SMRT invests in Shenzhen Zona Transportation Group
-
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/379414/1/.html
finally aft dunno how many years...
-
I believe SMRT should instead invest significantly into their Singapore train and bus operation.
Their services are far from being world class standard.
-
agree...
-
Will lose money in the future?
Don't want a repeat like last time NTUC trying to start up there only to lose money.
-
dusty buses
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
dusty buses
SMRT buses are not well maintained. Often water droplets drip out of the air-conditionings. -
Originally posted by Spartans:
SMRT buses are not well maintained. Often water droplets drip out of the air-conditionings.
And a lot of their buses (especially those with fabric seats) stink. TIB725A is one such bus. I dont know if they fixed it yet but the last time i took it it was a stinkbomb. -
Originally posted by sbst275:
dusty buses
Originally posted by Spartans:
SMRT buses are not well maintained. Often water droplets drip out of the air-conditionings.Originally posted by jayh272416:
And a lot of their buses (especially those with fabric seats) stink. TIB725A is one such bus. I dont know if they fixed it yet but the last time i took it it was a stinkbomb.
I fully agree to the extend that it SMRT Buses are not mantained well enough and this deprovement is very disappointing. Look no further than how well Trans-Island Bus Services in the 1990s mantained their good buses. I also agree that SMRT Buses do not take pride in their Bus Services, with clear comparison of many factors that Trans-Island Bus Services did much better, not forgetting the colourful Service Guides created by Trans-Island Bus Services.There are sources that say SMRT has invested too much on their Trains which caused the downfall of Bus Services standards but I do not agree to this because the Service standard of SMRT Trains is also not very up to standard based on some experience and many sources. This simply shows that SMRT does not take pride in their Services.
With this reliable source telling that SMRT is investing in the Shenzhen Zona Transportation Group, I can infer that SMRT is just a cooperation intrested in only profits and further supports the point that SMRT do not take pride in their own Services in Singapore.
There is another opinion that I would wish to point out. My advise to the merger of Trans-Island Bus Services and SMRT few years back is this. Either you focus in providing good Bus or Train Services. You cannot be providing two in one company if you want to provide the Service really well. I can also tell that if Trans-Island Bus Services did not merge with SMRT back then, there would generally be less shortage of funds in both companies, which results in much better Service standards.
Running a Transport company is not plainly about maximizing profits. It is mainly about reaching out to the transportation needs of the people as well as enhancing the people's experience and comfort based on feedbacks. All Transport companies should take passenger feedback really seriously.
-
Originally posted by SBS2695H:
I fully agree to the extend that it SMRT Buses are not mantained well enough and this deprovement is very disappointing. Look no further than how well Trans-Island Bus Services in the 1990s mantained their good buses. I also agree that SMRT Buses do not take pride in their Bus Services, with clear comparison of many factors that Trans-Island Bus Services did much better, not forgetting the colourful Service Guides created by Trans-Island Bus Services.
There are sources that say SMRT has invested too much on their Trains which caused the downfall of Bus Services standards but I do not agree to this because the Service standard of SMRT Trains is also not very up to standard based on some experience and many sources. This simply shows that SMRT does not take pride in their Services.
With this reliable source telling that SMRT is investing in the Shenzhen Zona Transportation Group, I can infer that SMRT is just a cooperation intrested in only profits and further supports the point that SMRT do not take pride in their own Services in Singapore.
There is another opinion that I would wish to point out. My advise to the merger of Trans-Island Bus Services and SMRT few years back is this. Either you focus in providing good Bus or Train Services. You cannot be providing two in one company if you want to provide the Service really well. I can also tell that if Trans-Island Bus Services did not merge with SMRT back then, there would generally be less shortage of funds in both companies, which results in much better Service standards.
Running a Transport company is not plainly about maximizing profits. It is mainly about reaching out to the transportation needs of the people as well as enhancing the people's experience and comfort based on feedbacks. All Transport companies should take passenger feedback really seriously.
Flawed argument. A firm's main aim, regradless of whether its a company in a perfectly competitive market or a monopoly, is to maximise profits.
-
Y cant SMRT just stick to their own MRT trains? Actually if SMRT didnt take over Trans-Island, my username should be "TRANS-ISLAND BUSES LuVER".. I really missed the TIBS livery fyi.. =(
-
Originally posted by SBS2695H:
I fully agree to the extend that it SMRT Buses are not mantained well enough and this deprovement is very disappointing. Look no further than how well Trans-Island Bus Services in the 1990s mantained their good buses. I also agree that SMRT Buses do not take pride in their Bus Services, with clear comparison of many factors that Trans-Island Bus Services did much better, not forgetting the colourful Service Guides created by Trans-Island Bus Services.There are sources that say SMRT has invested too much on their Trains which caused the downfall of Bus Services standards but I do not agree to this because the Service standard of SMRT Trains is also not very up to standard based on some experience and many sources. This simply shows that SMRT does not take pride in their Services.
