24 Jan, 07:25PM in sunny Singapore!

Recent Posts by vicamour

Subscribe to Recent Posts by vicamour

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by SBS8676Z:

      For SBST, I dun see a need to intake many new DDs at the moment, since there are only 3 VO3X (and probably HGDEP's 20 Tridents) to clear off. What SBST need is 50 single decks to replace the DM3500.

      Why not? It can be a fleet upgrade.

      It's up to LTA to decide now.

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by SMB128B:

      Keep on waiting... I bet w you 50 big that at least for the next decade... buses will continue going into the basements... they had a great chance to build a new terminal, and they decided to fk it...

      No need to bet.

      Go observe what LTA is doing instead.

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by Paulautumn020:

      设施应该是足够容纳铰接客车的,稍微调整一下就可以了。

      我倒觉得机场巴士路线将永久使用铰接客车,除非到时候 Cross Island Line 和 Thomson East Coast Line 开了以后,乘客们对机场巴士的需求减少,机场巴士路线才有可能全用低乘客量的单层巴士营运。

      至于未来会发生什么事情,我们难以确认,因为局势一直不断的变化。然而,目前可以确定的是在可预见的未来,铰接客车是不会被淘汰,因为机场和一些路段是不能容纳双层巴士,而只要穿行这些地方的巴士路线需要高乘客量巴士,我们还是需要铰接客车来满足乘客们的需求。

      The infrastructure should be able to accommodate bendy buses. Probably just a few adjustments would be required.

      I feel that the airport bus routes will always require bendy buses, unless one day when the Cross Island Line and Thomson East Coast Line open and the passenger demand no longer require the bus routes to have high capacity buses.

      As for what will happen in future, we are unable to confirm, because the situation keeps changing. Nonetheless, what we can confirm is that bendy buses will not be disqualified in the foreseeable future. Because the airport and some areas cannot accommodate double-decker buses, as long as the bus routes plying these places require high capacity buses, we will still require bendy buses to meet the passenger demand.

      You see, that's the plan.

      Thomson East Coast and Cross Island lines will be built in the next 15 years, whereby the last bendies will be withdrawn from service. By then, the demands will be diverted to these lines and the loadings of the current bus services in the airport will be lessen.

      While you have said airport bus terminal can support bendies only, but that's only for one service. Terminal 3 and 1 bus terminal is too small and narrow to accommodate more bendies. On top of that, every terminal requires a security check before entrance. The bus queue will be very long if there are many of these long buses in the waiting queue and thus will even delay other vehicles for the airport services. 

      For now, the bendies are still in use because there are 15 years to go for the 40 A24s. LTA don't want to waste them. Once they have found other solutions to replace the bendies, airport services will not even need these bendies anymore. 

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by Paulautumn020:

      双铰接客车应该不会在可预见的将来被淘汰。

      Bendy buses will not retire in the foreseeable future.

      The last batch of the 40 bendies will run for another 15 years till their lifespan expires and there will be no more.

      Meanwhile LTA will be sorting out the viable solutions on how the current airport services and a few services with height constraints, which adds up to a handful, are to continue operations when the last bendy bus retires. Most likely they might add on a few services to divert the crowds, use short working trips for areas of these routes that have high demands but do not need to go to the airport, or creative route amendments as in 807 and 860 case. Else they may alter the infrastructures that can accommodate double deckers. 

      It's going to be interesting observations and changes for these services in the years going forward. 

       

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by carbikebus:

      Raise basic pay but introduce all nonsense stuff..Some pax would not hesitate to put their bulky items on the empty seats also..Later got problem who solve?BC again,We got more than enough problems already leh..

      Originally posted by carbikebus:

      Waste of time and money,Because of all this passengers also bring 46inch TV,Bulky items onboard buses even during peak hours..Later other pax also KPKB..There is always protocol but the authority doesnt care.😤

      I have a feeling that bus services standards and traveling time will get worse if they allow all kinds of things to be on board the bus.

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by A22 fan:

      I still have a feeling that SBST will still stick to B9TL and Citaro only even by the time the Seletar package contract starts next year. They have poor experience of maintaining models of man buses and dennis buses. They will try to find every way to avoid taking other than merz n volvos as possible since they won this contract with the lowest bid.

