Originally posted by jayh272416:i think more likely its for better control. heard that single depot is always better than double depot lol.
but from WRI reporting all the way to Hougang depot, wouldnt it be very far?
up to them though. if they think better for them, i got nothing to comment though
Originally posted by Aeris1974:
But why Hougang would want full control of 161? sorry for asking, but wouldnt it be troublesome? i know its already been done, no use asking, but just wondering though
It is actually easier for a single depot to control a service in terms of deployments, manpower and operations. Troublesome is one thing, especially going all the way from the west to the east to start service early in the morning and off service from east to west late at night. From here you may see wasted trips for off service.
Cases like 143 is really no choice, they retain 2 buses under brbp because of last bus issues. If not it would have been under full slbp control.
Giving up dual-controlled services can also make way for space in some depot, and the other depot has sufficient space to take over those buses for full control.
Originally posted by sbs&tibs:
It is actually easier for a single depot to control a service in terms of deployments, manpower and operations. Troublesome is one thing, especially going all the way from the west to the east to start service early in the morning and off service from east to west late at night. From here you may see wasted trips for off service.Cases like 143 is really no choice, they retain 2 buses under brbp because of last bus issues. If not it would have been under full slbp control.
Giving up dual-controlled services can also make way for space in some depot, and the other depot has sufficient space to take over those buses for full control.
one thing i still cant understand..why all buses in Eunos interchange are controlled by BRBP..even though it is in the east, i thought it would be controlled by Bedok (north bus depot)
i can agree with single depot control makes life easier; in terms of manpower etc, but i still dont think it is the best though. thank you for answering my question.
Originally posted by Aeris1974:but from WRI reporting all the way to Hougang depot, wouldnt it be very far?
up to them though. if they think better for them, i got nothing to comment though
In actual fact, the first few buses that start trip from WRI are HGDEP buses ... ...
Originally posted by Aeris1974:one thing i still cant understand..why all buses in Eunos interchange are controlled by BRBP..even though it is in the east, i thought it would be controlled by Bedok (north bus depot)
i can agree with single depot control makes life easier; in terms of manpower etc, but i still dont think it is the best though. thank you for answering my question.
bndep is currently overloaded.
serangoon amdep > hgdep, eunos hgdep > brbp, bishan brbp > amdep. during 2003 due to NEL rationalisation. they want hgdep to operate on the northeast corridor, thus, the transfer. it takes only about 15mins to get from eunos to brbp.
Originally posted by Aeris1974:one thing i still cant understand..why all buses in Eunos interchange are controlled by BRBP..even though it is in the east, i thought it would be controlled by Bedok (north bus depot)
i can agree with single depot control means more power, but i still dont think it is the best though. thank you for answering my question.
Eunos was previously under hgdep, while Serangoon was under amdep. Northeast route groups were given to hgdep control (with exception of services like 3 81 86 136), so Eunos was given in exchange.
bndep is already quite full to handle Bedok, Tampines, Pasir Ris area services. They are unable to take in Eunos. And amdep would have a lot of vacant spaces just by giving away Serangoon services alone. Since brbp is nearer to Eunos than amdep, Eunos went under brbp, and Bishan services move to amdep control to fill up the gaps.
History session. Haha.
Originally posted by sbs&tibs:
Eunos was previously under hgdep, while Serangoon was under amdep. Northeast route groups were given to hgdep control (with exception of services like 3 81 86 136), so Eunos was given in exchange.bndep is already quite full to handle Bedok, Tampines, Pasir Ris area services. They are unable to take in Eunos. And amdep would have a lot of vacant spaces just by giving away Serangoon services alone. Since brbp is nearer to Eunos than amdep, Eunos went under brbp, and Bishan services move to amdep control to fill up the gaps.
History session. Haha.
greaterminds think alike.
Originally posted by .SBS9888Y.:bndep is currently overloaded.
serangoon amdep > hgdep, eunos hgdep > brbp, bishan brbp > amdep. during 2003 due to NEL rationalisation. they want hgdep to operate on the northeast corridor, thus, the transfer. it takes only about 15mins to get from eunos to brbp.
15 mins? that fast to BRBP?
Hougang would be more faster though,(if you took 51 you know why) but i wont comment any further, since the answer is given.
but why 3,81,86 and 136 are exempted from HG? sorry if i have many questions to ask though
Originally posted by Aeris1974:15 mins? that fast to BRBP?
Hougang would be more faster though,(if you took 51 you know why) but i wont comment any further, since the answer is given.
but why 3,81,86 and 136 are exempted from HG? sorry if i have many questions to ask though
True, hgdep nearer. But you can't have the best of all worlds. hgdep has its limitations too. if Eunos retains under hgdep and serangoon joins in, not every BCs would join hgdep from amdep, for some reasons. So where do the BCs go? amdep then has to get more control of other service to make sure the BCs have a perm route to work on.
The reason being hgdep has not space to contain these few services. And these few services are under Tampines & Ang Mo Kio route group currently, which is East.
Look at a bigger picture. Haha.
Originally posted by lifelikedrama:161 was already partial HGDEP in the first place. The redeployment i think is because of parking issues and not location issues. Partial AMDEP was mostly to cater to buses starting at Woodlands coz it's nearer than HGDEP. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Euro V mass influx to AMDEP has sparked out parking issues? just a assumption, if all merc in AMDEP has cleared and deregistered and parking space expanded, maybe 161 would revert back to dual depot controlled in 2 years later?
