Services that needs/does not need certain buses
-
Originally posted by Oceane:
If revenues for services are constant, why do SBST withdraw certain services?Simple. This is because they are constantly LOW. The revenue on such services are constantly below cost.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
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.
Bingo. You got what I was trying to say.
-
Originally posted by SBS2695H:
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.
I didnt know everyone in HDB areas take public transport. And no parent fetch their kids to school by car. -
I don't know why you people are arguing over this matter. Let me put it in a VERY simple way:
Each factor has its impact over another factor and all these factors will in turn affect the decision of the bus companies which we have no idea how they came to it unless you are one of them. In short they are all related. These are strategic decisions which you and I won't know unless any of us is part of the management.And I doubt any management level staff will be stupid enough to leak company confidential information here.
-
Originally posted by TIB1018B:
I was wondering how arrangements were made when service 170 was officially converted from a NAC to a FAC service in November 2001
They started doing the modifications on the MK3s way in advance, then put them as spares running on routes like 16 and 33 and many others. When the time finally came for 170 to go FAC, it was followed by a massive flooding of these ex-170 MK2s to various depots e.g AM/BRAM. Even services like 155 got them too! -
Consolidating what was discussed over the previous two pages, I think we can come down to the point that:
- High passenger loads on Service 89 determines it gets DDs, but is NOT the factor that determines it gets a Trident instead of other models.
- The route conditions of Service 89 determines that it is suitable and cost-effective and thus more favourable for Tridents to be deployed on them, as compared to Service 119 for example - holding pax demand constant.
In other words, pax demand is NOT DIRECTLY related to the decision to deploy certain models of buses (but is related to the type: DD vs SD, rigid vs bendy).
-
Originally posted by Oceane:
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...
i agree SLBP should deploy ADD for S Shift. I have been taking 52 for the pass 3 month Duty:13S. the bus is pack from bishan st 22 skip bus stops all the way to Ngee Ann Poly den the bus is blank. Even 95 minutes from Bishan to Jurong East the Driver also late due to traffic Jam and High Demand. The Duty normally i take depart from Bishan Int at 7:50am and reach 9:25am at Jurong East Int. i have speak to the service leader rap, he say SLBP will be consider whether wan to put ADD a not cos they wan to deploy K230Ub's. today all 52 Bc's learning K230ub liao... -
amdep should get more DD from other depots. i feel 52, 162 and 410 got potential for S Shift ADD. often see them packed to the door
-
Originally posted by SBS9888Y:
amdep should get more DD from other depots. i feel 52, 162 and 410 got potential for S Shift ADD. often see them packed to the door
Their LO are for..? -
Originally posted by chickenlittle2:
Their LO are for..?
AMDEP only has 6 SP LO3x, 2 SP VSO. If we already put them onto 52, 162 and 410, how are the other services using DD blocks use other DD for replacement in case of breakdowns?Even if we put the minimal required, 52 needs at least 2. 162 no doubt 3. 410 needs 1 for each plate. That means 7 buses liao. How will AMDEP be able to cope with just 1 SP DD?
Which is why it is wiser for SLBP to convert SD blocks into DD blocks on 52 instead of AMDEP doing it.
-
Originally posted by TIB 589B:
i agree SLBP should deploy ADD for S Shift. I have been taking 52 for the pass 3 month Duty:13S. the bus is pack from bishan st 22 skip bus stops all the way to Ngee Ann Poly den the bus is blank. Even 95 minutes from Bishan to Jurong East the Driver also late due to traffic Jam and High Demand. The Duty normally i take depart from Bishan Int at 7:50am and reach 9:25am at Jurong East Int. i have speak to the service leader rap, he say SLBP will be consider whether wan to put ADD a not cos they wan to deploy K230Ub's. today all 52 Bc's learning K230ub liao...
I usually take the 4A duty that departs Bishan at 6.03am... :)Well if SLBP cannot put DD on 52 then maybe AMDEP can. Although the timings might be screwed up a little as the time frames where the passenger loads on 52 increases is mostly for SLBP duty timings.