      The package is awarded by LTA to SBST to run the services, and use the leased LTA owned buses to run them. They cannot anyhow just swap their own fleet into the package to use. And SBST has its other services to run. They won't have enough buses if they take away and swap into the package. 

      Remember everything now is owned by LTA. The bus operators are just service providers and they have not much decision making on the fleet and packages. 

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by SMB145B:

      ah no.

      what if thomson line breaks down?

      Then you better pray LTA build the Woodlands North ITH by then.

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by carbikebus:

      You still see SBST/SMRT monopolies in their territories don't you?No matter how you improve ppl still complain,That's life in Singapore.

      So you mean that bus services standards don't need to improve? 

      Originally posted by SMB145B:

      hey, flip floping again?

      if perth can have it all, why not here?

      Flip flopping? 

      If you think against bendies equals to hating them, you probably need to change your mentality. Finding them not suitable in Singapore operations doesn’t mean hating them. They are just not suitable here in the long term of the bigger population to come.

      How big is Perth vs Singapore? 

      How densely populated is Perth vs Singapore? 

      How people react to service standards in Perth vs Singapore complaining? 

      Go figure it out. 

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by carbikebus:

      Seriously,The package itself have too many flaws.Svc that doesnt serve more home ground also can be included into that particular package,Wasted more fuel to Os to the other side.Afterall the planners is just human being.They should revamp the bus packages for good in future.

      Well, it just started. I believe that they do not want an area to be served by one operator only but at least two different operators in one area.

      Surely have to give them more time to learn their lessons, right?

      They have already set their hearts to do it. What can we really do now?

      Service standards are bad in the past, many people complaining. Now service standards are improving, why still complaining? 

      Having a bigger fleet means more flexibilities and possibilities that can happen to react to changing situations. I think this is what they want to achieve. 

      Edited by vicamour 19 Jul `17, 8:22PM
  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by carbikebus:

      902 can just extend to ply republic crescent 

      Seriously it's not needed and redundant. It's faster and cheaper to walk to the MRT station instead.

      Would it be better to start from Woodlands North ITH and ply as a feeder to relieve the loads of those intra town services like 912, 913 instead? 

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by carbikebus:

      I don't think LTA hates bendy,Its just that they want to minimise.Who knows in future what's their planning?

      Seriously if i am the Transport Minister,I will urge short distance and airport svc to use bendy buses.For Airport svc the ratio should be 5 SD-1 BD sequence and it would be at control rate.No mid or long haul trunk nor express svc can use bendy.

      It's not about hate or not. It's more about the operating suitability and changes in the operating environment. 

      We are no longer in the environment that operators are fixated at particular models. It has come to a point that number of buses depends on the demands of the package of services and standard fleets allows such transitions to be easier and flexible, rather than setting more rules and make operations more difficult. 

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by SMB145B:

      let's see

      TPE (Towards SLE/CTE)

      Exit 6 - Halus Link (Punggol Central; Towards PIE, use Exit 8; future), KPE (ECP, PIE) (Towards PIE, use Exit 7)
      Exit 9 - Punggol Road
      Exit 10 - Sengkang East Road, Punggol Way

      CTE (Towards SLE)

      Exit 11 - AMK Ave 1
      Exit 12A - AMK Ave 3 (Towards AYE, use Exit 14)
      Exit 12B - AMK Ave 5 (Towards AYE, use Exit 14)

       

      There aren't any new exit for drivers coming from the east heading to Sengkang.

      the jams on TPE stretches from Tampines Ave 12/Pasir Ris Dr 8 to KPE exit while CTE is from Braddell Road to AMK Ave 1.

      If you look at the directional basis, TPE jams is caused by the chokepoint at Punggol Road exit that stretches till Tampines Ave 12, if go towards SLE. That is why exits to Sengkang East /Punggol East is needed to divert the traffic away from Punggol Road exits. 

      CTE wise is caused by the chokepoint at Ang Mo Kio Ave 3 exit, that stretches to Braddell Rd exits, if you go towards SLE.

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by TIB 585L:


      cant imagine 902 have DDs, i wonder how long will it take to leave the berth with 100% load as compared to a 3 door bendies and also alighting from DD n bendy POV

      902 will probably be redundant once the Thomson line is up.

