Services that needs/does not need certain buses
-
Originally posted by dfs24:
Yes, the bus are put on routes they can serve most efficiently, such that the overall cost of running the network is lower, but I don't quite agree with the "more passengers to offset the cost" theory. At the end of the day, whatever bus they put on the route doesn't matter, because the passengers will still take it, and the fare collected is still the same, and the total revenue is the same.
Compare a Trident on 119 and a Trident on 80.At the end of the day, which services will bring in more revenue which allows the bus to break-even (or a matter of fact, allows profit to be earn.).
Before moving on, we must always remember that there are always cost involved in running the bus. If the bus is being put on service where the demand is low (119 for example), how much revenue do you expect to earn from the few students and aunties ? On the other hand, if u deploy the bus (on say 80) where the demand is alot higher than 119. Common sense will tell u that at the end of the day, it is 80 who will be bringing in the extra revenue for the company as compared to 119 which might even incurred loss.
Yes, no matter what happens, the bus is still running on the road. BUT the fare collected and the total revenue will never be the same. As it is very clear that the demand for different services is totally different (as stated in the example.).
-
Originally posted by sBs_boy:
Compare a Trident on 119 and a Trident on 80.At the end of the day, which services will bring in more revenue which allows the bus to break-even (or a matter of fact, allows profit to be earn.).
Before moving on, we must always remember that there are always cost involved in running the bus. If the bus is being put on service where the demand is low (119 for example), how much revenue do you expect to earn from the few students and aunties ? On the other hand, if u deploy the bus (on say 80) where the demand is alot higher than 119. Common sense will tell u that at the end of the day, it is 80 who will be bringing in the extra revenue for the company as compared to 119 which might even incurred loss.
Yes, no matter what happens, the bus is still running on the road. BUT the fare collected and the total revenue will never be the same. As it is very clear that the demand for different services is totally different (as stated in the example.).
I think you don't quite get my point. My point is this. For example, if running the trident on 89 or on some other service which require DD, and the other service cost the same to run the trident on it, then it does not matter. So what if 89 might bring in more money, the SUM of revenue is still the same, and the SUM of running the buses is the same.
So for further illustration, let's say Service 89 and Service 2. Assuming I now have 1 trident and 1 Vo3x. Let's say the cost of running the trident on both routes are similar. It does not matter if I put the Vo3X on 89 or on 2. Because at the end of the day, i have to pay operating cost for both the trident and the Vo3X, and the revenue is still the same. So what if Sv2 might have higher loadings, and more fare paying passengers compared to 89. I can put the Vo3X on Sv2, and the trident on Sv89. At the end of the day, my profit remains unchanged.
So my conclusion is, as long as SBST finds the route which is most cost efficient for a certain model of the bus, they will put it on that route. They won't be bothered whether there are higher pax loading to offset the cost. This is because on a macro scale, the revenue is fixed. Put a Vo3X on a route with lower pax loading and a trident on a route with higher pax loading is not the way to go. But instead, it is to find the route which will cost less to run a trident on compared to a VO3x.
-
double post!
-
Originally posted by dfs24:
I think you don't quite get my point. My point is this. For example, if running the trident on 89 or on some other service which require DD, and the other service cost the same to run the trident on it, then it does not matter. So what if 89 might bring in more money, the SUM of revenue is still the same, and the SUM of running the buses is the same.
So for further illustration, let's say Service 89 and Service 2. Assuming I now have 1 trident and 1 Vo3x. Let's say the cost of running the trident on both routes are similar. It does not matter if I put the Vo3X on 89 or on 2. Because at the end of the day, i have to pay operating cost for both the trident and the Vo3X, and the revenue is still the same. So what if Sv2 might have higher loadings, and more fare paying passengers compared to 89. I can put the Vo3X on Sv2, and the trident on Sv89. At the end of the day, my profit remains unchanged.
So my conclusion is, as long as SBST finds the route which is most cost efficient for a certain model of the bus, they will put it on that route. They won't be bothered whether there are higher pax loading to offset the cost. This is because on a macro scale, the revenue is fixed. Put a Vo3X on a route with lower pax loading and a trident on a route with higher pax loading is not the way to go. But instead, it is to find the route which will cost less to run a trident on compared to a VO3x.
I agree.At the end of the day, it is the operating cost that is affected, rather than the revenue brought in.
But rather obviously, SBST does not quite follow this, so.......