-
Originally posted by Oceane:
AMDEP only has 6 SP LO3x, 2 SP VSO. If we already put them onto 52, 162 and 410, how are the other services using DD blocks use other DD for replacement in case of breakdowns?Even if we put the minimal required, 52 needs at least 2. 162 no doubt 3. 410 needs 1 for each plate. That means 7 buses liao. How will AMDEP be able to cope with just 1 SP DD?
Which is why it is wiser for SLBP to convert SD blocks into DD blocks on 52 instead of AMDEP doing it.
let him be. currently SL and AM 52 have 1 SL S Shift respectively. 162 has 2 S Shifts and 410 are all A/P.
i feel all the 52 and 162 S Shifts should be converted to ADD blocks from ASD blocks.
162 have a fleet addition of 2 A/P. the 2 singledeck from the 162 S Shifts go to the added 2 A/P.
410 should have an addition of 2 S Shifts for each plate. these should be ADD blocks.
52 should get : 9030, 9124
162 should get: 9006, 9045
410 should get 9035, 9091
leaving 9133, 9806 and 9826 as sp.views?
-
Originally posted by SBS9888Y:
let him be. currently SL and AM 52 have 1 SL S Shift respectively. 162 has 2 S Shifts and 410 are all A/P.
i feel all the 52 and 162 S Shifts should be converted to ADD blocks from ASD blocks.
162 have a fleet addition of 2 A/P. the 2 singledeck from the 162 S Shifts go to the added 2 A/P.
410 should have an addition of 2 S Shifts for each plate. these should be ADD blocks.
52 should get : 9030, 9124
162 should get: 9006, 9045
410 should get 9035, 9091
leaving 9133, 9806 and 9826 as sp.views?
162 should get 1 DD for A/P too... 3 should be enough for 162.Push all the Merc out from 162 and give them to DD slots... xD
DD on 410 should still be on A/P slots... because if they run on S Shift slots the people taking them home from the St 22 stretch will suffer during non-peak hour... Currently the waiting time for 410G is already very horrible ever since they took away 1 bus.
Whichever bus the services get I'm not really concerned... What I'm more concerned about is that the passenger loads of Bishan/Sin Ming bypass services are lifted.
-
Originally posted by off_service:
I don't know why you people are arguing over this matter. Let me put it in a VERY simple way:
Each factor has its impact over another factor and all these factors will in turn affect the decision of the bus companies which we have no idea how they came to it unless you are one of them. In short they are all related. These are strategic decisions which you and I won't know unless any of us is part of the management.And I doubt any management level staff will be stupid enough to leak company confidential information here.
I don't know either why you would call this an argument, but to me, this has been a rather constructive discussion in which all parties benefited.Neither would I call decisions like deployment in anyway strategic. It is tactical rather.
And I would rather we discuss this than talk about say......where k230ubs should land next etc etc. That, to me is crap.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
I don't know either why you would call this an argument, but to me, this has been a rather constructive discussion in which all parties benefited.Neither would I call decisions like deployment in anyway strategic. It is tactical rather.
And I would rather we discuss this than talk about say......where k230ubs should land next etc etc. That, to me is crap.
aiyer u everything = crap de.
-
Originally posted by SBS9888Y:
aiyer u everything = crap de.
Of course of course.If this is what you spout.
If you can't even use words like these carefully to get your point through, then what else?
It's so sad, once a great forum whose name used to be amongst the top 5 in sgf, once a forum whose name you utter in shoutbox conjures awe in the people here who considered netizens here to be knowledgeable people with a great heart to help others get around. It has fallen to a forum whose name you utter now gets the cold reception.
Do you feel proud of that?
-
Originally posted by Oceane:
AMDEP only has 6 SP LO3x, 2 SP VSO. If we already put them onto 52, 162 and 410, how are the other services using DD blocks use other DD for replacement in case of breakdowns?Even if we put the minimal required, 52 needs at least 2. 162 no doubt 3. 410 needs 1 for each plate. That means 7 buses liao. How will AMDEP be able to cope with just 1 SP DD?