With this reliable source telling that SMRT is investing in the Shenzhen Zona Transportation Group, I can infer that SMRT is just a cooperation intrested in only profits and further supports the point that SMRT do not take pride in their own Services in Singapore.
There is another opinion that I would wish to point out. My advise to the merger of Trans-Island Bus Services and SMRT few years back is this. Either you focus in providing good Bus or Train Services. You cannot be providing two in one company if you want to provide the Service really well. I can also tell that if Trans-Island Bus Services did not merge with SMRT back then, there would generally be less shortage of funds in both companies, which results in much better Service standards.
Running a Transport company is not plainly about maximizing profits. It is mainly about reaching out to the transportation needs of the people as well as enhancing the people's experience and comfort based on feedbacks. All Transport companies should take passenger feedback really seriously.
Again, why the heck would you want a company that has to be propped up by your dough?The logic is not there, a profit-maximising company has more to lose if it does not bother about its commuters.
Thus said, what makes you think that a nationalised company is more likely to bother about your welfare? They are in fact, more likely to pocket your money.
-
Originally posted by SBS2695H:
I fully agree to the extend that it SMRT Buses are not mantained well enough and this deprovement is very disappointing. Look no further than how well Trans-Island Bus Services in the 1990s mantained their good buses. I also agree that SMRT Buses do not take pride in their Bus Services, with clear comparison of many factors that Trans-Island Bus Services did much better, not forgetting the colourful Service Guides created by Trans-Island Bus Services.There are sources that say SMRT has invested too much on their Trains which caused the downfall of Bus Services standards but I do not agree to this because the Service standard of SMRT Trains is also not very up to standard based on some experience and many sources. This simply shows that SMRT does not take pride in their Services.
With this reliable source telling that SMRT is investing in the Shenzhen Zona Transportation Group, I can infer that SMRT is just a cooperation intrested in only profits and further supports the point that SMRT do not take pride in their own Services in Singapore.
There is another opinion that I would wish to point out. My advise to the merger of Trans-Island Bus Services and SMRT few years back is this. Either you focus in providing good Bus or Train Services. You cannot be providing two in one company if you want to provide the Service really well. I can also tell that if Trans-Island Bus Services did not merge with SMRT back then, there would generally be less shortage of funds in both companies, which results in much better Service standards.
Running a Transport company is not plainly about maximizing profits. It is mainly about reaching out to the transportation needs of the people as well as enhancing the people's experience and comfort based on feedbacks. All Transport companies should take passenger feedback really seriously.
You seem like you're trying to practice your SBQ here.
Please relearn your PEEL.
-
Originally posted by SBS2695H:
I fully agree to the extend that it SMRT Buses are not mantained well enough and this deprovement is very disappointing. Look no further than how well Trans-Island Bus Services in the 1990s mantained their good buses. I also agree that SMRT Buses do not take pride in their Bus Services, with clear comparison of many factors that Trans-Island Bus Services did much better, not forgetting the colourful Service Guides created by Trans-Island Bus Services.
With this reliable source telling that SMRT is investing in the Shenzhen Zona Transportation Group, I can infer that SMRT is just a cooperation intrested in only profits and further supports the point that SMRT do not take pride in their own Services in Singapore.
There is another opinion that I would wish to point out. My advise to the merger of Trans-Island Bus Services and SMRT few years back is this. Either you focus in providing good Bus or Train Services. You cannot be providing two in one company if you want to provide the Service really well. I can also tell that if Trans-Island Bus Services did not merge with SMRT back then, there would generally be less shortage of funds in both companies, which results in much better Service standards.
Running a Transport company is not plainly about maximizing profits. It is mainly about reaching out to the transportation needs of the people as well as enhancing the people's experience and comfort based on feedbacks. All Transport companies should take passenger feedback really seriously.
- Just because TIBS came out with colourful guides would mean that they were better in those days ? SBS had those colourful guides too u know ? So, u r trying to argue that both companies are seeing better days in the past ?
- Ask any business students and they will tell u.. Which Organisation is not interested in making profit ? The Main objective of an Organisation is to maximise their profits earn so as to show a nice report card at the end of every financial year to their shareholders. Unless u are telling me that SMRT is a charity organisation.
- Ur are not quite true to say that a company can only focus on just one part of the company. This is not very true. I guess, as a communter of both side of the train system and bus services i can say that 1 side is better than the other.
- Yes.. Running a transport company is not entirely about earning profits. But bear in mind that as a public listed company, the 1st and most important objective is to earn profits.
