New batch of SMRT Mercedes Benz Citaro have arrived!
-
Originally posted by vicamour:
LTA will not approve the Capacity due the length, that's for sure.There are many cheaper brands to buy other than Mercedes Benz for bendy buses and SMRT has already spend extra money/budget to get Citaro single deckers. That's why they trial the MAN and Zhongtong, as most likely candidates.
One thing for sure, LTA has limit the number of bendy buses each company can buy. Even if SBST wants to buy them in future, they can also buy in small fleets. So what for spend so much extra money to buy such small fleets in future? They can spend more money instead to buy more single deckers to improve the frequncies instead, else just go for double deckers.
Would like to slightly disagree on a small point here, not regarding bendy.
Firstly, if u have taken then o405 OAC/NAC when it was new, and the scanias strider/eabo when it was new, which would u have prefered if u had to travel in it everyday to school for 45mins
And now many years down the road, for those who've taken both the Citaro and the OC, which would you prefer to sit in if u had to travel in it everyday to school for the same 45mins.
I ask this because i can only see the OC ending up like the scanias, with the bodywork and mechanics getting more "cui" by the day. Even with some newer batch 2 OC, they have something that goes rattleing underneath the chassis which is presumbly a loose shock absorber.
Lean ur head to the window and try to sleep, the Citaro dosent even "vibrate" when its at idle.
I feel that for a small price premium to pay, such quality is worth it and will go a long way, just like the how the o405 lasted till this day, with its good bodywork and not like some... umw lance anyone?
-
Originally posted by XiaoTaro:
Would like to slightly disagree on a small point here, not regarding bendy.
Firstly, if u have taken then o405 OAC/NAC when it was new, and the scanias strider/eabo when it was new, which would u have prefered if u had to travel in it everyday to school for 45mins
And now many years down the road, for those who've taken both the Citaro and the OC, which would you prefer to sit in if u had to travel in it everyday to school for the same 45mins.
I ask this because i can only see the OC ending up like the scanias, with the bodywork and mechanics getting more "cui" by the day. Even with some newer batch 2 OC, they have something that goes rattleing underneath the chassis which is presumbly a loose shock absorber.
Lean ur head to the window and try to sleep, the Citaro dosent even "vibrate" when its at idle.
I feel that for a small price premium to pay, such quality is worth it and will go a long way, just like the how the o405 lasted till this day, with its good bodywork and not like some... umw lance anyone?
To the operators' point of view, as long as the bus is operating well, meet their needs, and also value for money, they don't really bother whether what body is it. And most commuters don't care what bus is that as long as it is punctual, efficient and clean, and most importantly doesn't raise bus fares. The recent purchase of Citaros by SBST and SMRT is probably just a bonus for commuters.
However in future to increase bus fares to cover the costs to buy more of these buses in future, I think bus operators here need to think twice, based on lifespans, usages and costs of returns.
Anyway, I agree that Gemilang is not a suitable brand for the Scania KUBs and Mercedes OCs. SBST should have used Wrightbus or MCV or even East Lancs to body the KUBs. Even Soon Chow may be better than Gemilang.
-
Originally posted by vicamour:
To the operators' point of view, as long as the bus is operating well, meet their needs, and also value for money, they don't really bother whether what body is it. And most commuters don't care what bus is that as long as it is punctual, efficient and clean, and most importantly doesn't raise bus fares. The recent purchase of Citaros by SBST and SMRT is probably just a bonus for commuters.
However in future to increase bus fares to cover the costs to buy more of these buses in future, I think bus operators here need to think twice, based on lifespans, usages and costs of returns.
Anyway, I agree that Gemilang is not a suitable brand for the Scania KUBs and Mercedes OCs. SBST should have used Wrightbus or MCV or even East Lancs to body the KUBs. Even Soon Chow may be better than Gemilang.
