24 May, 01:36PM in sunny Singapore!

Things to expect in 2018

Subscribe to Things to expect in 2018 135 posts

Please Login or Signup to reply.
  • Formususeonly's Avatar
    236 posts since Sep '16
    • So when is those volvo 7900 hybrid with ugly mcv bodywork coming again ? Q2 2018  or Q 2018 ? Yes to me the Mcv bodywork is ugly compare to volvo intergal bodywork . http://landtransportguru.net/volvo-7900-hybrid/  Just take a look at our volvo 7900 design versus Europe's 7900 design. Why suddenly all new bus design like ugly one why not like last time omni design? 

  • sgbuses's Avatar
    2,406 posts since Nov '05
    • Go ask the bus lobbyists. The harder they lobby, the more half-baked designs Singapore will end up with and lots of them on the road. History keeps repeating itself over.

  • ND323F's Avatar
    82 posts since Mar '17
    • Originally posted by Formususeonly:

      So when is those volvo 7900 hybrid with ugly mcv bodywork coming again ? Q2 2018  or Q 2018 ? Yes to me the Mcv bodywork is ugly compare to volvo intergal bodywork . http://landtransportguru.net/volvo-7900-hybrid/  Just take a look at our volvo 7900 design versus Europe's 7900 design. Why suddenly all new bus design like ugly one why not like last time omni design? 

      well, cheaper better faster

       

      parallel hybrid is not ideal for city driving, especially so for Singapore. yet Volvo was chosen because of its price, sole reason. 

       

      MCV body is very cheap, even cheaper than that of GML

    • Originally posted by Formususeonly:

      Saw the new A22 Euro 6 with the NEW bodywork  . Its fucking ugly . Like seriously who at Gemilang thought that this NEW design look cool and trendy ?  Why won't gemilang use the 2018 new Design from MAN ( Search man lion city 2018 & see images for the new design by man) 

      this one? can, just spend 1mil euros buy CBU from MAN Germany. I'm sure tax payers will be happy

  • SG1131L's Avatar
    196 posts since Oct '17
    • Originally posted by sgbuses:

      Go ask the bus lobbyists. The harder they lobby, the more half-baked designs Singapore will end up with and lots of them on the road. History keeps repeating itself over.

      How is this lobbying? They are just standardizing the design, to make it easier to maintain in future. The new roof is obviously taken from Mercedes-Benz Citaro, whereas the body and everything is probably from MAN A22. In future, the road ahead could be to source standard parts from the various manufacturers and ownself configure into a bus with Singapore signature.

      Maybe it’s to reap economies of scale, as standardizing parts means able to purchase parts at large quantities, thus saving on delivery charges and packaging, etcetera. I’m expecting this roof to also apply to the new double decker bus which they are going to make.

      The bottom line is, I don’t think this is lobbying. Rather, it’s just standardizing of parts that they are doing.

      Edited by SG1131L 29 Apr `18, 7:00AM
    • Originally posted by Formususeonly:

      Quoted from Marvel88 Front view and back view of the Euro VI MAN at STK (from TeamJoyRiders' instagram). 

      To be honest, this looks like the Sentosa bus when you look from the back. Maybe it’s Citaro roof, Sentosa bus body, MAN engine and MAN front. And because it’s MAN engine and MAN front, that’s why it’s considered a MAN product. Just my assumption.

      On the Sentosa bus body, it’s probably Volvo B9TL body that we are talking about.

      This is a true rojak bus that we are having here.

      The most ambitious crossover event in history.

      Edited by SG1131L 29 Apr `18, 7:14AM
  • sgbuses's Avatar
    2,406 posts since Nov '05
    • Originally posted by SG1131L:

      How is this lobbying? They are just standardizing the design, to make it easier to maintain in future. The new roof is obviously taken from Mercedes-Benz Citaro, whereas the body and everything is probably from MAN A22. In future, the road ahead could be to source standard parts from the various manufacturers and ownself configure into a bus with Singapore signature.

      Maybe it’s to reap economies of scale, as standardizing parts means able to purchase parts at large quantities, thus saving on delivery charges and packaging, etcetera. I’m expecting this roof to also apply to the new double decker bus which they are going to make.

      The bottom line is, I don’t think this is lobbying. Rather, it’s just standardizing of parts that they are doing.

      Standardization? So how did Singapore's A95s end up with at least three bodywork variations?

      Don't start talking about evolution or improvement. The bodywork variations (and other units produced for other operators) show this is mainly an aesthetic change.

      There will be a demand for bodywork spares because accidents happen over time. GML can produce the spare parts now suited to the variation for now. But if GML doesn't exist tomorrow or stop producing older parts, it's going to be a nightmare for fleet management.