Originally posted by Aeris1974:15 mins? that fast to BRBP?
Hougang would be more faster though,(if you took 51 you know why) but i wont comment any further, since the answer is given.
but why 3,81,86 and 136 are exempted from HG? sorry if i have many questions to ask though
Well, The timing given to the drivers to go to from the depot to the interchange is quite fast as the bus is going off service. Depends on which roads the drivers go by.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Originally posted by Rk 2010:Well, The timing given to the drivers to go to from the depot to the interchange is quite fast as the bus is going off service. Depends on which roads the drivers go by.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
well they must familiarise what roads are easily congested, so as to prevent delaying their off service runtime. however that time many are still sleeping, so traffic jam wont occur as early as possible.
Originally posted by JaSoNhSu92:
Euro V mass influx to AMDEP has sparked out parking issues? just a assumption, if all merc in AMDEP has cleared and deregistered and parking space expanded, maybe 161 would revert back to dual depot controlled in 2 years later?
I doubt 161 will return to dual control, since single control is manageable.
With the new transport criteria, you will expect more fleet additions.
Originally posted by JaSoNhSu92:
Euro V mass influx to AMDEP has sparked out parking issues? just a assumption, if all merc in AMDEP has cleared and deregistered and parking space expanded, maybe 161 would revert back to dual depot controlled in 2 years later?
In 2 years time, it will be a completely different story, one which no one would know what will happen.
Originally posted by Aeris1974:15 mins? that fast to BRBP?
Hougang would be more faster though,(if you took 51 you know why) but i wont comment any further, since the answer is given.
but why 3,81,86 and 136 are exempted from HG? sorry if i have many questions to ask though
sengkang has a lack of parking space. due to that reason. 86's layovers are kept short. amk has a lack of parking space as well thats why 86 and 136 adopts a single depot jumpbus system. for sv 3 and 81 are operated fully by tampines route group while 86 and 136 fully by ang mo kio. it makes life easier when services are singledepot control.
Does anybody know why service 506 is kept under BBDEP control with the exception of the other services which are under SLBP? And why is 170 and 160 under BBDEP also?
Originally posted by .SBS9888Y.:sengkang has a lack of parking space. due to that reason. 86's layovers are kept short. amk has a lack of parking space as well thats why 86 and 136 adopts a single depot jumpbus system. for sv 3 and 81 are operated fully by tampines route group while 86 and 136 fully by ang mo kio. it makes life easier when services are singledepot control.
last time, NEL rationalisation is another reason for this of cutting down sengkang int services like 501 502.
will BNL new a/c interchange like this scenario and transfer some services like JIS to Joo Koon Terminal?
How about svc 63 ? why BRBP fully control ? i tot BRBP no space ? maybe ben can ans this... sorry if i ask this coz i dunno =)
Originally posted by Rk 2010:Does anybody know why service 506 is kept under BBDEP control with the exception of the other services which are under SLBP? And why is 170 and 160 under BBDEP also?
170, historical reasons? Geographical reason? Seem nearer to JB. 160 too.
Yeah, 160 and 506 under JE route group.
506 1st and last bus timings is reasonable for it to be under slbp, but no idea why it isn't. And 198 under slbp shouldn't be a problem as most of its starting and ending trips is at BNL int. But 198 practices jumpbus also, unless this system is changed to BNL.
I think slbp isn't that big enough to take in so many services.
Originally posted by azharjj:How about svc 63 ? why BRBP fully control ? i tot BRBP no space ? maybe ben can ans this... sorry if i ask this coz i dunno =)
Since it is just 5 buses, I don't think squeezing really matters a lot. Then again, it is still the benefits of under single depot control.
SBS2735B
HGDEP 163 -> HGDEP 159
SBS2763U
HGDEP 159 -> HGDEP 163
Originally posted by sbs&tibs:
Since it is just 5 buses, I don't think squeezing really matters a lot. Then again, it is still the benefits of under single depot control.
i'm sure there are reasons why BRBP fully control instead of ARBP fully control
Originally posted by azharjj:How about svc 63 ? why BRBP fully control ? i tot BRBP no space ? maybe ben can ans this... sorry if i ask this coz i dunno =)
it is found to be troublesome to change shift at rumah tinggi and also to improve consistency of the service due to poor headway, it is good to convert it to a singledepot control. it also reduces off svc mileage.
Originally posted by sbs&tibs:
170, historical reasons? Geographical reason? Seem nearer to JB. 160 too.Yeah, 160 and 506 under JE route group.
506 1st and last bus timings is reasonable for it to be under slbp, but no idea why it isn't. And 198 under slbp shouldn't be a problem as most of its starting and ending trips is at BNL int. But 198 practices jumpbus also, unless this system is changed to BNL.
I think slbp isn't that big enough to take in so many services.
even 198 and 506 off service runtime from BBDEP to boon lay/bt merah/je doesnt seems quite long IMO.
Originally posted by azharjj:
i'm sure there are reasons why BRBP fully control instead of ARBP fully control
arbp has its constraints too. S63 fleet is so big under the east, it makes more sense for brbp to absorb the minority.