Actually, its pretty true because most of the maintaience wont be on the body, but still it probably wont give a good impression on the pax and then it will lead to some other complain. Just like if the bus u are taking is slow, u will find some other complains about it and so on so forth. Thats what i feel.
But still the bodywork designs do still make a slight impact on efficiency, for eg. placement of doors, chairs, grab poles, staircases and different door designs(plug, sliding, leaf, etc) will still impact on some degree to the turn around of pax at bus stops. This is probably why sbst opted to get wright to redesign the lower decks to make the B9's lower deck stand more pax compared to the orignal designs used by kmb, dublinbus, etc.
However i still do hope that bus fares dont get raised due to better vehicles, its their responsiblity to serve the public while still keep having improvements and accessiblity to users. kmb could do it, hope they can manage to do it too.
Last of all, lifespan, usages, cost of returns are important as per what u have said, but there stands a more important factor, which is fuel consumption. As fuel prices continue going north, it will probably cause a impact to fares sooner or later when the fuel reserves runs out and a steep fare raise will then be immenent.
-
Originally posted by vicamour:
LTA will not approve the Capacity due the length, that's for sure.There are many cheaper brands to buy other than Mercedes Benz for bendy buses and SMRT has already spend extra money/budget to get Citaro single deckers. That's why they trial the MAN and Zhongtong, as most likely candidates.
One thing for sure, LTA has limit the number of bendy buses each company can buy. Even if SBST wants to buy them in future, they can also buy in small fleets. So what for spend so much extra money to buy such small fleets in future? They can spend more money instead to buy more single deckers to improve the frequncies instead, else just go for double deckers.
SMRT would not buy DD as their depot and interchange structure are not ready to suit DDs. LTA will increase the limit of bendies of the demand is there. A Capacity might be possible. Routes like 190 need them.
-
Possiblity of a DD exist though, might be in limited numbers and may be doing overnght parking at interchanges?
/random guesses. -
Originally posted by dan474:
SMRT would not buy DD as their depot and interchange structure are not ready to suit DDs. LTA will increase the limit of bendies of the demand is there. A Capacity might be possible. Routes like 190 need them.
Well, that depends and we'll see in 2 to 3 years time.
As amdep's land lease is ending in about 2 years time, we'll have to see if SLA decides to renew it and the conditions set on the renewal. They might require better use of land so instead of single story parking, they might have to move into a multi story enviroment. That might prompt smrt to build facilities with cater for dd.
Of course there's always a chance that they just renew without any conditions.
-
Capacity no..18m bendies ardy ppl make noise some more 19.4m?
-
Originally posted by dan474:
SMRT would not buy DD as their depot and interchange structure are not ready to suit DDs. LTA will increase the limit of bendies of the demand is there. A Capacity might be possible. Routes like 190 need them.
I thought LTA has already banned SMRT to get more bendies?
Woodlands depot, Yishun can use DD as well as Bukit Batok and Bukit Panjang interchange..
-
Originally posted by sbs7207b:
Woodlands depot, Yishun can use DD as well as Bukit Batok and Bukit Panjang interchange..
Yishun I don't think can deploy DDs though.WLDEP-wise if you take a closer look I think should not be a problem.
-
Originally posted by XiaoTaro:
Actually, its pretty true because most of the maintaience wont be on the body, but still it probably wont give a good impression on the pax and then it will lead to some other complain. Just like if the bus u are taking is slow, u will find some other complains about it and so on so forth. Thats what i feel.
But still the bodywork designs do still make a slight impact on efficiency, for eg. placement of doors, chairs, grab poles, staircases and different door designs(plug, sliding, leaf, etc) will still impact on some degree to the turn around of pax at bus stops. This is probably why sbst opted to get wright to redesign the lower decks to make the B9's lower deck stand more pax compared to the orignal designs used by kmb, dublinbus, etc.
However i still do hope that bus fares dont get raised due to better vehicles, its their responsiblity to serve the public while still keep having improvements and accessiblity to users. kmb could do it, hope they can manage to do it too.