      If you think that bodywork manufacturers will last forever, Custom Bus has just collapsed. Cities who have been relying on Custom for new buses suddenly have a parts problem and are forced to buy small new batches from other suppliers because they don't know what to do next.

      And already we have someone asking for the fourth bodywork design because it significantly deviates from the one just released in Germany.

      At least the Citaro and the B9TL orders from SBS Transit has consistent designs.

      The bus lobbyists have been arguing for a standardized design when they want more of something. Then against a standardized design when they don't like what they see or start to get bored of it.

      Or whatever rocks their boat. Or fits their arguments. Trump style.

      And least of all, the lobbyists have been attempting to get LTA to distribute all the models/variants across operators. And then rail against operators who resist accepting a handful of units.

      I thought LTA has finally cleaned up the act. Only to allow another mess again.

      And LTA and KBW starts wondering why bus operations are 60% more costly now and how on Earth they are going to pass on the increased costs.

      Edited by sgbuses 29 Apr `18, 8:47AM
  • carbikebus's Avatar
    21,590 posts since Nov '03
  • SG1131L's Avatar
    196 posts since Oct '17
    • Originally posted by sgbuses:

      Standardization? So how did Singapore's A95s end up with at least three bodywork variations?

      Don't start talking about evolution or improvement. The bodywork variations (and other units produced for other operators) show this is mainly an aesthetic change.

      There will be a demand for bodywork spares because accidents happen over time. GML can produce the spare parts now suited to the variation for now. But if GML doesn't exist tomorrow or stop producing older parts, it's going to be a nightmare for fleet management.

      And already we have someone asking for the fourth design because it significantly deviates from the one just released in Germany.

      At least the Citaro and the B9TL orders from SBS Transit has consistent designs.

      The bus lobbyists have been arguing for a standardized design when they want more of something. Then against a standardized design when they don't like what they see or start to get bored of it.

      Or whatever rocks their boat. Or fits their arguments. Trump style.

      And least of all, the lobbyists have been attempting to get LTA to distribute all the models/variants across operators. And then rail against operators who resist accepting a handful of units.

      I thought LTA has finally cleaned up the act. Only to allow another mess again.

      And LTA and KBW starts wondering why bus operations are 60% more costly now and how on Earth they are going to pass on the increased costs.

      Nice what. Got 各种各样的 bus design on our roads. Really add variety to the otherwise monotone designs of our buses. Everyday see the same designs 不会 sian meh? If LTA is into introducing different designs of buses, I feel that this is the way to go.

      Cost wise, actually, if the internal parts (which are the parts that require maintenance) remain the same, whereas the exterior aesthetics keep changing, I really don’t mind them spending a bit of one-off additional costs to customise.

      Just my two cents worth.

  • sgbuses's Avatar
    2,406 posts since Nov '05
    • Originally posted by SG1131L:

      Nice what. Got 各种各样的 bus design on our roads. Really add variety to the otherwise monotone designs of our buses. Everyday see the same designs 不会 sian meh? If LTA is into introducing different designs of buses, I feel that this is the way to go.

      Cost wise, actually, if the internal parts (which are the parts that require maintenance) remain the same, whereas the exterior aesthetics keep changing, I really don’t mind them spending a bit of one-off additional costs to customise.

      Just my two cents worth.

      Two cents? Are you willing to pay? How about two dollars minimum card bus fare for a start?

      Adelaide has over 40 designs, card fares start from $3.62 ($1.96 feeder)

      Melbourne has 25 designs for just one operator alone, card fares start from $4.30 ($2.94 feeder).

      London has been getting quite a number of new designs lately, card fares start from £1.50 (S$2.75).

      All three of them adopt BCM as well. They also have so-called similar internal parts, but plenty of different bodywork designs.

      LTA is losing money hand over fist to subsidize public bus transportation. Your 2% GST increase for one year already isn't enough to cover the subsidy of $4 billion over the next 5 years.

      Think about how every 5 cent you spend on your daily lunch goes towards your new fancy buses...

      Edited by sgbuses 29 Apr `18, 9:28AM
  • SG1131L's Avatar
    196 posts since Oct '17
    • Haiz, 算了。no point arguing. go ahead with whatever deemed fit for you. this conversation 没完没了,没头没尾. if you feel strongly about the costs, go write a forum letter to the newspaper, and get the official authorities to respond to your queries. thanks.

      Edited by SG1131L 29 Apr `18, 9:28AM
  • carbikebus's Avatar
    21,590 posts since Nov '03
    • Wakakaka maybe uniformed brands/bodywork is better.

