to older DM3500s when they can just use KUB batch 1 to replace instead.
a service with a full fleet WABs does not mean it is a WAB service, 88 had a number of CDGEs didn't went WAB.
170X and 170 failed on the number of accessiblity of the bus stops for the PIWs. Queen st Bus terminal and both CIQs.
how did 950 went WAB? only WRI is accessible, both CIQs are not.
Originally posted by carbikebus:To add on:SMRT 950 already use WAB low floor somemore
i can't imagine 170X with the taros.
KUBs are fine.
Originally posted by SMB145B:a service with a full fleet WABs does not mean it is a WAB service, 88 had a number of CDGEs didn't went WAB.
170X and 170 failed on the number of accessiblity of the bus stops for the PIWs. Queen st Bus terminal and both CIQs.
how did 950 went WAB? only WRI is accessible, both CIQs are not.
Probably coz LE buses do kind of speed up boarding and carry more people safely? You don't have the steps and narrow aisles to obstruct mass boarding from both doors.
Originally posted by SMB145B:a service with a full fleet WABs does not mean it is a WAB service, 88 had a number of CDGEs didn't went WAB.
170X and 170 failed on the number of accessiblity of the bus stops for the PIWs. Queen st Bus terminal and both CIQs.
how did 950 went WAB? only WRI is accessible, both CIQs are not.
I think your example of Sv 88 is flawed? Sure, it had those CDGE B9TLs for years but yet without a WAB-svc status. But why was that so?
Because the number of WABs back then on Sv 88 wasn't past the 60% min requirement of the entire fleet for WAB-status at all. Did you forget that? It was only when they started deploying the Wrights to add onto the CDGE B9TLs that Sv 88's WAB fleet went past the 60% cut-off.
Your point was valid, but your example wasn't so.
And whether we admit or not, the cross-border svcs will go WAB-status sooner or later in the future, like it or not. Because the next set of newest SDs after the DM3500s is the KUBs already (this of course excludes the B10BLE CNGs)
That's why I see no point in saying things like "oh, only one of the Ters are PIW-friendly but the ones at the customs aren't." Because so what if Larkin or the boarding pts at the Customs aren't PIW-friendly? They're still going to dump the WABs on the cross-border svcs, because that's the next newest SDs they have.
Originally posted by SMB128B:Probably coz LE buses do kind of speed up boarding and carry more people safely? You don't have the steps and narrow aisles to obstruct mass boarding from both doors.
I don't think it has much to do with carrying people more safely. A wholly-loaded KUB in my opinion is more dangerous than a fully-packed Mk4. Esp when they try their best to pick up speed with a full load of pax.
Originally posted by SBS 9631X:I think your example of Sv 88 is flawed? Sure, it had those CDGE B9TLs for years but yet without a WAB-svc status. But why was that so?
Because the number of WABs back then on Sv 88 wasn't past the 60% min requirement of the entire fleet for WAB-status at all. Did you forget that? It was only when they started deploying the Wrights to add onto the CDGE B9TLs that Sv 88's WAB fleet went past the 60% cut-off.
Your point was valid, but your example wasn't so.
someone said it is because of its berth at Toa Payoh Int.
Originally posted by SBS 9631X:And whether we admit or not, the cross-border svcs will go WAB-status sooner or later in the future, like it or not. Because the next set of newest SDs after the DM3500s is the KUBs already (this of course excludes the B10BLE CNGs)
That's why I see no point in saying things like "oh, only one of the Ters are PIW-friendly but the ones at the customs aren't." Because so what if Larkin or the boarding pts at the Customs aren't PIW-friendly? They're still going to dump the WABs on the cross-border svcs, because that's the next newest SDs they have.
the CNGs could not be used as JB lacks the facilities for CNG refuel.
so the KUB have to undergo JB-reg and the brake lights.
hope to see one B10BLE (at least that diesel powered one) as part of either 160 or 170 fleet
Originally posted by SMB145B:the CNGs could not be used as JB lacks the facilities for CNG refuel.
so the KUB have to undergo JB-reg and the brake lights.
hope to see one B10BLE (at least that diesel powered one) as part of either 160 or 170 fleet