Our world class SMRT and a cacophony of worms...
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Isn't operating a half empty train a waste of time, energy and money?
With SMRT jam packing the trains like sardines in a can, I can definitely not deny that SMRT has become extremely efficient in it's services.
[/b]
They're increased frequency but the trains are still jam packed. Logically, the conclusion is that there are really A LOT of pple during peak hours and its not really the operator's fault.
I work around town (newton area). The Woodlands line is ALWAYS packed, even at around 7+, 8... and train frequencies are like, 2 - 4 mins.
The train only eases up around the Bishan - AMK - Yishun area, where most pple live.
My thinking is that they should probably come up with "express trains" to service the high-volume stations. That way, the large volume of pple can be moved quickly to the more "popular" stations while those who are going to the other stations will not have to endure the crowds of pple who are going to the more "popular" stations.
But even that may not solve all the problems. Frankly, with the congestion and all, companies should really explore more flexible hours and work-from-home arrangements. Commuting is becoming a very inefficient and painful affair. -
I don't know much about the train services up North after Orchard, my observation is restricted to East-West line and South-North (to Orchard).Originally posted by CX:Isn't operating a half empty train a waste of time, energy and money?
They're increased frequency but the trains are still jam packed. Logically, the conclusion is that there are really A LOT of pple during peak hours and its not really the operator's fault.
I work around town (newton area). The Woodlands line is ALWAYS packed, even at around 7+, 8... and train frequencies are like, 2 - 4 mins.
The train only eases up around the Bishan - AMK - Yishun area, where most pple live.
My thinking is that they should probably come up with "express trains" to service the high-volume stations. That way, the large volume of pple can be moved quickly to the more "popular" stations while those who are going to the other stations will not have to endure the crowds of pple who are going to the more "popular" stations.
But even that may not solve all the problems. Frankly, with the congestion and all, companies should really explore more flexible hours and work-from-home arrangements. Commuting is becoming a very inefficient and painful affair.
I don't know about the 2 minutes you mentioned, but it's very very rare that a train comes within 2 minutes of each other during peak hours. It's at least 4 to 5 minutes wait.
During the past, trains really arrive within 2 to 4 minutes of each other.
Flexible working hours, the government should take the lead to make it worthwhile for companies to implement this. Like more tax cuts so as to entice companies to adopt flexible working hours or working from home.
Commuting is inefficient and painful because of the transport authority's inability to handle growth in road traffic and public transport.
What do you expect when all then can ever do is increase ERP charges for a particular road when it is congested? Then when the traffic chooses another alternative road and cause congestion, they put up new ERP gantries to control the congestion. Surely those multi-million dollar salaried ministers have better ideas than us peasants. -
and talk about 1st world, well, maybe not yet.
mrt disruptions are quite often,
expand roads and then incorporate a new bus lane,
it is quite scary if population increase to 6.5M...more usuage, more vehicles, more cars...more breakdown?
-
And THAT's supposed to be a bad thing? 4 to 5 mins / train is a bad thing???Originally posted by maurizio13:I don't know about the 2 minutes you mentioned, but it's very very rare that a train comes within 2 minutes of each other during peak hours. It's at least 4 to 5 minutes wait. -
Do you know who are the share holders or not? Go find out first before making comments.
-
For those dodos out there who don't know to whom does SMRT belong to and are as usual making a fool of themselves again.
More like making extremely good profits for Temasick.
-
Thank you for the info.
I lost the booklet thats y I cannot scan and post the pic. -
No prob.Originally posted by Manager433:Thank you for the info. I lost the booklet thats y I cannot scan and post the pic.
We are earning more money for the "shareholders".
Wahahahaha....... -
LOL no. 9 Lee pineapple company. which lee?
-
deleted.
-
In the begininning, SMRT planning should have forseen the possibility of such incidents; ergo there are only two rails: one in each direction. Why was consideration for a 3rd rail not given? You would think someone would have learnt this lesson from our experience of Sentosa's ancient monorail system.Originally posted by CX:My thinking is that they should probably come up with "express trains" to service the high-volume stations. That way, the large volume of pple can be moved quickly to the more "popular" stations while those who are going to the other stations will not have to endure the crowds of pple who are going to the more "popular" stations.