      MAN with only Gemilang

      MB with own integral

      Volvo with Wright alien body

      ADL with their integral body.

       

      or best just buy chassis and appointed Soon Chow fabricate bus body similiar to all brands..

  • Marvel68's Avatar
    327 posts since Oct '14
    • Isn't it bit of a slippery slope to say that more model variants = more operation costs, when the fact lies that there are more bus services and more buses overall in quantity on the roads today (thanks to BSEP), so companies would have to hire more BCs, so wouldn't this also contribute significantly to the increase in production costs? Also our NSEWL lines rolling stock also has been rojak for years now.

      Wah imagine if only B9TL Wright and Citaro became the standard model across all operators, we would have over 2k units of each model on the roads today, and bus spotting would became far more boring leh.

  • SMB128B's Avatar
    5,067 posts since May '11
    • Originally posted by Marvel68:

      Isn't it bit of a slippery slope to say that more model variants = more operation costs, when the fact lies that there are more bus services and more buses overall in quantity on the roads today (thanks to BSEP), so companies would have to hire more BCs, so wouldn't this also contribute significantly to the increase in production costs? Also our NSEWL lines rolling stock also has been rojak for years now.

      I absolutely agree with this. While existent, costs associated with the procurement of different bus makes are meagre compared to many other factors such as manpower and administration costs, and core components are the same anyway no matter the bodywork so it doesn't really add up much. It's regrettable that some here continue to adamantly exaggerate the truth, overstating the costs when many other countries still have low fares with multiple bus makes.

  • ND323F's Avatar
    82 posts since Mar '17
    • Come on guys, the additional roof on top of the old A22s is a request from SMRT to copy MAN's Hybrid A37. That roof is to cover the ultra capacitors on top the roof. The MAN Lion's City A21 does not have that kind of roof, does not make sense to incur additional weight for the sake of design

  • SG1131L's Avatar
    196 posts since Oct '17
    • Here we go again. Same old shit again. Up and down these argument. Few more rebuttals and we’ll be through...

      Honestly, there’s no right or wrong answer. I understand where some people are coming from with regards to costs. Of course, the cost should not be exorbitant, otherwise this would result in a heavy burden for the commuters and for the taxpayers who help to subsidize costs for the commuters; basically, us peasants (taxpayers is a subset of commuters).

      I may be wrong about LTA wanting to customise, for the real reason could be that “this” is the original design, and the “curry pok hairstyle” on earlier MAN A22s on our roads was actually because SMRT (the one who brought them into Singapore) opted for that “hairstyle”.

      I have faith on the government that they know what is best for the people: to procure the buses at the best possible price with the most optimal quality.

      Edited by SG1131L 29 Apr `18, 6:47PM
  • carbikebus's Avatar
    21,590 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by ND323F:

      Come on guys, the additional roof on top of the old A22s is a request from SMRT to copy MAN's Hybrid A37. That roof is to cover the ultra capacitors on top the roof. The MAN Lion's City A21 does not have that kind of roof, does not make sense to incur additional weight for the sake of design

      I've long time don't favour that lion head style bodywork,Yes it does not make sense too since it's aint thw hybrid model.

  • ND323F's Avatar
    82 posts since Mar '17
    • Originally posted by SG1131L:

      Here we go again. Same old shit again. Up and down these argument. Few more rebuttals and we’ll be through...

      Honestly, there’s no right or wrong answer. I understand where some people are coming from with regards to costs. Of course, the cost should not be exorbitant, otherwise this would result in a heavy burden for the commuters and for the taxpayers who help to subsidize costs for the commuters; basically, us peasants (taxpayers is a subset of commuters).

      I may be wrong about LTA wanting to customise, for the real reason could be that “this” is the original design, and the “curry pok hairstyle” on earlier MAN A22s on our roads was actually because SMRT (the one who brought them into Singapore) opted for that “hairstyle”.

      I have faith on the government that they know what is best for the people: to procure the buses at the best possible price with the most optimal quality.

      Well, you can download the latest tender spec from gebiz and see how ridiculous it is. The new procure is way much more expensive than the older ones, a lot of new equipment and features that we do not have now and do not need on the future.

      Edited by ND323F 29 Apr `18, 3:20PM
  • sgbuses's Avatar
    2,406 posts since Nov '05
    • Originally posted by Marvel68:

      Isn't it bit of a slippery slope to say that more model variants = more operation costs, when the fact lies that there are more bus services and more buses overall in quantity on the roads today (thanks to BSEP), so companies would have to hire more BCs, so wouldn't this also contribute significantly to the increase in production costs? Also our NSEWL lines rolling stock also has been rojak for years now.

