Why SMRT don't have.....
-
Why SMRT don't have double-decker buses? Any reasons for it?
-
got super long oredi mah
-
why must have...
later cannot go in tunnel... -
May be one of the reasons. But feel SMRT shld acquire DDs for their hgh passenger volume routes, e.g 190, 960
-
Basically the "trademarks" for SMRT Buses are its bendy buses whereas for SBS Transit are DDs
-
I believe all the expressway tunnels allow DDs... 4.5m...Originally posted by alvin-ncs:why must have...
later cannot go in tunnel...
SMRT no DDs because....
They cheapskate... want to pile more standing people onboard a bus...
-
For me, I consider double-decks to be more dangerous than articulated buses. There had been many cases of DDs flipping over and cartwheeling at high speeds.Sometimes even at low speed! Hence articulated, or 'bendy' buses are safer.
SMRT made a good decision to do so, but they would still have other problems to worry about.
Articulated buses need larger engines, except for the fact that it destroys planet Earth faster, the powerful engines mean faster acceleration, hence controlling becomes a problem. The following video explains itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cir0xrB-f4
Get the idea?
For a DD, it would not be possible; it would have flipped once it started. But articulated buses need more control, so more should be looked into the matter. Many of you would have experienced a articulated bus speeding down the street in balant ignorance of other road users. High acceleration brings about a higher speed, so adequate training and discipine by drivers would bring about a better riding experience for all. -
Excuse me, but I wish to know from where you got these notions from because it is totally un-true. DD more dangerous? Have you heard of the term 'jack-knife'? If you ask me, both are very dangerous especially when it is coming straight at you! And did you know that the B10M and the B10MA had the same engine? The O405 and O405G basically have the same engine as well. Same goes for the L94UB and L94UA. So how come you say artic have bigger engines than normal buses? Bigger in terms of what? If in terms of money then I would agree. And even if they have a larger engine, the engine power is used to move more weight so how come it can accelerate faster? And since when does a higher acceleration equals a higher speed? Higer acceleration simply means you will reach the top speed in less time.Originally posted by jetabt767400:For me, I consider double-decks to be more dangerous than articulated buses. There had been many cases of DDs flipping over and cartwheeling at high speeds.Sometimes even at low speed! Hence articulated, or 'bendy' buses are safer.
SMRT made a good decision to do so, but they would still have other problems to worry about.
Articulated buses need larger engines, except for the fact that it destroys planet Earth faster, the powerful engines mean faster acceleration, hence controlling becomes a problem. The following video explains itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cir0xrB-f4
Get the idea?
For a DD, it would not be possible; it would have flipped once it started. But articulated buses need more control, so more should be looked into the matter. Many of you would have experienced a articulated bus speeding down the street in balant ignorance of other road users. High acceleration brings about a higher speed, so adequate training and discipine by drivers would bring about a better riding experience for all.
SMRT didn't buy DD because they don't have the facilities for DDs. If they buy DDs, they would have to build a new depot for storage, service and maintenance. All this cost lot of money. Next time, please think rationally. -
IMO the 1 thing SMRT buses must improve is their seats...
some alrdy have abit of cushion to it but it seems to me like most of them are those hard plastic with a thin layer of carpeted material thing on the seat.
travel long journey @ss will ache man. -
Why SMRT never buy more newer buses after the habit bendies ??
-
Want to reuse ex-CSS old Nissan buses instead of buying new busesOriginally posted by stooper:They cheapskate... want to pile more standing people onboard a bus... 
-
Hello, please relax.Originally posted by The_Bus_Guide:Excuse me, but I wish to know from where you got these notions from because it is totally un-true. DD more dangerous? Have you heard of the term 'jack-knife'? If you ask me, both are very dangerous especially when it is coming straight at you! And did you know that the B10M and the B10MA had the same engine? The O405 and O405G basically have the same engine as well. Same goes for the L94UB and L94UA. So how come you say artic have bigger engines than normal buses? Bigger in terms of what? If in terms of money then I would agree. And even if they have a larger engine, the engine power is used to move more weight so how come it can accelerate faster? And since when does a higher acceleration equals a higher speed? Higer acceleration simply means you will reach the top speed in less time.
SMRT didn't buy DD because they don't have the facilities for DDs. If they buy DDs, they would have to build a new depot for storage, service and maintenance. All this cost lot of money. Next time, please think rationally.
If you want to be aggressive, the net might not be a good place to do so. On a side note, you never know who is behind each nickname, but you have scolded a well-tempered person, who is just a noope who consider these comments as comments.
Through my experience, artic-buses do have faster accelerations, and in most cases too. This WILL defer from person to person, as our senses are all different.
Do you want a cup of coffee? Or you did not see the hot-linked video?
If you did see the video, artic-buses' dangers can be seen.
Facilities, artic-buses do need large facilities as well. I can see that Kranji Depot is filled up to its capacity, hence DDs would not be able to park there.
Higher acceleration means reachin maximum speed quickly, yes, but this confuses other motorists as well.