But even that may not solve all the problems. Frankly, with the congestion and all, companies should really explore more flexible hours and work-from-home arrangements. Commuting is becoming a very inefficient and painful affair.
Not only would a 3rd rail have worked wonders to cater to maintenance, it could also be used as an 'express' track to alternate stations during peak hours to cater to high traffic volume.
The same concept is being applied to buses and so far, it has proven effective, despite having twice the number of buses on the roads during peak periods.
Any attempt to add an additional rail now would no longer be feasible since the space constraints did not explore the possibility of further lateral expansion. Going 'double-decker' track system may be another option. The Jurong East interchange displays some indication of multiple rails interlocking at a single station. Such arrangements would require an extremely competent team to coordinate incoming and outbound trains to prevent accidents.
At least we'll know the dollar value of our SMRT staff will be raised, given such responsibilities. -
I would suppose that the damaged tracks was the result of over packing the trains, the excess weight would cause more wear & tear on the tracks and more damage to the bogie than usual. -
The future of our efficient MRT system, where frequency is reduced so as to pack the trains to the brim for efficiency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbG8nB1rnAU&feature=related -
Who is going to pay for the 3rd track???Originally posted by BillyBong:In the begininning, SMRT planning should have forseen the possibility of such incidents; ergo there are only two rails: one in each direction. Why was consideration for a 3rd rail not given? You would think someone would have learnt this lesson from our experience of Sentosa's ancient monorail system.
Not only would a 3rd rail have worked wonders to cater to maintenance, it could also be used as an 'express' track to alternate stations during peak hours to cater to high traffic volume.
The same concept is being applied to buses and so far, it has proven effective, despite having twice the number of buses on the roads during peak periods.
Any attempt to add an additional rail now would no longer be feasible since the space constraints did not explore the possibility of further lateral expansion. Going 'double-decker' track system may be another option. The Jurong East interchange displays some indication of multiple rails interlocking at a single station. Such arrangements would require an extremely competent team to coordinate incoming and outbound trains to prevent accidents.
At least we'll know the dollar value of our SMRT staff will be raised, given such responsibilities.
Even MTR dun even have 3rd track
-
Why is the limit of imagination in this thread capped at HK's MTR?Originally posted by sbst275:Who is going to pay for the 3rd track???
Even MTR dun even have 3rd track
Must we adopt the ideas and policies of our neighbours all the time? Since we pay top dollar to our ministers, surely we expect top value as well? Instead of being a follower, we should be a trend setter instead.
The concept of a 3rd rail is not new. The european eurail system has numerous auxuiliary rails to benefit their maintenance locos. Usually these tracks run for 2-3km before merging. They are also used to channel trains to separate platforms.
Expanding on this plan may be a prudent investment, given that our setting is a cityscape, with volumous traffic and rush-hour commuters.
And by the way, who do you THINK has been paying and paying for SMRT services...and still enduring fee hikes with no equivalent improvement in quality transportation? -
http://blublur.blogspot.com/2008/01/ugly-side-of-smrt.html
business objective criticisms
- safe, reliable and friendly. Where is the timeliness? It is a known fact that everyone had a problem of boarding trains during peak hours. Some might even have to wait for 1-2 trains at interchange stations, such as Jurong East on the way to City.
the frequency is an issue, yet officials attempt to cover it up with statistics and figures. However, there is an issue.
from the annual report, passenger trips have increased 11% from 2002 - 389.7m to 434.9m. However, car kilometres operated dropped from 81.4m to 77.1m. SMRTC has been aggressively cutting costs by cramming as much as people into each train and reducing frequencies since 2004, to maximise shareholder value. Thus, what is observed is simply increasing ridership, yet the supply of trains remained the same, and even dropped.
on the buses side, this what SMRT had to say:
service schedules were refined to optimise operating costs. This included school holiday
schedules to match changes in student travel patterns, split-shift duties for services with distinctively high demand during peak hours, and parking of split-shift buses at interchanges to reduce off-service mileage.
