SBST Volvo B9TL Wright
-
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:
That's why I think bendy buses are more suited for the heartlands feeder routes. Generally, the bus-stops that feeder routes call on have only a couple of routes, hence not that congested as other bus-stops. XiaoTaro also mentioned this point in the earlier post which I also agree.
then it comes to the issue at Int. -
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:
I don't really believe what's stated in the licenced standing capacity. In actual fact, does a fully packed bus (regardless of SD, ADD or bendies) really carry that many standing passengers? Some of the spaces along the aisle usually only accomodate one row of standing passengers due to various reasons (passengers carrying stuffs, bags, bigger size passengers, etc). We can't really blame them for not squeezing in because if that's so, passengers will find it very difficult to get off the bus, including the seated ones. Though I agree that in some cases, standing passengers are at fault for not moving in when there's plenty of space behind; but that's not always the case! Instead of always asking people to squeeze like sardines and blaming them for not doing so, our bus operators ought to examine themselves whether they should provide more buses to cater to the overloaded demand. I personally feel that a double-decker still carry more passengers than a bendy. As I see SMRT Premium svc 599 with "No Standing" restriction using a bendy bus during the morning peak, I just find it a waste. Such a long bus can only seat far fewer passengers than a double-deck and the bus is almost fully seated at the first few stops. Indirectly, the regular trunk services are deprived of more bigger buses during the peak.
Well, it's all whether do people want to move in or not.Seriously bus co add 1 S shift here and there, but at e end of the day we still cannot be flooding e bus stops just in e view of making it like say 60% load?
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
then it comes to the issue at Int.Issue at interchange that the bus takes more spaces? compared to a dd, yes, compared to 1100 single decks, not really right? It all depends on how you view the issue, if dd is really so useful, why didnt sbstransit acquire 700 dds instead (thats approximately equivalent to the capacity the 1100 sd will carry)? the cost saved and spaces at interchange saved would also be significant. In that case, all sd will be replaced with dd, and routes can run more sparsely, which will also save spaces taken up by sd in the interchange!
But we very well know thats not the case and it wont be feasible to do that. DD might be double the capacity of a sd, but consider the other views in terms of throughput. At the interchange, alighting at sawtooth berth, a DD can only alight with 1 door because the stairs is exactly at the door, ppl alighting from upper deck will block lower deck pax from alighting from front door. What about the bendy? 3 doors at once.
Spaces at interchange such as saw tooth berths might be limited, but if u do put a bendy on a high capacity route, there can be ways to overcome this and even allow passengers to board more effectively. For e.g. parking can be done at nearby depots, instead of within the interchange, boarding can be done with 3 doors for high capacity routes w/ assistance of ticketing inspectors at interchange. The DD can only do 2 door at once, and as you can see with 179A its always a bottleneck.
So back to the original point, if the feeders and intratowns could use bendys to improve efficiency, so be it, ways should be found to overcome the problems at int because afterall it will be more efficient for majority of the route (all the bus stops vs just the int)
Apologies for the wall of text.
-
Originally posted by XiaoTaro:
Issue at interchange that the bus takes more spaces? compared to a dd, yes, compared to 1100 single decks, not really right? It all depends on how you view the issue, if dd is really so useful, why didnt sbstransit acquire 700 dds instead (thats approximately equivalent to the capacity the 1100 sd will carry)? the cost saved and spaces at interchange saved would also be significant. In that case, all sd will be replaced with dd, and routes can run more sparsely, which will also save spaces taken up by sd in the interchange!
But we very well know thats not the case and it wont be feasible to do that. DD might be double the capacity of a sd, but consider the other views in terms of throughput. At the interchange, alighting at sawtooth berth, a DD can only alight with 1 door because the stairs is exactly at the door, ppl alighting from upper deck will block lower deck pax from alighting from front door. What about the bendy? 3 doors at once.
Spaces at interchange such as saw tooth berths might be limited, but if u do put a bendy on a high capacity route, there can be ways to overcome this and even allow passengers to board more effectively. For e.g. parking can be done at nearby depots, instead of within the interchange, boarding can be done with 3 doors for high capacity routes w/ assistance of ticketing inspectors at interchange. The DD can only do 2 door at once, and as you can see with 179A its always a bottleneck.