      Wah imagine if only B9TL Wright and Citaro became the standard model across all operators, we would have over 2k units of each model on the roads today, and bus spotting would became far more boring leh.

      The scenario for trains is worse. If you don't stock enough spare parts for the variety of rolling stock previously procured, the trains will break down frequently. And when they break down, they block the line and cause delays and disruptions. Why do you think the trains are more unreliable on NSEWL than the other lines?

      The bus operator has to retrain each driver and mechanic for every new model that comes in. And then there's operational problems. For example, BCs who struggle to operate the EDS controller to get the EDS code correct for every different model. Why would SMRT replace SMB5888H's original EDS when it is still so relatively new? Why wouldn't operators continue to operate older demonstrators in revenue service in recent years?

      Edited by sgbuses 29 Apr `18, 4:06PM
  • SG1131L's Avatar
    196 posts since Oct '17
    • On Choa Chu Chu Kang Temporary Bus Interchange, from the looks of it, I estimate the construction will be completed in about 3 months’ time. With testing and commissioning in mind, which takes about 1 month, the facility should commence revenue service earliest in September.

      Whereas for the second Jurong East Temporary Bus Interchange, I foresee the project completion date has been postponed to next year.

      Edited by SG1131L 29 Apr `18, 4:12PM
  • sgbuses's Avatar
    2,406 posts since Nov '05
    • Originally posted by ND323F:

      Well, you can download the latest tender spec from gebiz and see how ridiculous it is. The new procure is way much more expensive than the older ones, a lot of new equipment and features that we do not have now and do not need on the future.

      Can you list more specifics (other than what we previously said)? I think this has not been known well enough.

  • ND323F's Avatar
    82 posts since Mar '17
    • Originally posted by sgbuses:

      Can you list more specifics (other than what we previously said)? I think this has not been known well enough.

      • Automatic passenger counting system
      • Passenger information display system - The standard exterior LED EDS has a size increase. There is an additional exterior LCD screen. Interior LED signage is now 2 liner (bigger) and instead of 1 LED signage, there will be 2. There is also an additional interior LCD screen. There will also be 8 interior speakers (16 for DD) and 1 exterior speaker. 
      • Driver anti-fatique system
      • Anti-collision warning
      • IP digital CCTV (as opposed to current analogue CCTV)
      Chassis wise
      • Euro 6, inheritantly more expensive than Euro 5 (no choice)
      • Automatic headlamps and wipers
      • Automatic kneeling (SBST specification)
      • Additional rear door sensors (SBST specification)

      I'm surprised they did not ask for automatic wheelchair ramp.
  • sgbuses's Avatar
    2,406 posts since Nov '05
    • Originally posted by ND323F:
      • Automatic passenger counting system
      • Passenger information display system - The standard exterior LED EDS has a size increase. There is an additional exterior LCD screen. Interior LED signage is now 2 liner (bigger) and instead of 1 LED signage, there will be 2. There is also an additional interior LCD screen. There will also be 8 interior speakers (16 for DD) and 1 exterior speaker. 
      • Driver anti-fatique system
      • Anti-collision warning
      • IP digital CCTV (as opposed to current analogue CCTV)
      Chassis wise
      • Euro 6, inheritantly more expensive than Euro 5 (no choice)
      • Automatic headlamps and wipers
      • Automatic kneeling (SBST specification)
      • Additional rear door sensors (SBST specification)

      I'm surprised they did not ask for automatic wheelchair ramp.

      Thank you. That speaks volumes.

  • TPS Timothy Mok's Avatar
    1,254 posts since Aug '07
  • Formususeonly's Avatar
    236 posts since Sep '16
    • Originally posted by ND323F:
      • Automatic passenger counting system
      • Passenger information display system - The standard exterior LED EDS has a size increase. There is an additional exterior LCD screen. Interior LED signage is now 2 liner (bigger) and instead of 1 LED signage, there will be 2. There is also an additional interior LCD screen. There will also be 8 interior speakers (16 for DD) and 1 exterior speaker. 
      • Driver anti-fatique system
      • Anti-collision warning
      • IP digital CCTV (as opposed to current analogue CCTV)
      Chassis wise
      • Euro 6, inheritantly more expensive than Euro 5 (no choice)
      • Automatic headlamps and wipers
      • Automatic kneeling (SBST specification)
      • Additional rear door sensors (SBST specification)

      I'm surprised they did not ask for automatic wheelchair ramp.

      SBST specifications  As oppose to smrt one? So can I somehow conclude that this new batch of E6 A22 is for sbs since there is sbs specs inside ? Maybe its for the out going volvo b10m markiv dm3500. 

      Edited by Formususeonly 30 Apr `18, 5:29AM
Please Login or Signup to reply.