this is not innovative. It is only innovative if the group had taken care of the operating fundamentals of the bus subsidiary. In the past 3-4 years, SMRT Buses has only introduced a handful of services for the transport hubs under its charge. In contrast, SBS Transit has overwhelming introduced too many services and initiatives that SMRTB is unable to match. While ridership has increased with additional services and demands on existing routes, SMRTB has not purchased any new buses so far.
the latest service failure showed its vulnerability. SMRTB came up with 40 buses, probably handpicked from a variety of services. It had to call for help from SBST to provide another 30 buses. This is unexpected from a multi-modal operator. It should have additional vehicles to cope with reasonable scaled emergencies. As only 4 stations were affected, this is considered to be reasonable for SMRT to handle by itself. -
http://onelesscar.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/well-spotted/
By zm the studious bloke:
from the annual report, passenger trips have increased 11% from 2002 - 389.7m to 434.9m. However, car kilometres operated dropped from 81.4m to 77.1m. SMRTC has been aggressively cutting costs by cramming as much as people into each train and reducing frequencies since 2004, to maximise shareholder value.
You can download SMRTÂ’s annual report here.
I have excerpted the relevant table from the 2007 annual report:
SMRTÂ’s cost-cutting
This shows that the more crowded trains arenÂ’t just an illusion of grumpy commuters. Average operating car occupancy rose by more than 10% between 2002 and 2007.
Now look at their financial statistics:
SMRTÂ’s 2007 profits
Railway EBITDA per car kilometre, a measure of profit, rose by more than 10% as well between 2002 and 2007. Total car kilometres had dropped, but by only about 5%, so overall their profits rose.
All this makes their following self-praise rather nauseating:
patting yourself on the back
You know that someone is lying through his teeth when he uses the phrase ‘quantum leap’. -
Damn, for a moment there, I thought that was a scene from the local MRT.Originally posted by maurizio13:The future of our efficient MRT system, where frequency is reduced so as to pack the trains to the brim for efficiency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbG8nB1rnAU&feature=related -
again, who is going to pay for and the long term maintenance the 3rd track?Originally posted by BillyBong:Why is the limit of imagination in this thread capped at HK's MTR?
Must we adopt the ideas and policies of our neighbours all the time? Since we pay top dollar to our ministers, surely we expect top value as well? Instead of being a follower, we should be a trend setter instead.
The concept of a 3rd rail is not new. The european eurail system has numerous auxuiliary rails to benefit their maintenance locos. Usually these tracks run for 2-3km before merging. They are also used to channel trains to separate platforms.
Expanding on this plan may be a prudent investment, given that our setting is a cityscape, with volumous traffic and rush-hour commuters.
And by the way, who do you THINK has been paying and paying for SMRT services...and still enduring fee hikes with no equivalent improvement in quality transportation?
Another thing, those Euro line can you specify are they inter state (Like KTM) or are they Metro lines (MRT or MTR) -
You seem to visualize the 3rd rail as a mere 'maintenance' support line rather than a necessary supplement.Originally posted by sbst275:again, who is going to pay for and the long term maintenance the 3rd track?
Another thing, those Euro line can you specify are they inter state (Like KTM) or are they Metro lines (MRT or MTR)
Let me re-emphasize: this rail could solve a potential train drain issue that is plaguing SMRT; track maintenance is now of secondary interest. So what is the purpose of your question? Surely the 'maintenance' costs of this line should lie with SMRT if they decide to build it? With the millions they're earning being the sole proprietor of a train network, along with the added buffer of price hikes, surely your question becomes moot?
The eurail is obviously an intercity line. That does not take away the advantages it offers in track organization in relation to an intracity metro line. -
Why are you saying the 3rd line is for maintenance? Even w/ the 3rd track, more work is needed to maintain this 3rd track! Alrdy it's not possible for the night trucks to grind or repair every stretch of the track daily, you wanna add the workload w/o looking at adding night trucksOriginally posted by BillyBong:You seem to visualize the 3rd rail as a mere 'maintenance' support line rather than a necessary supplement.