So back to the original point, if the feeders and intratowns could use bendys to improve efficiency, so be it, ways should be found to overcome the problems at int because afterall it will be more efficient for majority of the route (all the bus stops vs just the int)
Apologies for the wall of text.
Dun forget there's e 10 mins QoS. If we were to trade 1100 SDs for 700 ADDs, that means bus freq would be ard 12 - 13 mins.
As for free bus spacing, it's neither true as there's not enough spaces during mealbreaks to begin with.
For bendies, they're no where faster. You can claim they can clear alighting faster, but wat abt their space usage? How big the bus interchange would now be made for e boarding area? Systems is taken as a whole, not just telling me "or, bendy faster in alighting, so they're better".
As for 179A, obviously you've not seen how 193 & 242 make do with the boarding. If we use bendy I think mati alrdy, lagi inefficient. Not to mention the mess at North & South Spine, 1 by 1 strictly. Worst is e effect onto 181 & 241 especially.
As for ppl dun move upper deck, no excuse to come and claim short distance. If you are e one along e way instead unable to board, you will then understand. Blaming e bus co is just a blanket to push e blame.
At e end of e day is education.
-
not many interchanges has depots nearby and also, all these increases traffic vol and run time.
is it efficient?
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
Dun forget there's e 10 mins QoS. If we were to trade 1100 SDs for 700 ADDs, that means bus freq would be ard 12 - 13 mins.
As for free bus spacing, it's neither true as there's not enough spaces during mealbreaks to begin with.
For bendies, they're no where faster. You can claim they can clear alighting faster, but wat abt their space usage? How big the bus interchange would now be made for e boarding area? Systems is taken as a whole, not just telling me "or, bendy faster in alighting, so they're better".
As for 179A, obviously you've not seen how 193 & 242 make do with the boarding. If we use bendy I think mati alrdy, lagi inefficient. Not to mention the mess at North & South Spine, 1 by 1 strictly. Worst is e effect onto 181 & 241 especially.
As for ppl dun move upper deck, no excuse to come and claim short distance. If you are e one along e way instead unable to board, you will then understand. Blaming e bus co is just a blanket to push e blame.
At e end of e day is education.
Precisely the point, If saving space is the key of all transport ops, then 700dd is the way to go, but as u have said, its not. QoS does matter too.
Mealbreaks can be a problem, but it can also be solved by drivers switching vehicles during meal break (pass veh over to someone who ate finish and go to eat) or returing back to depot just for meals.
All in all, the key point im trying to bring forward is that bendys are meant for certain ops, its not meant to replace every single route or service. Giving a single larger-sized berth in a int just for all feeders w/bendy wont take up much space, im in no way trying to imply that all berth should be upsized to fit bendys, that is indeed a waste of space.
Yes, educating people to move in is important, but actually, do note theres another part to it. Educating people to Let others move in if you are alighting soon is important too. That seems to be more of a problem from my observations, people trying to get off soon blocking the people trying to move to the rear.
-
Originally posted by XiaoTaro:
Precisely the point, If saving space is the key of all transport ops, then 700dd is the way to go, but as u have said, its not. QoS does matter too.
Mealbreaks can be a problem, but it can also be solved by drivers switching vehicles during meal break (pass veh over to someone who ate finish and go to eat) or returing back to depot just for meals.
All in all, the key point im trying to bring forward is that bendys are meant for certain ops, its not meant to replace every single route or service. Giving a single larger-sized berth in a int just for all feeders w/bendy wont take up much space, im in no way trying to imply that all berth should be upsized to fit bendys, that is indeed a waste of space.
Yes, educating people to move in is important, but actually, do note theres another part to it. Educating people to Let others move in if you are alighting soon is important too. That seems to be more of a problem from my observations, people trying to get off soon blocking the people trying to move to the rear.
Economies of scale would mean that it makes little sense to have a mixture of types. Just imagine the potential costs of having to train BCs, mechanics etc, and we haven't even include other costs which include the extra time needed to "learn" how to operate bendies.If DDs can do the job, as does more SDs, might as well carry on this way that's not obstructed by LTA in the first place?