       

      Originally posted by SMB145B:

      let's see

      TPE (Towards SLE/CTE)

      Exit 6 - Halus Link (Punggol Central; Towards PIE, use Exit 8; future), KPE (ECP, PIE) (Towards PIE, use Exit 7)
      Exit 9 - Punggol Road
      Exit 10 - Sengkang East Road, Punggol Way

      CTE (Towards SLE)

      Exit 11 - AMK Ave 1
      Exit 12A - AMK Ave 3 (Towards AYE, use Exit 14)
      Exit 12B - AMK Ave 5 (Towards AYE, use Exit 14)

       

      There aren't any new exit for drivers coming from the east heading to Sengkang.

      the jams on TPE stretches from Tampines Ave 12/Pasir Ris Dr 8 to KPE exit while CTE is from Braddell Road to AMK Ave 1.


  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by SMB145B:

      i don't think is solution wor.

      adding exits? i don't want another CTE that jams every peak hours.

      The chokepoint of CTE mostly comes between Ang Mo Kio Ave 1 and 3, and not every exit.

      TPE situation is different from CTE. The chokepoint at Punggol Road exit is caused by only one nearest exit to Sengkang and Punggol. It's better to set up exits at Sengkang East to divert the traffic away from the Punggol Road exits with bus stops.

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by Path Light:

      I think Yishun Bus Interchange ITH will be the same when it opens in 2019

      I have seen the floor plan before. It looks smaller with lesser lots.

      Originally posted by SMB145B:

      vermouth still want to siam problems, that's why.

      858 route and deployment itself is already a problem. I already stated all the solutions but he keep on insisting his own problems on his own solutions. If every airport service demands a bendy fleet as the only solution, think the bus queue may stretch and delay the whole airport. 

      Originally posted by SMB145B:

      serious? 972 complements 190 but someone just complaints that 972 is taking buses away from 190. what if 865 were to be intro by SBST? that there will be complains again.

      Maybe 972 has higher loadings these days compared to 190, but 190 still continues to come frequently. At least now no one complains can't board 190 anymore.

      Originally posted by SMB145B:

      Boon Lay? you got to be kidding me. i thought by removing 180 bendies is enough. but i heard that 179, 241 is adding Wrights along with 180. this madness has to stop.

      Madness or you want to see more people complaining about the frequencies of those services?

       

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by A22 fan:

      Still feel that still a small number of people are very biased against bendies just like LTA...yes they occupy places when stopping but most passengers are happy with that i suppose. Furthermore existing yishun n woodlands interchanges are temporary n when they move to new or upgraded interchanges in near future such congestions wil be solved as they hav more spaces to move.

      With improvements in frequencies with more buses, it doesn't really matter to the commuters as long as they do not have to wait too long for buses. I still hear people complaining about frequencies up to 15 mins for some services for now.

      You have to know that interchanges are getting smaller or least stayed the same but more buses are deployed with more frequencies and new services, and more in future. The new Bukit Panjang and Yishun interchange are going to be smaller and yet new bus services are needed for more upcoming new developments in these estates.

      Is it going to be sustainable in future? 

      Edited by vicamour 19 Jul `17, 11:31AM
  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by SMB128B:

      You're still evading from the 858 problem. 

      You're still deluded into the fact that fleet add helps. Youre still deluded into believing a new ter will actually show up in CGA. 

      I think you are actually very inflexible in changes and keep on harping on one way as a solution. There are actually more solutions with more buses than the current fleet, especially catering into future needs. The solutions are for the future, please think long term.

      Deluded? Rather than wasting your time here ranting at B9TLs here and complaining about useless things, why don't you spend time suggesting to LTA for such improvements, especially when Changi Airport is expanding with two new terminals and a new attraction? The problem is real in the future. 

      Just as how they see it in Boon Lay interchange and improved it with a new Joo Koon interchange. 

      Improve bus frequencies and add new services when the fleet improves, you complain. Before that, frequencies stretched beyond 15 mins and little incentives for new services, you also complain, ranting LTA giving template answers with no actions.

      Seriously what do you want? 

      Edited by vicamour 19 Jul `17, 11:30AM
  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by SMB128B:

      Wouldn't a parallel svc be akin to a fleet add?

      Enlighten me how will that improve the situation, given that a fleet add for 858 has clearly been proven to be in vain?

      Are you trying to sidetracking or trying to find more faults? 

      Is 972 fleet akin to a fleet add to 190 fleet or adding a new service under a different fleet?