Take the Boeing 757 airliner for example (its ok if you do not know, this is a bus forum). The airliner is designed as domestic transport, and hence when it climbs or decends, it take a much steeper slope. It needs to reach the cruising height quickly. The power-to-weight ratio is also much larger than other airliners. In the 1980s, there were several fatal accidents involving other smaller aircraft, when they went into a 757's wake turbulence.
Same thing here, artic-buses behave differently from a single deck or double deck bus, which only has one segment. This poses problems to other motorists. I am NOT saying that artic-buses and DDs are dangerous, BUT they need different handling from 'normal' buses.
My apologies if I offended you, but this seems to be a common problem in sgforums, I will get used to it. -
No offence taken. If you see the state of this forum, sometimes you can just snap. Coffee makes me sleepy, thank you. I have to admit the previous post was a tad too spicy but I'm cool now. Hope you're cool too. And yes, I do know about planes.Originally posted by jetabt767400:Hello, please relax.
If you want to be aggressive, the net might not be a good place to do so. On a side note, you never know who is behind each nickname, but you have scolded a well-tempered person, who is just a noope who consider these comments as comments.
Through my experience, artic-buses do have faster accelerations, and in most cases too. This WILL defer from person to person, as our senses are all different.
Do you want a cup of coffee? Or you did not see the hot-linked video?
If you did see the video, artic-buses' dangers can be seen.
Facilities, artic-buses do need large facilities as well. I can see that Kranji Depot is filled up to its capacity, hence DDs would not be able to park there.
Higher acceleration means reachin maximum speed quickly, yes, but this confuses other motorists as well.
Take the Boeing 757 airliner for example (its ok if you do not know, this is a bus forum). The airliner is designed as domestic transport, and hence when it climbs or decends, it take a much steeper slope. It needs to reach the cruising height quickly. The power-to-weight ratio is also much larger than other airliners. In the 1980s, there were several fatal accidents involving other smaller aircraft, when they went into a 757's wake turbulence.
Same thing here, artic-buses behave differently from a single deck or double deck bus, which only has one segment. This poses problems to other motorists. I am NOT saying that artic-buses and DDs are dangerous, BUT they need different handling from 'normal' buses.
My apologies if I offended you, but this seems to be a common problem in sgforums, I will get used to it.
In a nutshell, there are dangers in a bendy and in a DD but it will not keep you laying awake at night. SMRT is not prepared to take in DDs at the moment and there no plans for it in the near future. -
Their vogelsitze seats are better than the Delgro ones..Originally posted by boredandsleepy:IMO the 1 thing SMRT buses must improve is their seats...
some alrdy have abit of cushion to it but it seems to me like most of them are those hard plastic with a thin layer of carpeted material thing on the seat.
travel long journey @ss will ache man.
original contoured seats from Europe. -
-void-Originally posted by jetabt767400:For me, I consider double-decks to be more dangerous than articulated buses. There had been many cases of DDs flipping over and cartwheeling at high speeds.Sometimes even at low speed! Hence articulated, or 'bendy' buses are safer.
SMRT made a good decision to do so, but they would still have other problems to worry about.
Articulated buses need larger engines, except for the fact that it destroys planet Earth faster, the powerful engines mean faster acceleration, hence controlling becomes a problem. The following video explains itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cir0xrB-f4
Get the idea?
For a DD, it would not be possible; it would have flipped once it started. But articulated buses need more control, so more should be looked into the matter. Many of you would have experienced a articulated bus speeding down the street in balant ignorance of other road users. High acceleration brings about a higher speed, so adequate training and discipine by drivers would bring about a better riding experience for all.
No offence, just decided that I am not completely sure. -
They don't bother one lah ..... they only care about their Trains , haizzzOriginally posted by TIB1018B:Want to reuse ex-CSS old Nissan buses instead of buying new buses
even if SMRTB Buys new buses ... they will only re-use the ''Sauna Nissans''
If only TIBS was around , then i think things should be better these days -
SBST's brand new Volvo B9TL's wheelchair-friendly busesOriginally posted by Volvo Olympian:They don't bother one lah ..... they only care about their Trains , haizzz
even if SMRTB Buys new buses ... they will only re-use the ''Sauna Nissans''
If only TIBS was around , then i think things should be better these days
vs
SMRT's damn old CAC Nissan passenger-unfriendly buses -
i prefer double-deckers to long buses.
-
fyi, artics n dds do not haf larger engines... they juz haf a turbocharger in their engines... O405G, VOs, LOs, VSOs, B10MA all haf turbocharged engines.... this is needed to move the additional weight... n modern buses haf good suspension systems to cope wif all these xtra loads... so chances of jack-knife or flipping is very remote... n im sure all the buses suppliers haf put their buses thru rigorous tests b4 putting them on the roads... so i guess ur worries r quite unfounded...Originally posted by jetabt767400:For me, I consider double-decks to be more dangerous than articulated buses. There had been many cases of DDs flipping over and cartwheeling at high speeds.Sometimes even at low speed! Hence articulated, or 'bendy' buses are safer.