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Economies of scale would mean that it makes little sense to have a mixture of types. Just imagine the potential costs of having to train BCs, mechanics etc, and we haven't even include other costs which include the extra time needed to "learn" how to operate bendies.If DDs can do the job, as does more SDs, might as well carry on this way that's not obstructed by LTA in the first place?
So if SMRT orders DD, while owning SD and Bendys, does that break the economies of scale?
I do however agree economies of scale is a factor, 1100 scanias is a example, but a mixture of types may not necessary break the economies of scale.
-
Originally posted by XiaoTaro:
So if SMRT orders DD, while owning SD and Bendys, does that break the economies of scale?
I do however agree economies of scale is a factor, 1100 scanias is a example, but a mixture of types may not necessary break the economies of scale.
Interestingly if the govt is gonna play a role in intervening where bendies are concerned, then at least it should break the impasse over DDs by solving the coordination failure here in SMRT's case, on the grounds of intervention.Actually if we look at SMRT's fleet size, EOS plays a major role.
1100 Scanias mean not only fuelling a spare parts market lowering unit cost, but experience in building the Scania bodies would mean lower costs also.
Mixture of types as a problem was best exemplified by the USAF and USN's move towards having the same airframes do multitudes of roles.
Arguably you are not wrong as well. Because flexibility is indeed an important component, although I'm also inclined to think more SDs could solve this and mitigate the loss in capacity in not having bendies.
-
Originally posted by XiaoTaro:
So if SMRT orders DD, while owning SD and Bendys, does that break the economies of scale?
I do however agree economies of scale is a factor, 1100 scanias is a example, but a mixture of types may not necessary break the economies of scale.
if they're eventually moving to a DD & SD fleet then it makes sense. if they're getting new DD, SD & bendies then it might be a bit difficult.
-
I rather don't have bendies. Just look at the jams and long queues they always created in Yishun interchange, terrible.
I think it is about educating the public about moving up the upper deck and give way to seats to the elderly and disabled in the lower deck. If Hong Kong can achieve this, why not Singapore? To put it bluntly, I think Singaporeans are just plain lazy.
Our roads are narrow, busy and congested. And our bus stops are mostly small. Having more longer buses adds to the woes of bus jams along bus lanes and bus bays. Worst still for commuters during rainy days.
Double deckers are still more suitable for Singapore roads.
-
do whatever but just don't remove the bendies on 176. or at least quickly demolish that 4.3m overhead railway at hillview.
the first bus (rigid) in the morning is always packed. always have to wait for the bendy. horrible. -
Originally posted by muziq bus:
do whatever but just don't remove the bendies on 176. or at least quickly demolish that 4.3m overhead railway at hillview.
the first bus (rigid) in the morning is always packed. always have to wait for the bendy. horrible.
KTM land to be returned. -
Originally posted by SBS 1000U:
I rather don't have bendies. Just look at the jams and long queues they always created in Yishun interchange, terrible.
I think it is about educating the public about moving up the upper deck and give way to seats to the elderly and disabled in the lower deck. If Hong Kong can achieve this, why not Singapore? To put it bluntly, I think Singaporeans are just plain lazy.
Our roads are narrow, busy and congested. And our bus stops are mostly small. Having more longer buses adds to the woes of bus jams along bus lanes and bus bays. Worst still for commuters during rainy days.
Double deckers are still more suitable for Singapore roads.
Yup totally agree.
Even for the MRT shuttle during the JEMP disruptions, the bendies caused massive jams, especially while entering BBT int.
Also, I've noticed that for sv222's DDs, ppl just refuse to move up, thus leaving many empty seats on the upper deck while downstairs, ppl are packed like sardines.
-
ultimately, wadever buses we use, it still depends on 1 thing.
the mindset.
-
Originally posted by jcqh:
Yup totally agree.
Even for the MRT shuttle during the JEMP disruptions, the bendies caused massive jams, especially while entering BBT int.
