SMRT Buses should have DD's too?
-
LOL. Moderator can edit my title to
'SMRT Bus should have DDs too?'
what do you think people.? i just remember during the 90s, SBS have bendies too..
-
SMRT have bendies while SBST have DD....
-
lol..
seriously, i prefer DD than bendy bus..
i live at the north-west of SG (SMRT Territory)
kinda miss DD bus..
especially 190 (before TIBS take over CCK Int)
-
all SMRT bus depots are not DD friendly
-
ohoh.No wonder SMRT cannot take in DD.Btw,DDs are expensive nowadays.
-
One will costs you a few hundred thousand dollars...............
-
'SMRT Bus should have DDs too?'
+ combo with bendies.
-
Originally posted by SBS8033D:
One will costs you a few hundred thousand dollars...............
nearly, or already half a million dollars
-
OK here's the thing. LTA wants SMRT to stop buying bendies, for whatever reason LTA states. Meanwhile, almost all SMRT depots and a few interchanges are not DD friendly. If LTA does not want SMRT to buy bendies, the only way SMRT can replace bendies next time is 1) buy alot of rigids or 2) buy DDs.
Buying alot of rigids does not make alot of sense because they take up more parking space. Just imagine, would you buy x number of DDs and take up Ax area in a depot, or buy 2x number of rigids that take up A2x area in a depot? (A stands for the area that a 12m bus takes up) [Assume that a DD is twice the size that of a rigid since both are on average, 12m long buses.]
Thus, the best way to replace bendies that retire in the near future is to have DD as the replacement. I do believe LTA wants SMRT to buy DDs because a bendy takes up much more space than a DD (18m VS 12m).
Now I will throw in a few questions, and you guys ponder about it.
1) Is it fair to have SMRT change their infrastructure for storing double-deckers to be DD-friendly solely? Do you think LTA should sponser SMRT funds to convert their storage facilities into DD-friendly places? Bearing in mind the fact that LTA approved SMRT to use bendies many years ago.
2) If you are in charge of LTA, would you want to help SMRT with the conversion, or simply lift the bendy-ban so that SMRT can replace older bendies with newer bendies? Which one do you think is more beneficial?
Think about it.
-
i think dey will need to buy,cos LTA say cannot have bendies mah,bendies one by one die,den sure need DD to survive for high demand especially 190..
-
since LTA band bendies.
LTA should sponser SMRT to convert their Depots to DD-friendly..
Save space.. !
and i know.. most of sg-eans prefer DDs than Bendies..
-
Originally posted by Oceane:
OK here's the thing. LTA wants SMRT to stop buying bendies, for whatever reason LTA states. Meanwhile, almost all SMRT depots and a few interchanges are not DD friendly. If LTA does not want SMRT to buy bendies, the only way SMRT can replace bendies next time is 1) buy alot of rigids or 2) buy DDs.
Buying alot of rigids does not make alot of sense because they take up more parking space. Just imagine, would you buy x number of DDs and take up Ax area in a depot, or buy 2x number of rigids that take up A2x area in a depot? (A stands for the area that a 12m bus takes up) [Assume that a DD is twice the size that of a rigid since both are on average, 12m long buses.]
Thus, the best way to replace bendies that retire in the near future is to have DD as the replacement. I do believe LTA wants SMRT to buy DDs because a bendy takes up much more space than a DD (18m VS 12m).
Now I will throw in a few questions, and you guys ponder about it.
1) Is it fair to have SMRT change their infrastructure for storing double-deckers to be DD-friendly solely? Do you think LTA should sponser SMRT funds to convert their storage facilities into DD-friendly places? Bearing in mind the fact that LTA approved SMRT to use bendies many years ago.
2) If you are in charge of LTA, would you want to help SMRT with the conversion, or simply lift the bendy-ban so that SMRT can replace older bendies with newer bendies? Which one do you think is more beneficial?
Think about it.
When did LTA implement this no bendy rule? Is there any source I can view that published this news? It's the first time i'm hearing about it and want to know about more...
-
Originally posted by simnatic:
When did LTA implement this no bendy rule? Is there any source I can view that published this news? It's the first time i'm hearing about it and want to know about more...
I believe this thing was not published in the news. Maybe you can conduct a search online, but bus fans whom I've discussed this topic about all know that LTA does not want SMRT to buy bendies anymore. -
Originally posted by Oceane:
OK here's the thing. LTA wants SMRT to stop buying bendies, for whatever reason LTA states. Meanwhile, almost all SMRT depots and a few interchanges are not DD friendly. If LTA does not want SMRT to buy bendies, the only way SMRT can replace bendies next time is 1) buy alot of rigids or 2) buy DDs.
Buying alot of rigids does not make alot of sense because they take up more parking space. Just imagine, would you buy x number of DDs and take up Ax area in a depot, or buy 2x number of rigids that take up A2x area in a depot? (A stands for the area that a 12m bus takes up) [Assume that a DD is twice the size that of a rigid since both are on average, 12m long buses.]
Thus, the best way to replace bendies that retire in the near future is to have DD as the replacement. I do believe LTA wants SMRT to buy DDs because a bendy takes up much more space than a DD (18m VS 12m).
Now I will throw in a few questions, and you guys ponder about it.
1) Is it fair to have SMRT change their infrastructure for storing double-deckers to be DD-friendly solely? Do you think LTA should sponser SMRT funds to convert their storage facilities into DD-friendly places? Bearing in mind the fact that LTA approved SMRT to use bendies many years ago.