SMRT made a good decision to do so, but they would still have other problems to worry about.
Articulated buses need larger engines, except for the fact that it destroys planet Earth faster, the powerful engines mean faster acceleration, hence controlling becomes a problem. The following video explains itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cir0xrB-f4
Get the idea?
For a DD, it would not be possible; it would have flipped once it started. But articulated buses need more control, so more should be looked into the matter. Many of you would have experienced a articulated bus speeding down the street in balant ignorance of other road users. High acceleration brings about a higher speed, so adequate training and discipine by drivers would bring about a better riding experience for all. -
interesting video u got there...Originally posted by jetabt767400:For me, I consider double-decks to be more dangerous than articulated buses. There had been many cases of DDs flipping over and cartwheeling at high speeds.Sometimes even at low speed! Hence articulated, or 'bendy' buses are safer.
SMRT made a good decision to do so, but they would still have other problems to worry about.
Articulated buses need larger engines, except for the fact that it destroys planet Earth faster, the powerful engines mean faster acceleration, hence controlling becomes a problem. The following video explains itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cir0xrB-f4
Get the idea?
For a DD, it would not be possible; it would have flipped once it started. But articulated buses need more control, so more should be looked into the matter. Many of you would have experienced a articulated bus speeding down the street in balant ignorance of other road users. High acceleration brings about a higher speed, so adequate training and discipine by drivers would bring about a better riding experience for all.
but we r talking about mrt rite? -
Erm... This is bus forum, but if you do like to take a look at the MRT forum, the link is here.Originally posted by alvin-ncs:interesting video u got there...
but we r talking about mrt rite?
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=forum_display&forum_id=2080 -
Sorry, completely off topic. I have no interest in bus but this quote opens my eye.
Quote : Take the Boeing 757 airliner for example (its ok if you do not know, this is a bus forum). The airliner is designed as domestic transport, and hence when it climbs or decends, it take a much steeper slope. It needs to reach the cruising height quickly. The power-to-weight ratio is also much larger than other airliners. In the 1980s, there were several fatal accidents involving other smaller aircraft, when they went into a 757's wake turbulence.
Boeing 757 is not designed only for domestic flights but for intercontinental routes as well. Basically its a narrowbody , larger capacity then the B737 and A320 family. Boeing 757 has 2 types . -200 and -300. Boeing 757-300 is the domestic transport. Boeing 757-200 do flies on longer sectors like the trans-alantic (Continental with winglets) and regional routes (Asia) (China Southern , Air China ..etc ).
Anyway enough about the introduction. There are some points you are wrong. I am working in an airline industry, let me explain to you.
Boeing 757 is powered by either RR or PW engines. I can say so far Boeing 757 is the most powerful aircraft in it's class. The reason why you see B757 climbing steeply is not because it has to reach the attitude fast, The common reason is that the load is pretty light therefore the powerful steep climb.
In the 1980s, there were several fatal accidents involving other smaller aircraft, when they went into a 757's wake turbulence. <--- That is why now the ATC organisation has declared 757 a heavy along wth the widebodies.
Hope this helps.
Any questions , feel free to ask. -
Uh, i just want to say that the video u quote shows a Trailer type articulated bus which would either be front or mid engined, thus the trailer may lose control at high speeds. SMRT artics uses rear engined Pusher type buses which do not have this trailer losing control problem as the mass of the vehicle is at the rear.Originally posted by jetabt767400:For me, I consider double-decks to be more dangerous than articulated buses. There had been many cases of DDs flipping over and cartwheeling at high speeds.Sometimes even at low speed! Hence articulated, or 'bendy' buses are safer.
SMRT made a good decision to do so, but they would still have other problems to worry about.
Articulated buses need larger engines, except for the fact that it destroys planet Earth faster, the powerful engines mean faster acceleration, hence controlling becomes a problem. The following video explains itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cir0xrB-f4
Get the idea?
For a DD, it would not be possible; it would have flipped once it started. But articulated buses need more control, so more should be looked into the matter. Many of you would have experienced a articulated bus speeding down the street in balant ignorance of other road users. High acceleration brings about a higher speed, so adequate training and discipine by drivers would bring about a better riding experience for all. -
not only that...SMRT bendies have a mechanism under the turntable that locks it during e-brake to prevent the trailer from side-swiping.Originally posted by XiaoTaro:Uh, i just want to say that the video u quote shows a Trailer type articulated bus which would either be front or mid engined, thus the trailer may lose control at high speeds. SMRT artics uses rear engined Pusher type buses which do not have this trailer losing control problem as the mass of the vehicle is at the rear. -
What sound/light would indicate that the mechanism is working? In rainy days more than once I saw the second axle locking as it runs over the yellow box at bus stops and the driver tries to stop in time. Except for a jerk which is normal I did not hear any locking sound, so I am not sure.Originally posted by samtlk:not only that...SMRT bendies have a mechanism under the turntable that locks it during e-brake to prevent the trailer from side-swiping.