-
Originally posted by SBS2695H:
There is another opinion that I would wish to point out. My advise to the merger of Trans-Island Bus Services and SMRT few years back is this. Either you focus in providing good Bus or Train Services. You cannot be providing two in one company if you want to provide the Service really well. I can also tell that if Trans-Island Bus Services did not merge with SMRT back then, there would generally be less shortage of funds in both companies, which results in much better Service standards.
Then what about SBS Transit, which now operates both rail and buses? Although it didn't have a merger or anything for that matters. -
Originally posted by SBS2695H:
I fully agree to the extend that it SMRT Buses are not mantained well enough and this deprovement is very disappointing. Look no further than how well Trans-Island Bus Services in the 1990s mantained their good buses. I also agree that SMRT Buses do not take pride in their Bus Services, with clear comparison of many factors that Trans-Island Bus Services did much better, not forgetting the colourful Service Guides created by Trans-Island Bus Services.There are sources that say SMRT has invested too much on their Trains which caused the downfall of Bus Services standards but I do not agree to this because the Service standard of SMRT Trains is also not very up to standard based on some experience and many sources. This simply shows that SMRT does not take pride in their Services.
With this reliable source telling that SMRT is investing in the Shenzhen Zona Transportation Group, I can infer that SMRT is just a cooperation intrested in only profits and further supports the point that SMRT do not take pride in their own Services in Singapore.
There is another opinion that I would wish to point out. My advise to the merger of Trans-Island Bus Services and SMRT few years back is this. Either you focus in providing good Bus or Train Services. You cannot be providing two in one company if you want to provide the Service really well. I can also tell that if Trans-Island Bus Services did not merge with SMRT back then, there would generally be less shortage of funds in both companies, which results in much better Service standards.
Running a Transport company is not plainly about maximizing profits. It is mainly about reaching out to the transportation needs of the people as well as enhancing the people's experience and comfort based on feedbacks. All Transport companies should take passenger feedback really seriously.
Kiddo again, SBS Transit runs both buses and trains. Since everyone complains about smrt buses, and no one complain sbst buses, do you think sbst trains are bad? Aren't sbst doing to provide both buses and trains service well enough? Please lar, study more before you make any comments. Don't wish people to make comments without using their brain.
Are you willing to earn negative profits, but taking passenger feedback seriously?
Or
Willing to earn more profits and close one eye on feedback since everyone needs transport?You no need to sound professional down here without knowing anything about business mindset of companies. Either you make remarkable comments or shut up.
-
Originally posted by SBS2695H:
I fully agree to the extend that it SMRT Buses are not mantained well enough and this deprovement is very disappointing. Look no further than how well Trans-Island Bus Services in the 1990s mantained their good buses. I also agree that SMRT Buses do not take pride in their Bus Services, with clear comparison of many factors that Trans-Island Bus Services did much better, not forgetting the colourful Service Guides created by Trans-Island Bus Services.There are sources that say SMRT has invested too much on their Trains which caused the downfall of Bus Services standards but I do not agree to this because the Service standard of SMRT Trains is also not very up to standard based on some experience and many sources. This simply shows that SMRT does not take pride in their Services.
With this reliable source telling that SMRT is investing in the Shenzhen Zona Transportation Group, I can infer that SMRT is just a cooperation intrested in only profits and further supports the point that SMRT do not take pride in their own Services in Singapore.
There is another opinion that I would wish to point out. My advise to the merger of Trans-Island Bus Services and SMRT few years back is this. Either you focus in providing good Bus or Train Services. You cannot be providing two in one company if you want to provide the Service really well. I can also tell that if Trans-Island Bus Services did not merge with SMRT back then, there would generally be less shortage of funds in both companies, which results in much better Service standards.
Running a Transport company is not plainly about maximizing profits. It is mainly about reaching out to the transportation needs of the people as well as enhancing the people's experience and comfort based on feedbacks. All Transport companies should take passenger feedback really seriously.
Cant you just keep quiet for a few moments. Need not reply in EVERY THREAD. Concentrate on your study now...
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
Cant you just keep quiet for a few moments. Need not reply in EVERY THREAD. Concentrate on your study now...
lucky my history and geography are over...
-
Originally posted by nenepokey:
lucky my history and geography are over...
or answer that as LORMS questions is it, imagine this qns be set as a 13 marks SEQ, i would hated answering ikt
-
LORMS is Geography. PEEL is History/Social Studies.
Any way he is answering as, he still fails them neh ;). Need to relearn.
-
Originally posted by n4l:
LORMS is Geography. PEEL is History/Social Studies.
Any way he is answering as, he still fails them neh ;). Need to relearn.