2) If you are in charge of LTA, would you want to help SMRT with the conversion, or simply lift the bendy-ban so that SMRT can replace older bendies with newer bendies? Which one do you think is more beneficial?
Think about it.
Actually, in my opinion, bus companies in sg shld have rigids, artics, and deckers for the different purposes.
Rigids should comprise of the larger majority of the fleet, operating trunk services and not-so-heavy-load feeders like what is being done now. However, rigids becomes a problem when population grows, which means more rigids are needed to carry more people, and worst of all, not many sg are willing to work as a bus driver.
Deckers are good for moving lots of ppl at once, but its less convient for feeder services as most would not move up to the 2nd level. In fact, i believe services in smrt such as 969, 858, 966, etc should use deckers. These services brings passengers almost directly to the destination. Giving them a seat will definately make them feel more comfortable whilst on the expressway compared to a bendy.
Now for the artics, the main purpose will be for feeders, and services with lots of boarding and alighting along most of its route. Passengers can board faster, alight faster, thus causing lesser delays. A dd will have to allow all the alighting passenger alight before passengers boarding can make their way futher into the lower saloon and upper saloon. (not really always, but when theres alot of passengers alighting, thats usually the case, e.g svc 30 at hbf).
Well, then again, theres also a possibility that lta wants to remove/modify the feeder system to adapt for the distance based fare system. In that case, thats another story.
-
Originally posted by XiaoTaro:
Actually, in my opinion, bus companies in sg shld have rigids, artics, and deckers for the different purposes.
Rigids should comprise of the larger majority of the fleet, operating trunk services and not-so-heavy-load feeders like what is being done now. However, rigids becomes a problem when population grows, which means more rigids are needed to carry more people, and worst of all, not many sg are willing to work as a bus driver.
Deckers are good for moving lots of ppl at once, but its less convient for feeder services as most would not move up to the 2nd level. In fact, i believe services in smrt such as 969, 858, 966, etc should use deckers. These services brings passengers almost directly to the destination. Giving them a seat will definately make them feel more comfortable whilst on the expressway compared to a bendy.
Now for the artics, the main purpose will be for feeders, and services with lots of boarding and alighting along most of its route. Passengers can board faster, alight faster, thus causing lesser delays. A dd will have to allow all the alighting passenger alight before passengers boarding can make their way futher into the lower saloon and upper saloon. (not really always, but when theres alot of passengers alighting, thats usually the case, e.g svc 30 at hbf).
Well, then again, theres also a possibility that lta wants to remove/modify the feeder system to adapt for the distance based fare system. In that case, thats another story.
i can give some service...61,67.77,106,169,190(especially),700/A,851,854 also,855,858,960 and 966,that's should be it.. -
LTA should sponsor the depots to a DD-Friendly Depot.
-
by the way,DDs cannot beat any rigid or a bendy.unless a Volvo B10MA.
DD-12m,139 passengers
Rigid-12m,88 passengers
Bendy-17m,132 passengers
B10MA-19m, 147 passengersWhich one will win?
-
Originally posted by XiaoTaro:
Actually, in my opinion, bus companies in sg shld have rigids, artics, and deckers for the different purposes.
Rigids should comprise of the larger majority of the fleet, operating trunk services and not-so-heavy-load feeders like what is being done now. However, rigids becomes a problem when population grows, which means more rigids are needed to carry more people, and worst of all, not many sg are willing to work as a bus driver.
Deckers are good for moving lots of ppl at once, but its less convient for feeder services as most would not move up to the 2nd level. In fact, i believe services in smrt such as 969, 858, 966, etc should use deckers. These services brings passengers almost directly to the destination. Giving them a seat will definately make them feel more comfortable whilst on the expressway compared to a bendy.
Now for the artics, the main purpose will be for feeders, and services with lots of boarding and alighting along most of its route. Passengers can board faster, alight faster, thus causing lesser delays. A dd will have to allow all the alighting passenger alight before passengers boarding can make their way futher into the lower saloon and upper saloon. (not really always, but when theres alot of passengers alighting, thats usually the case, e.g svc 30 at hbf).
Well, then again, theres also a possibility that lta wants to remove/modify the feeder system to adapt for the distance based fare system. In that case, thats another story.
then 858 cannot use DD liao.As one time in Your Own Deployment Fleet(Part II),Someone wanted DD to go to Changi Airport.Has restrictions to height.So 858 cannot use DD.
-
For what
-
I think it's ban cos of turning hazard issues, our road lanes aren't tat friendly for long vehicles either
-
yup 858 100% cannot use DD..
-
Originally posted by Ajen:
yup 858 100% cannot use DD..
Why?
-
i suggest..
61,67,190,969,859,965,960,980,167,169,187 use DD!
-
Originally posted by Beautiful951:
Why?
.. because of the height limit at Changi Airport Ter.
Have you seen service 24 (from amk to CA) use DD?or 36??
-
Originally posted by Roderick a.k.a Guai Kia:
i can give some service...61,67.77,106,169,190(especially),700/A,851,854 also,855,858,960 and 966,that's should be it..67 buay sai, SCGS area low lying trees.
77 if sixth ave can then shud hav no problems...
190 confirm can. whole route got DD b4
851 & 854 confirm cannot liao. Yishun Interchange height restriction
858 sure cannot. unless u wan another tragedy like the 196 DD at merdeka bridge
960...SCGS part. same as 67
966 shud hav no prob