Last of all, lifespan, usages, cost of returns are important as per what u have said, but there stands a more important factor, which is fuel consumption. As fuel prices continue going north, it will probably cause a impact to fares sooner or later when the fuel reserves runs out and a steep fare raise will then be immenent.
Re: fuel costs; go for diesel-electric buses? If possible, convert some existing newer buses to diesel-electric ones to save fuel? -
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:
Re: fuel costs; go for diesel-electric buses? If possible, convert some existing newer buses to diesel-electric ones to save fuel?diesel-electric, what i feel is that the current technology is not really mature yet to reap much savings/performance from it because of the much higher upfront amount paid for the buses itself. Even the sunlongs cost 100k more than kubs, but there needs to be some consideration to how long to achieve this amount of saving.
Assuming a generous 3km/liter of diesel, and $0.81 per liter as per reference fuel price set by PTC , thats about 3.7km per dollar. At 10% and 20% fuel savings, it would take 370 000 km and 185 000 km respectively to recover the cost of the sunlong, not exactly very cost effective also because the battery and drivetrain also needs to undergo overhaul too. To add, the performance of hybrids are still generally lacking compared to their diesel counterparts.
Something surprising which i came across while digging smrt's annual report for figures is that the citaro is 1 ton lighter (thats about 15 adults) and therefore saves 7% more fuel.
-
Originally posted by TIB 781 L:
Yishun I don't think can deploy DDs though.WLDEP-wise if you take a closer look I think should not be a problem.
Originally posted by sbs7207b:I thought LTA has already banned SMRT to get more bendies?
Woodlands depot, Yishun can use DD as well as Bukit Batok and Bukit Panjang interchange..
Originally posted by XiaoTaro:Well, that depends and we'll see in 2 to 3 years time.
As amdep's land lease is ending in about 2 years time, we'll have to see if SLA decides to renew it and the conditions set on the renewal. They might require better use of land so instead of single story parking, they might have to move into a multi story enviroment. That might prompt smrt to build facilities with cater for dd.
Of course there's always a chance that they just renew without any conditions.
Other than SMRT is willingly to make minor modifications in some areas, Woodlands depot generally can park double deckers, if you observe closely at the height.
Yishun Central is going for redevelopment in a few years time, so most likely a DD friendly bus interchange will be built then. Other than that, all other bus interchanges can support double decker heights.
As for the new depot replacing Ang Mo Kio's one, regardless where it is, I do hope that SMRT will build or modify one that can cater for DDs. But more likely they might build a new one, since the current ones cannot cater the parking needs.
Originally posted by XiaoTaro:Actually, its pretty true because most of the maintaience wont be on the body, but still it probably wont give a good impression on the pax and then it will lead to some other complain. Just like if the bus u are taking is slow, u will find some other complains about it and so on so forth. Thats what i feel.
But still the bodywork designs do still make a slight impact on efficiency, for eg. placement of doors, chairs, grab poles, staircases and different door designs(plug, sliding, leaf, etc) will still impact on some degree to the turn around of pax at bus stops. This is probably why sbst opted to get wright to redesign the lower decks to make the B9's lower deck stand more pax compared to the orignal designs used by kmb, dublinbus, etc.
However i still do hope that bus fares dont get raised due to better vehicles, its their responsiblity to serve the public while still keep having improvements and accessiblity to users. kmb could do it, hope they can manage to do it too.
Last of all, lifespan, usages, cost of returns are important as per what u have said, but there stands a more important factor, which is fuel consumption. As fuel prices continue going north, it will probably cause a impact to fares sooner or later when the fuel reserves runs out and a steep fare raise will then be immenent.
Bodyworks do have the impact, this I do agree. But to a commoner, as long as the bus is comfortable, have more seats, does not leak water and exhaust fumes into the cabin (since buses are all air conditioned), working aircon, they won't care what is Gemilang, Wright or Alexander. Opting for European designs is a plus for commuters as they are more ergonomically and aesthetically designed for commuters and operators. But seems Gemilang gives a lot of problems to operators instead.