Let me re-emphasize: this rail could solve a potential train drain issue that is plaguing SMRT; track maintenance is now of secondary interest. So what is the purpose of your question? Surely the 'maintenance' costs of this line should lie with SMRT if they decide to build it? With the millions they're earning being the sole proprietor of a train network, along with the added buffer of price hikes, surely your question becomes moot?
The eurail is obviously an intercity line. That does not take away the advantages it offers in track organization in relation to an intracity metro line.
Or you wanna tell me since our minister are paid world class wages, they sholud be different, build a 3rd track and leave it w/o maintenance... to be used only when in incident...
Later on you realise tracks lack of maintenance and end up rust or watever, the track end up useless...
So later ppl will say how come cannot use... By then dun blame the PAP, it's your idea
You alrdy said it's intercity... You know how big and how many intercity services are there from the main train station?
The metro are still 2 tracks per route. Maintenance issues has to be looked at -
i dont take MRT nor buses often. compare to the country i been to, singapore public transport system are among the better ones.
1. when we criticse the busses delay, this are quite unavoidable at times due to the cities congestion in peak hours. i strongly urge singapore govt to take bold steps to stop car entering the cities from 8-9am. this will ensure the buses will flow smoothly and force drivers like myself to take buses and trains.
2. the cause and effect of privatise the public transport system.
SMRT are listed and need to answer to shareholders( profits, divideds).
who are the real beneficiares? the investment company who pump in hundreds of millions to snap by SMRT shares and collects hundreds of millions of singapore heartlanders hard earn money to pay the top notch salary to the americans and europeans CEOs. -
Obviously a 3rd track requires maintenance. Stating the obvious does not add substance....duhOriginally posted by sbst275:Why are you saying the 3rd line is for maintenance? Even w/ the 3rd track, more work is needed to maintain this 3rd track! Alrdy it's not possible for the night trucks to grind or repair every stretch of the track daily, you wanna add the workload w/o looking at adding night trucks
Or you wanna tell me since our minister are paid world class wages, they sholud be different, build a 3rd track and leave it w/o maintenance... to be used only when in incident...
Later on you realise tracks lack of maintenance and end up rust or watever, the track end up useless...
So later ppl will say how come cannot use... By then dun blame the PAP, it's your idea
You alrdy said it's intercity... You know how big and how many intercity services are there from the main train station?
The metro are still 2 tracks per route. Maintenance issues has to be looked at
And no, the 3rd track was a suggestion, not a godsend. Ministers are free to decide upon their final course of action. There are probably other solutions that don't require such a high capital investment. The real question is whether Raymond lim has an inking about how to solve this very REAL problem.
Yes, i did mention intercity, but how does that constrict our minds from expanding on possibilities? Must it be a strictly one to one comparison? So what if intercity trains run on larger axels, require wider tracks etc etc, The gist lies in the concept - with a 3rd track, there are more options. Servicing this supplementary track should fall back on similar applications already in practice.
Building 3rd track is therefore NOT insurance; it's process improvement. A privatised company would definitely find creative ways to keep their customers happy, rather than sit in board rooms and collect fat pay checks, even if it didn't include building a 3rd track. Not to mention the VERY HEALTHY profits (not sales but operating profits) SMRT has been raking in year in and year out.
What has SMRT done? Their last significant improvement was to upgrade the existing trains to the new Jap imports, offering more spacious standing space. Since then, the only noteworthy addition is more CCTVs since people started committing suicide on their tracks, and then only for their own benefit. And this only came because an internal inquiry determined that their existing CCTVs did not record but merely displayed real time footage for observation.
Cheaper, better, faster is definitely not one of their hallmarks. -
If some of you here is the CEO , I'm sure within 3 years, company close shop.
-
SMRT has certain performance criteria to meet.
I'm not surprised if a fine from LTA is along the way for the incident.
Comparing the frequency, I'd say one is more probably to get stuck on the expressway during peak hours than suffer a delay due to train breakdown.