Which is why it is wiser for SLBP to convert SD blocks into DD blocks on 52 instead of AMDEP doing it.
SLBP only has 6 SP LO3x, 1 SP VO3x, 1 VO2x (Another reserved for Svc 257), shared on 2 interchange. How are the other services using DD blocks use other DD for replacement in case of breakdowns?
As I mentioned earlier, I dun think by placing 2 DD would really solve the problem, it at most benefits only 2 trips. When u see there are 6 trips affected. Just like svc 185.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Of course of course.If this is what you spout.
If you can't even use words like these carefully to get your point through, then what else?
It's so sad, once a great forum whose name used to be amongst the top 5 in sgf, once a forum whose name you utter in shoutbox conjures awe in the people here who considered netizens here to be knowledgeable people with a great heart to help others get around. It has fallen to a forum whose name you utter now gets the cold reception.
Do you feel proud of that?
does the crap above help?
-
Originally posted by SBS9888Y:
does the crap above help?
You definitely underestimated the pride of this forum. -
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
You definitely underestimated the pride of this forum.by saying all these. what does it help. thats what im askin.
-
this thread is a great source of humour to me.
of coz we all can say, take this bus from there.. put here all.
but a lot of processes has to be done in terms of timetable, paperwork to transfer buses from this service to another so on & so forth. not just a simple "eh tmr put this bus on SXX ah hor. okay end of story."
it is a tedious process & when you carry it out, you must make sure you are successful in doing so. not to let it end up as a failure(not very good for the person working in sbst who suggested & proposed it. his capabilities may be questioned). in which, again, you all will open a new thread like this & continue brainstorming in vain.
i hope all understand this. sometimes when we work, we must find a way out with the constraints that we are facing.
the only good thing i see sbst in recent times is deploying VSO on short haul/feeder services. feeder service wise, i still feel it is inappropriate. no one wouldnt go up. unless it's 242 coz the route is long to get to where the target commuters are. -
Originally posted by chickenlittle2:
SLBP only has 6 SP LO3x, 1 SP VO3x, 1 VO2x (Another reserved for Svc 257), shared on 2 interchange. How are the other services using DD blocks use other DD for replacement in case of breakdowns?
As I mentioned earlier, I dun think by placing 2 DD would really solve the problem, it at most benefits only 2 trips. When u see there are 6 trips affected. Just like svc 185.
I didn't say that we needed to take buses from SLBP.And apparently you have yet to recognise the heavy loads on Service 52 - Mostly SLBP timings.
-
Originally posted by sinicker:
this thread is a great source of humour to me.
of coz we all can say, take this bus from there.. put here all.
but a lot of processes has to be done in terms of timetable, paperwork to transfer buses from this service to another so on & so forth. not just a simple "eh tmr put this bus on SXX ah hor. okay end of story."
it is a tedious process & when you carry it out, you must make sure you are successful in doing so. not to let it end up as a failure(not very good for the person working in sbst who suggested & proposed it. his capabilities may be questioned). in which, again, you all will open a new thread like this & continue brainstorming in vain.
i hope all understand this. sometimes when we work, we must find a way out with the constraints that we are facing.
the only good thing i see sbst in recent times is deploying VSO on short haul/feeder services. feeder service wise, i still feel it is inappropriate. no one wouldnt go up. unless it's 242 coz the route is long to get to where the target commuters are.It's merely a discussion.
We ain't SBST management after all, but we are allowed to discuss the POSSIBILITIES of such events happening, can't we?
-
Originally posted by SBS9888Y:
by saying all these. what does it help. thats what im askin.
Forget it. -
Originally posted by Oceane:
It's merely a discussion.
We ain't SBST management after all, but we are allowed to discuss the POSSIBILITIES of such events happening, can't we?
if you say so. you may carry on then.