Also, I've noticed that for sv222's DDs, ppl just refuse to move up, thus leaving many empty seats on the upper deck while downstairs, ppl are packed like sardines.
aiya, deploy VO2x lor... ppl sure move to upper deck de, cooler -
At least 8 B9TLs are already assembled at CDGE HGDEP.
Spotted svc 18/19 on the rear EDS of 2 Wright B9TLs
-
Originally posted by buses[IN]gapore!:
At least 8 B9TLs are already assembled at CDGE HGDEP.
Spotted svc 18/19 on the rear EDS of 2 Wright B9TLs
Wow, this could be a sign that sv19 will the the 1st svc to get the B9s...
Since all its SDs are WAB but the DDs are preventing it from being a WAB svc overall.
-
Originally posted by jcqh:
Yup totally agree.
Even for the MRT shuttle during the JEMP disruptions, the bendies caused massive jams, especially while entering BBT int.
Also, I've noticed that for sv222's DDs, ppl just refuse to move up, thus leaving many empty seats on the upper deck while downstairs, ppl are packed like sardines.
The DDs, I encounter alot of times. Ppl are just too lazy to move up.. SO no use having DDs
-
Originally posted by jcqh:
Wow, this could be a sign that sv19 will the the 1st svc to get the B9s...
Since all its SDs are WAB but the DDs are preventing it from being a WAB svc overall.
er... the Wright B9TLs use Hanover EDS so whatever is on the Euro V K230UBs will be on the Wright B9TL.. probably testing the EDS to make sure all systems go.. don't read too much into things just yet..
-
Originally posted by SBS9818A:
er... the Wright B9TLs use Hanover EDS so whatever is on the Euro V K230UBs will be on the Wright B9TL.. probably testing the EDS to make sure all systems go.. don't read too much into things just yet..
True.
We'll just have to wait and see then.
-
Originally posted by smrt3099:
The DDs, I encounter alot of times. Ppl are just too lazy to move up.. SO no use having DDs
What if this Wright is like OC500LE :D
-
Originally posted by jcqh:
Yup totally agree.
Even for the MRT shuttle during the JEMP disruptions, the bendies caused massive jams, especially while entering BBT int.
Also, I've noticed that for sv222's DDs, ppl just refuse to move up, thus leaving many empty seats on the upper deck while downstairs, ppl are packed like sardines.
One way to help solve the feeder routes woes is to use all SD but on high frequency, then free up the DDs for trunk routes. If a feeder bus route is heavily in use, perhaps can consider introducing another feeder route than runs similar to the 1st route (with only slight route differences), to help absorb the pax volume. In this way, can also help to better inter-connect the neighbourhood. -
Originally posted by XiaoTaro:
Precisely the point, If saving space is the key of all transport ops, then 700dd is the way to go, but as u have said, its not. QoS does matter too.
Mealbreaks can be a problem, but it can also be solved by drivers switching vehicles during meal break (pass veh over to someone who ate finish and go to eat) or returing back to depot just for meals.
All in all, the key point im trying to bring forward is that bendys are meant for certain ops, its not meant to replace every single route or service. Giving a single larger-sized berth in a int just for all feeders w/bendy wont take up much space, im in no way trying to imply that all berth should be upsized to fit bendys, that is indeed a waste of space.
Yes, educating people to move in is important, but actually, do note theres another part to it. Educating people to Let others move in if you are alighting soon is important too. That seems to be more of a problem from my observations, people trying to get off soon blocking the people trying to move to the rear.
using double decks dun simply means I want to save space. It's to carry more ppl at 1 go with the same bus length - important for routes like 179A. Else I would end up needing 60 - 70 buses and it would flood the entire Jurong West Extn New Town.
The space saving is vis a vis with bendy buses as they've same licensed capacity.
-
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:
One way to help solve the feeder routes woes is to use all SD but on high frequency, then free up the DDs for trunk routes. If a feeder bus route is heavily in use, perhaps can consider introducing another feeder route than runs similar to the 1st route (with only slight route differences), to help absorb the pax volume. In this way, can also help to better inter-connect the neighbourhood.but sometimes both services would come at the same time, after a long wait at the int...like 66 and 228...both services always have at least a 10 min wait...and they always reach the boarding berth abt the same time