But then no choice since Singapore resides near Malaysia instead of within Europe. Transportation costs is also a factor as well. Getting bus bodies from nearby countries or even locally is more cost effective than transporting them from one continent to another. If Singapore is within Europe, maybe we can get the 1st generation Citaro from 1997 onwards instead of only till 2011, and even have Volvo 7700, MAN Lion City, Iris Ceteris, etc in the SBS fleet back then. If we can get bus bodies from Alexander, Wright, DM, Hispano, etc, we are already counting ourselves very lucky already.
I wonder how KMB did it too, admist of buying expensive buses like the Enviro 500 and Centroliners and yet can achieve profitability.
Yep, fuel consumption is one of the major components of operational costs. Thus it makes no sense to buy buses that are too powerful where the bus operations here are highly start and stop environment. Not only it might burn more fuel but it also translate into more operational costs.
Originally posted by dan474:SMRT would not buy DD as their depot and interchange structure are not ready to suit DDs. LTA will increase the limit of bendies of the demand is there. A Capacity might be possible. Routes like 190 need them.
Then continue your self denial. Fact is they are already limiting the numbers for each bus operator that it can buy. Initial plan is to ban the purchase of bendies but SMRT insist on buying to continue to serve the future demand, especially for feeder services and so LTA sets a limit instead.Trunk services will need lesser bendies in future due to the upcoming of Bukit Timah MRT. Currently many of SMRT services are already switching to more single deckers with better frequncies, like 61, 67, 188, 851, 854, 856, 859, 962, 969, ever since the influx of the OC500s. And when the Bukit Timah line is up, some services may cut down in number of buses. 190 will definately get the cut, and probably even withdrawn by LTA to force people to take MRT or take 700 if they prefer to take buses. And the current problem of 190 is a temporary one, LTA will not let this overcrowding and long bus queues problems of 190 along Orchard Road stay on forever.
Capacity is out of question since LTA is limiting bendy bus numbers because of obvious reasons. In the mid 1990s when SBS brought in the 19m Volvo B10M artic, SBS had already expressed interest to bring in the longer 24m Volvo bi-articulated bus, but in the end the plan was axed, probably by LTA then. So why will LTA allow the almost 20m bus which takes up more than the length of an average bus bay in Singapore, where it is specifically designed to stop at least 2 buses instead and currently even a 14.5m bendy is already a problem?
And the currrent frequncies and demand for each frequncies do not warrant the use of the Capacity as well. Even in very high demand routes, a double decker and a bendy bus is good enough to cater the demand. I don't think SMRT will be so dumb to spend so much money to buy such expensive buses and in the end cannot fully utilized them all the time. The money can better off allow them to buy more single deckers instead for more cost efficiencies and more flexibilities.
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:
Re: fuel costs; go for diesel-electric buses? If possible, convert some existing newer buses to diesel-electric ones to save fuel?
Conversion is highly impossible as it involves a lot of costs and probably maintenance and other costs of implications after the modifications.Originally posted by XiaoTaro:diesel-electric, what i feel is that the current technology is not really mature yet to reap much savings/performance from it because of the much higher upfront amount paid for the buses itself. Even the sunlongs cost 100k more than kubs, but there needs to be some consideration to how long to achieve this amount of saving.
Assuming a generous 3km/liter of diesel, and $0.81 per liter as per reference fuel price set by PTC , thats about 3.7km per dollar. At 10% and 20% fuel savings, it would take 370 000 km and 185 000 km respectively to recover the cost of the sunlong, not exactly very cost effective also because the battery and drivetrain also needs to undergo overhaul too. To add, the performance of hybrids are still generally lacking compared to their diesel counterparts.
Something surprising which i came across while digging smrt's annual report for figures is that the citaro is 1 ton lighter (thats about 15 adults) and therefore saves 7% more fuel.