      A fleet add to current service vs a new service with a new fleet is completely different. 

      I just again put this into another perspective. If this parallel service is packaged to another operator, is this considered a new fleet for a new service under another operator or a fleet add of SMRT 858?

      If that's the case, might as well consolidate the whole fleet in Singapore and call it a fleet add. 

      And since you feel that fleet add overall is useless whether it is to improve the whole bus system or adding new services or improve frequencies is useless, then might as well cut the whole fleet to 2,000 buses. Go back to the bus services standards back in the 1990s.

      Edited by vicamour 19 Jul `17, 11:37AM
  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by SMB145B:

      eh 133 and 857 is way off.

      i previously had 865** route posted here to off load those coming from Yishun. but if the problem exist elsewhere or exist in the shared portion, then nothing helps.

      ** the route number was as of 08.06.2015 and is only a placeholder, it follows that of yishun trunk routes in the 85x or 86x.

      TPE jams on the peak hours would have caused problems for all routes passing through, not just 27, 858 and 969.

      The problem with TPE is that LTA refused to build exit points to Sengkang East areas and move the traffic loads away from Punggol Road exits, thus causing a chokepoint at the bus services stopping at those bus stops.

      I don't see this in bus stops along AYE.

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by randomguy10:

      As much as they take a bigger space, they also move off faster. IMO, the reason why the service frequency is being improved is because there is no bendy to replace the deregistering bendy and so the best solution will be to add 2 SD buses so as to not reduce the capacity.

      In cases where DD suit better than bendy, like trunks,no problem - just 1 for 1 and this is indeed a step forward because you saved space on the roads. In cases where DD cant really suit because people dont go up or SDs are used because the route cant use DD, you are indeed replacing a 18m bus by 2X12m buses. It seems like a step forward cos frequency is improved but isnt it infact 3 steps back because you are actually taking more space now, having to hire 2 drivers and also pay double the fuel price. And in the end, this is going to reduce congestion in the interchange? the answer is NO. 

      Conclusion: One Size does not fit all problems. Once again, bendy everywhere is not the solution for Singapore. But a small fleet to serve the necessary areas is wise. And this area is short distance feeders and routes with height restrictions.

      And just FYI, all the buses that are still in operator livery still belong to the operators and LTA is so called leasing them for a fee. So it is not like LTA purposely didnt buy over those bendys. All the CDGEs, SBS plated B9TLs (not under BSEP), KUBs, OCs, SMB plated Citaros, A22s (not under BSEP), SBST Plated Citaros (not under BSEP), E500s (not under BSEP), SMB plated A95s, A24s - they are all owned by operators SBST and SMRTB

      From what I observed in Yishun interchange, the bendies do not actually move off faster as you said. Once one or two bendies are stuck at the alighting berth, almost immediately you see a line of buses queuing behind. But the situation is not that bad with single and double deckers on the alighting berth, because shorter buses have more flexibility in moving in and out of lane with many buses.

      One of the main aim for LTA GCM is to improve frequencies for all of the services. 2 single deckers may take up the same spaces of a bendy bus, but at least operators can improve the frequencies by adding more buses, or use more buses for another new service. That's the flexibility they can play with to manage the loads. And two buses doesn't really mean that they will take up the whole space at the same time. Difference in frequencies can allow the two buses to stop at the bus stops at different times and yet improving the frequencies. 

      The GCM is still at its early stages and places like Woodlands have not seen much improvements, like more new services, yet compared to other places. LTA may probably reshuffle the feeders there (e.g split into G/W) or add new services to relieve the loads. Parts of Woodlands are still not developed yet and thus new services may be needed in future. 

      There are not many places with height restrictions these days and LTA has been removing these barriers since GCM. As for the airport, it's probably time to build a new bus terminal or restructure the bus infrastructures there. With the upcoming T4, Jewel, and T5, there is a need for more bus services, especially one to the west. 

      If many other parts of Singapore bus services can operate efficiently without the need of a few special buses, don't see why places like Woodlands cannot improve without the need of bendies. Already seeing great improvements in Yishun, Chua Chu Kang and Bukit Batok with the fleet changes. Like I said earlier, Woodlands estate is still expanding, and it needs more space for more buses for new services. The current arrangement should just be the temporary one for better things to come in future. 