-
Originally posted by SBS2695H:
Service 151 should have at least one DD long ago as it serves students in NUS.
151 cannot have DD. -
Originally posted by dfs24:
I think you don't quite get my point. My point is this. For example, if running the trident on 89 or on some other service which require DD, and the other service cost the same to run the trident on it, then it does not matter. So what if 89 might bring in more money, the SUM of revenue is still the same, and the SUM of running the buses is the same.
So for further illustration, let's say Service 89 and Service 2. Assuming I now have 1 trident and 1 Vo3x. Let's say the cost of running the trident on both routes are similar. It does not matter if I put the Vo3X on 89 or on 2. Because at the end of the day, i have to pay operating cost for both the trident and the Vo3X, and the revenue is still the same. So what if Sv2 might have higher loadings, and more fare paying passengers compared to 89. I can put the Vo3X on Sv2, and the trident on Sv89. At the end of the day, my profit remains unchanged.
So my conclusion is, as long as SBST finds the route which is most cost efficient for a certain model of the bus, they will put it on that route. They won't be bothered whether there are higher pax loading to offset the cost. This is because on a macro scale, the revenue is fixed. Put a Vo3X on a route with lower pax loading and a trident on a route with higher pax loading is not the way to go. But instead, it is to find the route which will cost less to run a trident on compared to a VO3x.
Let me put your point in a simplified form and my own viewsOperating Cost
Trident > VO3x. This is fact. No room for argument.Revenue
Depends on route and pax load. Your point being revenue is the same is because whether u put VO or Trident on the route at that timing, the revenue earned would be the same if you deploy the other model on that route at that timing, ceteris peribus. Bus on timing mentioned here, not pax load.Utilisation Rate
However, if it is about the utilisation rate of the bus, I would say both services have their highs and lows in according to a typical weekday. Assuming both buses on both routes have the same utilisation rate, it doesnt matter which bus model you put on the service.Fuel Consumption
This is where you decide which model goes to which service. Factors considered is route structure (straight route / circuitous route / express route / CBD route) and traffic conditions (start-stop traffic / continuous heavy traffic / moderate traffic / light traffic). These 2 are the key factors in considering which route to put a certain model on. Look at why VSOs are taken off 168.Staff/Company's Decision
The last point is how powerful the service leader is to be able to convince the starter to allow a certain bus to be perm on his route. Another case is made by the company to put a certain bus model on a service (say B9s and K230s, of course excluding cameos)What I feel is that the company is looking at the profit on a per unit basis. Say a trident on S89 - I have these much pax, these much mileage, these much fuel consumption. The pax type travel long distances = pay more, as well as more full paying pax than subsidised pax = more revenue. Compare a VO on S2 - pax load consists of a very even mixture of full paying pax and subsidised pax. They mostly travel short distances except for the Upp Changi Rd North side - hampering on profits. Mileage wise is start stop traffic though its a direct straight route.
Though i agree the sum of the revenue is the same as the end of the day, however if you look into a per-unit profit basis, its totally different.
-
Originally posted by service_238:
Let me put your point in a simplified form and my own viewsOperating Cost
Trident > VO3x. This is fact. No room for argument.Revenue
Depends on route and pax load. Your point being revenue is the same is because whether u put VO or Trident on the route at that timing, the revenue earned would be the same if you deploy the other model on that route at that timing, ceteris peribus. Bus on timing mentioned here, not pax load.Utilisation Rate
However, if it is about the utilisation rate of the bus, I would say both services have their highs and lows in according to a typical weekday. Assuming both buses on both routes have the same utilisation rate, it doesnt matter which bus model you put on the service.Fuel Consumption
This is where you decide which model goes to which service. Factors considered is route structure (straight route / circuitous route / express route / CBD route) and traffic conditions (start-stop traffic / continuous heavy traffic / moderate traffic / light traffic). These 2 are the key factors in considering which route to put a certain model on. Look at why VSOs are taken off 168.Staff/Company's Decision
The last point is how powerful the service leader is to be able to convince the starter to allow a certain bus to be perm on his route. Another case is made by the company to put a certain bus model on a service (say B9s and K230s, of course excluding cameos)What I feel is that the company is looking at the profit on a per unit basis. Say a trident on S89 - I have these much pax, these much mileage, these much fuel consumption. The pax type travel long distances = pay more, as well as more full paying pax than subsidised pax = more revenue. Compare a VO on S2 - pax load consists of a very even mixture of full paying pax and subsidised pax. They mostly travel short distances except for the Upp Changi Rd North side - hampering on profits. Mileage wise is start stop traffic though its a direct straight route.
