Our world class SMRT and a cacophony of worms...
-
OkOriginally posted by BillyBong:Obviously a 3rd track requires maintenance. Stating the obvious does not add substance....duh
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.
No one would go and design mulit tracks for a metro system simply because only 1 route would use it at 1 time
Unlike those intercity, at 1 time there can be 4 or 5 trains travelling to different end destinations but right here, Tampines side only EWL is using at one time and it'll always be only ONE...
No engineer in their clear mind would go and build an unecessary complicated system for nothing which would end up costly to maintain
Another issue is signal, do you how complicating would it go to? -
Since you have a knack for complicating situations which demand simplicity, let me say again:Originally posted by sbst275:Ok
No one would go and design mulit tracks for a metro system simply because only 1 route would use it at 1 time
Unlike those intercity, at 1 time there can be 4 or 5 trains travelling to different end destinations but right here, Tampines side only EWL is using at one time and it'll always be only ONE...
No engineer in their clear mind would go and build an unecessary complicated system for nothing which would end up costly to maintain
It is close to improbable that SMRT will conceive a supplementary line now. Had they done so at the inital inception of such a train line, it would have provided them options now.
Having said that, for the overland tracks heading towards the city, it is still possible to expand the system to factor in additonal tracks and carriages to offset the high commuter traffic. It is however, nigh impossible to extend that into the underground system now, because of the on-going construction of the circle line, and high capital outlay to finance such a venture at this stage.
The only option left is to increase the number of trains to service peak hours, increase the frequency between trains and practice 'station-hopping' to ensure alternate trains have sufficient vacancy for commuters.
These methods, will eventually max out because of the sheer numbers and the physical limitations of the existing line. The only other option left to SMRT, will be to provide parallel lines leading into the station. Such a plan will effectively split the commuting traffic between the two lines, possibly reducing jam-packed trains and solving the issue in the long run. But at considerable costs, and possibly more price hikes to the public.Another issue is signal, do you how complicating would it go to?
Should our people be constrained by complex algorithms? We want to be #1, yet when push comes to shove, we shrink back when faced with these challenges.
We have managed to introduce pilotless trains into service; can complex signal change be any more complicated? -
Can can can
We go dig 6 underground tunnel for Raffles Place there
Since you said of 3 tracks (3 each for NSL and EWL) -
In response to your cynical post, i would say: why not?Originally posted by sbst275:Can can can
We go dig 6 underground tunnel for Raffles Place there
Since you said of 3 tracks (3 each for NSL and EWL)
Why is it so un-feasible to conceive of additional tracks linking each of the existing stations?
We worry about the polar ice caps melting and SG being submerged. LKY claims that building dykes to keep the flood waters out is a solution, why not go one step further and consider underwater cities?
We talk so much about underground shopping malls, and in fact Paris already has one, so why should living underwater be so unfathomable?
Similarly, why should we shun the idea of additional underground tracks and alternatives as fiction? -
Dear Nainex52,
Price hikes are in response to higer costs. Higher costs means your savings are now worth less. That's bad when you retire. Governments worry about those sorts of things. -
Dear BillyBong
Your idea has merit to benefit customers but SMRT will spend money building lines only if they can make money from that. Their goal is to make money. That's the goal of all companys.
It may be more productive to look for a solution that both benefits the customers as well as makes money for the company. That solution would have a better chance of being taken seriously. -
benefit for customers???Originally posted by phil30k:Dear BillyBong
Your idea has merit to benefit customers but SMRT will spend money building lines only if they can make money from that. Their goal is to make money. That's the goal of all companys.
It may be more productive to look for a solution that both benefits the customers as well as makes money for the company. That solution would have a better chance of being taken seriously.
how do passengers feel paying a high fare for travelling in a train squeezing wif bunch of crowded pple? what give? -
I'm not sure I understand what you said, I'll try to paraphrase. Correct me if I am wrong.Originally posted by 798:benefit for customers???
how do passengers feel paying a high fare for travelling in a train squeezing wif bunch of crowded pple? what give?
I think the benefit to the customer should be the priority of the company.
The discomfort suffered by passengers on crowded trains as well as the high fares are resulting in a high level of customer dissatisfaction. How does the SMRT compensate the passengers?
As I said, the priority of the company is to make money. Unless the service is so poor that passengers stop using the service and they start losing money, I don't forsee any changes.
SMRT will only compensate passenger if you make a claim against them. No company gives money back unless failing to do so will result in the loss of more money.