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by carbikebus:

      Depending if they want it or not,Unless LTA force them to take sincs its under the package.If they can take the DD,They also can kapo the A22 but again SBST wont take the SMB plate ones.

      I doubt SBST has much choice, especially when all the buses under its ownership scrapped in future. The bus fleet in future is all under LTA. Either they take it or leave it. 

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by carbikebus:

      That's because the owners chose to renew the COE and to maintain older diesel vehicles is no chicken feet either,Its costly.

      For your info,TTS & GAS particularly lease those buses from LTA for a fee,Not free.

      Well precisely.

      As long as these buses are not 17 years yet and roadworthy, why must scrap them early?

      LTA allows those commercial vehicles to extend their COEs for 10 years because they are able to pass the inspections and still road worthy. But not if they fail the inspections and poses a hazard on the roads. The owners have to scrap them. It's still commercially cheaper to maintain older diesel vehicles because new vehicles are so expensive these days. Just look at Cat C. Dropped to 30k but not many rushed in to change new commercial vehicles. 

      Nothing is free in Singapore. This is highly possible and I do believe. A lease is as good as rental, and rental involves money. 

      Edited by vicamour 18 Jul `17, 10:58PM
  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by SMB145B:

      969 is more or less parallel to 858 except the part in Woodlands. while 969 has DDs to cover between Woodlands and TPE stop less the part in woodlands, 858 load is still heavy. intro 968 between Woodlands and Pasir Ris? or 861 between Yishun and Pasir Ris?

      However 858 and 969 serves different destinations. While many people take 969 to Tampines, many people go to the Airport with 858 as well. They serve different crowds to different destinations even they covered partially the same route. Just like 133 and 857.

      Thus the problem is still north to airport. So a new route should be at least parallel to the destination as well to relieve the loads, like 972 to Orchard that relieves 190's heaviest loading between Bukit Panjang and Orchard Road. 

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by SMB145B:

      you just cannot throw away 40 + 200 odd bendies.

      like you said

      LTA don't just remove any vehicles like that as long as they are roadworthy and don't emit black smoke and pollutants.

      Such wasteful approaches can only get public backlash after that. People are watching. The public had complained when the govt helps the bus operators to buy new buses.

      If so, why are we still have 20 year old commercial vehicles on the roads now?

      200 odd bendies are left to rot like the lances and even the E500s.

      i said one size fits all isn't the way to go and neither do we want one step forward, three steps back.

       

      you just cannot throw away 40 + 200 odd bendies.

      like you said

      LTA don't just remove any vehicles like that as long as they are roadworthy and don't emit black smoke and pollutants.

      Such wasteful approaches can only get public backlash after that. People are watching. The public had complained when the govt helps the bus operators to buy new buses.

      If so, why are we still have 20 year old commercial vehicles on the roads now?

      200 odd bendies are left to rot like the lances and even the E500s.

      i said one size fits all isn't the way to go and neither do we want one step forward, three steps back.

       

      Have these bendies reached 17 years statutory age yet? Sorry but I have not been following the derigistrations. As far as I know, many of them are registered in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Those registered in 2000 should be gone by this year. There should be a number of them running for 2-3 years.

      Minus the 40 A24s under SMRT ownership. They should be running as long as SMRT owns them. I'm not implying that they should be scrapped immediately. However under LTA bus contracting and  fleet ownership, they will only get single and double deckers in future. 

      The irony is that the old bendies are not scrapped. How to use the E500s?  Maybe LTA is at fault for over purchasing but standardisation is still the direction for LTA with 5,000 odd buses under its management in the future. 

  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,479 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by SMB145B:

      so any ideas for 27, 36 and 858, Boss?

      do you want 858C and 858D as well?

      go on deploying 20 Wrights on 858 lor.

      So far 36 is quite manageable. Just that GA needs to add more evening trips for 36B.

      The problem of 858 is from Woodlands to Airport. A parallel service that I have suggested would help to relieve the loads while adding new links. No need to introduce double deckers unless CAAS and LTA wants to build a DD-friendly bus terminal. 

      27 should now just use a full fleet of low entry buses instead of low floor buses. Other than that, it's should be pretty manageable with the current frequencies. Still waiting for the rumored 137. Probably it can help to relieve 27 loads in future. 

      Edited by vicamour 18 Jul `17, 10:14PM