Though i agree the sum of the revenue is the same as the end of the day, however if you look into a per-unit profit basis, its totally different.
Yes. You've are more or less correct. My point of view is that, HQ will take a macro view. To reiterate, I think HQ does not care about pax load on a specific service. As long as the service needs a DD, then they will put a DD. Now the question of which model of the DD to put on which service, it will depend on the route. They will put the DD with the lowest possible operating cost out of all the different models available. This way, the cost is lowered.
Only cost can be lowered since revenue is more or less fixed. At the end of the day, they have to run a fixed no. of buses in the network. So the way to go, is to run the same no. of buses with a lower cost. How to do it? Put buses on routes which they are designed to serve.
Unless they can find a way to put tridents as spares and deploy VO3x in replacement of ALL tridents, and I believe that the day will never come. So, I agree that Tridents are on 89 most likely because they run most efficiently on 89, but this has nothing to do with 89's pax load.
-
Originally posted by dfs24:
Unless they can find a way to put tridents as spares and deploy VO3x in replacement of ALL tridents, and I believe that the day will never come. So, I agree that Tridents are on 89 most likely because they run most efficiently on 89, but this has nothing to do with 89's pax load.
It has something to do with S89's pax load because alot of pax take the service during peak hours which justifies the need for a DD. If not you wont see a Trident on 89.So its like fuel efficiency + high demand = S89 trident. I believe deployment works both ways.
-
Originally posted by service_238:
It has something to do with S89's pax load because alot of pax take the service during peak hours which justifies the need for a DD. If not you wont see a Trident on 89.So its like fuel efficiency + high demand = S89 trident. I believe deployment works both ways.
I said that it has nothing to do with pax load. This is because I was refering specifically to services which has DD slots. For example, it does not matter if we are comparing Sv2 or Sv89 because both service has got DD slots.
-
Originally posted by dfs24:
I said that it has nothing to do with pax load. This is because I was refering specifically to services which has DD slots. For example, it does not matter if we are comparing Sv2 or Sv89 because both service has got DD slots.
Service 89 brings majority of the passengers boarding from Changi Airport Cargo Complex to Hougang/Sengkang area, where they can link to other parts of the country.Service 2 serves Changi Village which does not have a fixed density for passenger load.
-
Originally posted by Oceane:
Service 89 brings majority of the passengers boarding from Changi Airport Cargo Complex to Hougang/Sengkang area, where they can link to other parts of the country.Service 2 serves Changi Village which does not have a fixed density for passenger load.
Service 2 also serves the Chinatown area so it may have a high load when there's an event at Chinatown. But I think it would be good to have the Tridents on shorthaul services in HDB areas where there is not so much idling on the roads. -
how about 52, 162, 410 getting S Shift ADDs? sin ming gang.
any views.
-
Originally posted by SBS2695H:
Service 2 also serves the Chinatown area so it may have a high load when there's an event at Chinatown. But I think it would be good to have the Tridents on shorthaul services in HDB areas where there is not so much idling on the roads.
I didnt know HDB areas have no traffic lights. -
Originally posted by SBS9888Y:
how about 52, 162, 410 getting S Shift ADDs?
any views.
Service 410 ever had NAC DDs in the past, followed by a VSO in 2005, but not for now anymore
-
Originally posted by TIB1018B:
Service 410 ever had NAC DDs in the past, followed by a VSO in 2005, but not for now anymoreshould they get? seen 410s packed to door often.
-
Originally posted by Oceane:
Service 89 brings majority of the passengers boarding from Changi Airport Cargo Complex to Hougang/Sengkang area, where they can link to other parts of the country.Service 2 serves Changi Village which does not have a fixed density for passenger load.
Seems like you still don't get my point. Let me give you numbers to work with. Assuming that Sv89 brings in $200 per DD slot in a day. Assuming that Sv2 brings in $150 per DD slot in a day. So as to make things simple, we will assume that SBST only operates one DD slot on Sv89 and one DD slot on Sv2 in a day, and SBST has a fleet of 1 VO3X and 1 Trident. So now, let's say it cost SBST $50 to run the trident on Sv89, and it cost SBST $40 to run the VO3X on Sv89. For service 2, it cost SBST $55 to run the trident on it and again, $40 to run the VO3X on it. This is because the route Sv89 travels on is more suitable for the Trident. Thus what SBST will do is to put the Trident on a route which cost less to run, in this case Sv89. The pax load on either service does not matter because at the end of the day, the revenue is $350. And the cost would be $90, compared to $95 if the trident was to carry out Sv2, and the VO3X on Sv89.