Yes, diesel electric hybrid engines for buses and trucks are still at the infant stages. Even smaller hybrid engines for cars are still evolving now, even they are beginning to raise awareness and increasing sales worldwide. Although they may be more powerful (e.g Toyota Supra sports car hybrid), cost is still a factor today to build such technologies. There is still a long way before bus/truck manufacturers can build hybrid engines that provide optimum performances and as cheap as their petrol/diesel conuterparts.But fossil fuels like petrol and diesel will run out one day, thus it is still the need to explore into other kinds of fuels before the oil well globally runs dry one day.
Hydrogen is still at its very infant stage and costly and only receives minimal success from car manufacturers like BMW.
Other companies also looking into pressurised air to move pistons but the technology is only at explorary stages and is very weak in power and very costly.
Better candidates might be the hybrid diesel but costs need to be reduced further before bus operators worldwide will mass purchase them.
CNG is possible, but due to the explosion case of the MIC CNG bus last year, other than the 12 SBST Volvo B10BLE CNG buses, I doubt LTA will consider mass operating such buses in future.
Another good and cheaper option might be bio fuels, which comes from plants and is easily obtainable from our neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia due to their abundence of oil palm plantations. Bio fuels is also less polluting and supplies are typically unlimited, since oil palms can bear the fruits again and again.
-
Originally posted by vicamour:
Yes, diesel electric hybrid engines for buses and trucks are still at the infant stages. Even smaller hybrid engines for cars are still evolving now, even they are beginning to raise awareness and increasing sales worldwide. Although they may be more powerful (e.g Toyota Supra sports car hybrid), cost is still a factor today to build such technologies. There is still a long way before bus/truck manufacturers can build hybrid engines that provide optimum performances and as cheap as their petrol/diesel conuterparts.
But fossil fuels like petrol and diesel will run out one day, thus it is still the need to explore into other kinds of fuels before the oil well globally runs dry one day.
Hydrogen is still at its very infant stage and costly and only receives minimal success from car manufacturers like BMW.
Other companies also looking into pressurised air to move pistons but the technology is only at explorary stages and is very weak in power and very costly.
Better candidates might be the hybrid diesel but costs need to be reduced further before bus operators worldwide will mass purchase them.
CNG is possible, but due to the explosion case of the MIC CNG bus last year, other than the 12 SBST Volvo B10BLE CNG buses, I doubt LTA will consider mass operating such buses in future.
Another good and cheaper option might be bio fuels, which comes from plants and is easily obtainable from our neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia due to their abundence of oil palm plantations. Bio fuels is also less polluting and supplies are typically unlimited, since oil palms can bear the fruits again and again.
As per u have said, the only one thats commercially feasible still seems to be the hybrid diesels. I wonder if smrt will bring in the Citaro G hybrid for demonstration, its alright if they are not buying it, because it will probably cost alot and not be able to recover the higher purchase cost. But its a good vehicle to put on comparison with the current breed of sunlong and zhongtong.
Actually hybrid drivetrains have been used on buses in the us for quite some time already, but due to the much different roads and route structures, the current parallel hybrid drivetrains made by the us and used on the sunlong and zhongtong arnt really suited to start-stop environments that we have here.
Something to add is that hydrogen is cannot be exactly termed as a fuel, but more of a form of energy storage like electric batteries. Its not really revelant to compare hydrogen with diesel and cng because diesel and cng can both be treated as a fuel, as it exists naturally(after processing) and can be directly combusted to create energy. Hydrogen on the other hand, requires another fuel to create hydrogen which is then stored in liquid form for usage onboard vehicles.
Because of this very fact that its a energy storage, instant peak torque and power can be produced by running hydrogen thru the fuel cell stack therefore creating electricity which runs motors on the bus. Very powerful, but very expensive to create dense hydrogen and for maintainence/replacement of the fuel cell stack.