LORMs is also used in SS now, the 12/13 marks SEQ.......anyway a brief guide of scoring
L1 [1-3 marks] Brief description of given/other factors
Example: Q: Name the advantages that SMRT had over SBST with the purchase od SMB1H
A:SMRT had purchased a oc500le named SMB1H that is doing a crossover from 190 to 307 and the SL was saying the bus suspension damm good.
L2 [4-6 marks] Clear description of GF and link back to topic
L3 [7-8 marks] Clear description of GF and link back to topic AND Clear description of OF 1 and link back to topic
L4 [9-10 marks] Clear description of GF and link back to topic AND Clear description of OF 1 and link back to topic AND Clear description of OF 2 and link back to topic
L5 [11-12 marks] L4 + Weighted conclusion...this is super hard to hit
-
Originally posted by SBS2695H:
I fully agree to the extend that it SMRT Buses are not mantained well enough and this deprovement is very disappointing. Look no further than how well Trans-Island Bus Services in the 1990s mantained their good buses. I also agree that SMRT Buses do not take pride in their Bus Services, with clear comparison of many factors that Trans-Island Bus Services did much better, not forgetting the colourful Service Guides created by Trans-Island Bus Services.There are sources that say SMRT has invested too much on their Trains which caused the downfall of Bus Services standards but I do not agree to this because the Service standard of SMRT Trains is also not very up to standard based on some experience and many sources. This simply shows that SMRT does not take pride in their Services.
With this reliable source telling that SMRT is investing in the Shenzhen Zona Transportation Group, I can infer that SMRT is just a cooperation intrested in only profits and further supports the point that SMRT do not take pride in their own Services in Singapore.
There is another opinion that I would wish to point out. My advise to the merger of Trans-Island Bus Services and SMRT few years back is this. Either you focus in providing good Bus or Train Services. You cannot be providing two in one company if you want to provide the Service really well. I can also tell that if Trans-Island Bus Services did not merge with SMRT back then, there would generally be less shortage of funds in both companies, which results in much better Service standards.
Running a Transport company is not plainly about maximizing profits. It is mainly about reaching out to the transportation needs of the people as well as enhancing the people's experience and comfort based on feedbacks. All Transport companies should take passenger feedback really seriously.
Your answer could just reach a L2/6
-
Originally posted by SBS n SMRT:
LORMs is also used in SS now, the 12/13 marks SEQ.......anyway a brief guide of scoring
L1 [1-3 marks] Brief description of given/other factors
L2 [4-6 marks] Clear description of GF and link back to topic
L3 [7-8 marks] Clear description of OF 1 and link back to topic
L4 [9-10 marks] Clear description of OF 2 and link back to topic
L5 [11-12 marks] Weighted conclusion...this is super hard to hit
L5 is the easiest to hit
Write conclusion only, full marks already!For Geog LORMS:
2/3 Factors, with examples of specific COUNTRIES and details. Conclusion.
History PEEL:
At least 2 Factors -> Elaborate on factor (i.e. explain factor) -> Specific examples to show your case -> Link back + Conclusion.
-
Originally posted by n4l:
L5 is the easiest to hit
Write conclusion only, full marks already!For Geog LORMS:
2/3 Factors, with examples of specific COUNTRIES and details. Conclusion.
History PEEL:
At least 2 Factors -> Elaborate on factor (i.e. explain factor) -> Specific examples to show your case -> Link back + Conclusion.
Not true...in some paper is just conclusion L5 but mostly is L4+ coclusion, see ammended post
-
Originally posted by SBS n SMRT:
Not true...in some paper is just conclusion L5 but mostly is L4+ coclusion, see ammended post
Hurhur, I'm one that depends on the conclusions to score my marks for my papers
~ But it depends on SBQ or SEQ. SEQ it's better to write the factors just as a safetynet, SBQ...huat ah, just write conclusion if you know what you're writing (I ever had "failed inference", "wrong example" for the first 2 factors, the conclusion "L5/8", the max mark for the SBQ question).As long as you know what you're writing and the rough marking guidelines you should be fine =)...
-
Originally posted by n4l:
Hurhur, I'm one that depends on the conclusions to score my marks for my papers
~
But it depends on SBQ or SEQ. SEQ it's better to write the factors
just as a safetynet, SBQ...huat ah, just write conclusion if you
know what you're writing (I ever had "failed inference", "wrong
example" for the first 2 factors, the conclusion "L5/8").As long as you know what you're writing and the rough marking guidelines you should be fine =)...
You are lucky
, my teacher say for SBQ better write inferences for safety net as some scoring list is as suchL4 [5-6 marks] L3+ Inference of tone/purpose
L5 [7 marks] L4+ Conclusion
Example Question: Is the buying of SMB1H aids SMRT good image in bus enthusiasts mind based on Souces A-C.