-
Originally posted by dfs24:
Seems like you still don't get my point. Let me give you numbers to work with. Assuming that Sv89 brings in $200 per DD slot in a day. Assuming that Sv2 brings in $150 per DD slot in a day. So as to make things simple, we will assume that SBST only operates one DD slot on Sv89 and one DD slot on Sv2 in a day, and SBST has a fleet of 1 VO3X and 1 Trident. So now, let's say it cost SBST $50 to run the trident on Sv89, and it cost SBST $40 to run the VO3X on Sv89. For service 2, it cost SBST $55 to run the trident on it and again, $40 to run the VO3X on it. This is because the route Sv89 travels on is more suitable for the Trident. Thus what SBST will do is to put the Trident on a route which cost less to run, in this case Sv89. The pax load on either service does not matter because at the end of the day, the revenue is $350. And the cost would be $90, compared to $95 if the trident was to carry out Sv2, and the VO3X on Sv89.
How are you able to assume that Service 2 and Service 89 brings in the same revenue per day?89 is more suitable I do agree, because it runs on the expressways.
-
Originally posted by SBS9888Y:
how about 52, 162, 410 getting S Shift ADDs? sin ming gang.
any views.
52 is a must get one. Mostly by the time Service 52 turns into Bishan ST 22 the bus would be packed with people heading West. I suppose the most affected ones are those with SLBP timings between the time frame of 8am, 10am, 12am, 2pm... -
Originally posted by Oceane:
How are you able to assume that Service 2 and Service 89 brings in the same revenue per day?89 is more suitable I do agree, because it runs on the expressways.
The vaule of the revenue here is not important. What I wanted to show is that the revenue is constant. It does not matter if they bring in the same amount of money a day, or if Sv2 brings in more than Sv89, or if Sv89 brings in more than Sv2. My point is still stands.
-
Originally posted by dfs24:
The vaule of the revenue here is not important. What I wanted to show is that the revenue is constant. It does not matter if they bring in the same amount of money a day, or if Sv2 brings in more than Sv89, or if Sv89 brings in more than Sv2. My point is still stands.
If revenues for services are constant, why do SBST withdraw certain services? -
Originally posted by Oceane:
If revenues for services are constant, why do SBST withdraw certain services?
It is not the revenue per svc that remains constant, but the net revenue that ALL svcs bring forth is what counts.So revenue is not the reason why tridents stay on 89 but rather the operating costs. While profit is indeed a reason, it is more because of the cost component in the profit rather than the revenue part that lends more weight to the argument.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
It is not the revenue per svc that remains constant, but the net revenue that ALL svcs bring forth is what counts.So revenue is not the reason why tridents stay on 89 but rather the operating costs. While profit is indeed a reason, it is more because of the cost component in the profit rather than the revenue part that lends more weight to the argument.
Its the major factor. But we cannot rule out revenue too.89 uses Tridents so freely because it uses the TPE to get to CGACC, which Tridents are capable of speeding.
-
Originally posted by Oceane:
Its the major factor. But we cannot rule out revenue too.89 uses Tridents so freely because it uses the TPE to get to CGACC, which Tridents are capable of speeding.
But consider this:Wouldn't it be that even if trident and VO swop for say 89 and 74, the number of passengers at the end of the day would still remain equal for both svcs? Both being DDs, let's leave out SDs for the time being.
So revenue is not a main factor but operating cost is, subject to traffic conditions.
Although I also believe cost factors are not major factors in type deployment unless the difference in costs become too great to ignore which I believe can hence be overlooked in most cases.
-
Originally posted by Oceane:
Its the major factor. But we cannot rule out revenue too.89 uses Tridents so freely because it uses the TPE to get to CGACC, which Tridents are capable of speeding.
Is it? Then how about my Sv62 Trident and 997A? -
Originally posted by service_238:
I didnt know HDB areas have no traffic lights.
Of course there are traffic lights but there are not so many vehicles on the roads in HDB areas so the bus can travel at normal speed when not at a traffic light.