Bio fuel is a good alternative, but although its renewable, any natural disaster will probably cause a huge spike to fuel prices because of the fact that such plants need time to re-grow.
-
Originally posted by XiaoTaro:
As per u have said, the only one thats commercially feasible still seems to be the hybrid diesels. I wonder if smrt will bring in the Citaro G hybrid for demonstration, its alright if they are not buying it, because it will probably cost alot and not be able to recover the higher purchase cost. But its a good vehicle to put on comparison with the current breed of sunlong and zhongtong.
Actually hybrid drivetrains have been used on buses in the us for quite some time already, but due to the much different roads and route structures, the current parallel hybrid drivetrains made by the us and used on the sunlong and zhongtong arnt really suited to start-stop environments that we have here.
Something to add is that hydrogen is cannot be exactly termed as a fuel, but more of a form of energy storage like electric batteries. Its not really revelant to compare hydrogen with diesel and cng because diesel and cng can both be treated as a fuel, as it exists naturally(after processing) and can be directly combusted to create energy. Hydrogen on the other hand, requires another fuel to create hydrogen which is then stored in liquid form for usage onboard vehicles.
Because of this very fact that its a energy storage, instant peak torque and power can be produced by running hydrogen thru the fuel cell stack therefore creating electricity which runs motors on the bus. Very powerful, but very expensive to create dense hydrogen and for maintainence/replacement of the fuel cell stack.
Bio fuel is a good alternative, but although its renewable, any natural disaster will probably cause a huge spike to fuel prices because of the fact that such plants need time to re-grow.
I don't think SMRT will bring in any Citaro G Hybrid because it will be very expensive to operate, especially if it is a bigger bus. SBST and SMRT already facing high costs operating the SunLongs and Zhongtong. If not, why SBST hasn't brought in the Volvo B5L double decker hybrid for trial here?I believe both operators bring in MIC hybrid buses for trial because they are cheaper. Their main objective for this trial is the see the operative feasibility of such buses, especially in high demanding operational conditions like in Singapore, like the costs of operations, breakdown rates, fuel consumption everyday, maintanance expertise and costs, etc. This may be a few years. Hopefully after these few years, European bus manufacturers can have the capability to produce hybrid engines cheap enough to mass purchase and operate, and if the trial is successful, I do hope that SBST and SMRT will bring in European hybrid buses, instead of MIC ones.
Regarding to the bio fuels, used cooking oil can also be recycled to use as bio fuels for vehicles. It is already done in Brazil. So the source is not just from plants, but also recycled cooking oils instead of throwing them away.
-
Originally posted by vicamour:
I don't think SMRT will bring in any Citaro G Hybrid because it will be very expensive to operate, especially if it is a bigger bus. SBST and SMRT already facing high costs operating the SunLongs and Zhongtong. If not, why SBST hasn't brought in the Volvo B5L double decker hybrid for trial here?I believe both operators bring in MIC hybrid buses for trial because they are cheaper. Their main objective for this trial is the see the operative feasibility of such buses, especially in high demanding operational conditions like in Singapore, like the costs of operations, breakdown rates, fuel consumption everyday, maintanance expertise and costs, etc. This may be a few years. Hopefully after these few years, European bus manufacturers can have the capability to produce hybrid engines cheap enough to mass purchase and operate, and if the trial is successful, I do hope that SBST and SMRT will bring in European hybrid buses, instead of MIC ones.
Regarding to the bio fuels, used cooking oil can also be recycled to use as bio fuels for vehicles. It is already done in Brazil. So the source is not just from plants, but also recycled cooking oils instead of throwing them away.
Erm, actually the operating cost is and should be lower than the normal diesel, but with higher upfront purchase cost, otherwise theres not really a point to shift to hybrids issnt it?
The B5L cant be used here, because if fitted with a aircon unit, its too heavy as a 2axle dd with its battery.As for the MIC hybrids, from my knowledge and perspective, they are shipped and given to the bus co for trial purpose by the manufacturers in order to win more hybrid orders from sbst and smrt respectively. It's much unlikely for smrt or sbst to contact the manufacturer instead for the demonstrators unless they really are very keen and interested in the vehicles. If they find the vehicle to be not meeting its requirements such as better fuel consumption, performance and price, smrt and sbst will return them back such as happened the yutong and man.
If this is the case, it would be still possible for CC singapore or evobus to send a Citaro G in order to try win some orders for smrt's bendy replacement exercise in due time. But whether smrt wants it, thats another issue.
Cost wise, the MIC hybrids wouldnt cost much less, because afterall their drivetrain and components are much sourced from europe/us, except for the chassis and body itself. Most of the current breed of hybrid drivetrains come from the US, well basically because they started building it first. I do hope too that more development into the technology is done in europe too.
Bio fuels wise, yes, but only a certain percentage is biofuel, still have to be mixed with gasoline or diesel but not purely biofuel. Its a good start, but cant completely replace fossil fuels yet. Feel free to correct me if its otherwise.
-
Originally posted by TIB 781 L:
Yishun I don't think can deploy DDs though.WLDEP-wise if you take a closer look I think should not be a problem.
Why Yishun have problem have DD? The entrance (I don't really think so)
Or the berth on 855 side (That side doesn't use bendi bus anyway)
-
Originally posted by sbs7207b:
Why Yishun have problem have DD? The entrance (I don't really think so)
Or the berth on 855 side (That side doesn't use bendi bus anyway)
I bet the entrance shelter is low. Plus, the individual bus parking berth(855, 39, 85, 852 side) also have a limit.
-
IF SMRT is bringing in WAB Bendys, it will probably be the discards from TfL franchised operators...
ACx -
Originally posted by Acx1688:
IF SMRT is bringing in WAB Bendys, it will probably be the discards from TfL franchised operators...
ACxOr not?
Quote from LTA: "Please note that only used vehicles that are less than 3 years old can be imported and registered for use in Singapore."
If u are buying a used vehicle thats less than 3 years old, how much cheaper will it get than getting a new vehicle?
Dont really see a point of doing so...
-
Originally posted by SMB66X:
I bet the entrance shelter is low. Plus, the individual bus parking berth(855, 39, 85, 852 side) also have a limit.
The entrance is ok..because is a height of 2 levels of the building
I don't think Individual bus parking berth is not necessary to worry about them, any of those services ever use bendies?
-
Originally posted by sbs7207b:
I thought LTA has already banned SMRT to get more bendies?
Woodlands depot, Yishun can use DD as well as Bukit Batok and Bukit Panjang interchange..
Limited to (I think) 200 new WAB bendies.
-
OT: XiaoTaro and vicamor, thanks for making me read more than 10 para
-
I doubt that the DTL (not Bt Timah Line anymore) will cope with the load. It only operates 3-car Bombardier C951/Alstom C830, not the usual C151, C651, C751A/B. The current CCL already have problems such as imbalanced load during peak hrs.
-
Originally posted by dan474:
OT: XiaoTaro and vicamor, thanks for making me read more than 10 para
OT: Haha, thanks for actually going thru it. I believe vicamor and myself posted quite abit of related info that's useful for this topic and relevant facts to support it. Another paragraph:
I do really hope that sbst and smrtb will work towards better efficiency of their vehicles instead of just making bc follow the timetable and penalize them if otherwise. Because if the vehicle is itself efficient and ergonomic, the BC will be able to better follow his timetable. Tiny stuff like vehicle layouts, door design and door speeds, placement of mirrors(the oc's mirror is very badly placed, too high) and better use of vehicle tracking technology to plan timetables and prediction of jams. All this and more will help the bc to focus more on driving and meet targets better.
-
SMRT future fleets 70% rigids 30% bendies SBST 55% rigids 45% DDs... Feeders/Intratowns should at least 85% bendies Trunk should capped around 15% bendies