Guys,
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that many of you fail to factor in LOGISTICS and WHOLE-OF-LIFE COSTS when taking into consideration the types of buses that operators purchase.
Let me start with the former. SMRT already operates a large fleet of Mercedes-Benz buses. This means that their engineers and mechanics already have experience working on this make of bus and that potentially they have a stockpile of spare parts that can be interchanged between the O 405-series and the OC 500 / O 530-series of buses or chassis. Introducing a new make of bus into the fleet will require retooling, retraining, and stocking a unique set of spare parts. It would be economically more feasible for the operator therefore to continue to buy from the same manufacturer provided that the latest offerings meet their requirements.
Secondly, the overall cost of a vehicle to operate revolves around more than just the initial cost of the chassis and the bodywork. Operators need to factor in such details as fuel consumption, spare parts costs, servicing requirements (and associated downtime) as well as the projected longevity major components (e.g. drivetrain). Chassis 'A' may cost more to purchase initially, but if it uses 10L less diesel per 100km compared to Chassis 'B' (which costs, say, 10% less to purchase initially) in the same operating conditions, has longer service intervals and a guaranteed powertrain lifespan of 10 years compared to 8 years for Chassis 'B', you'll find that the overall whole-of-life cost associated with the operation of Chassis 'A' will be lower.
In Australia, it is widely accepted that the Mercedes-Benz OC 500 LE has extremely good fuel consumption figures compared to the competition (easily averaging below 40L/100km on urban duties). The performance and reliability of the powertrain and transmission are also second-to-none. I can personally understand why SMRT have chosen Mercedes-Benz over its rivals.
Originally posted by Powered_By_CNG:Guys,
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that many of you fail to factor in LOGISTICS and WHOLE-OF-LIFE COSTS when taking into consideration the types of buses that operators purchase.
Let me start with the former. SMRT already operates a large fleet of Mercedes-Benz buses. This means that their engineers and mechanics already have experience working on this make of bus and that potentially they have a stockpile of spare parts that can be interchanged between the O 405-series and the OC 500 / O 530-series of buses or chassis. Introducing a new make of bus into the fleet will require retooling, retraining, and stocking a unique set of spare parts. It would be economically more feasible for the operator therefore to continue to buy from the same manufacturer provided that the latest offerings meet their requirements.
Secondly, the overall cost of a vehicle to operate revolves around more than just the initial cost of the chassis and the bodywork. Operators need to factor in such details as fuel consumption, spare parts costs, servicing requirements (and associated downtime) as well as the projected longevity major components (e.g. drivetrain). Chassis 'A' may cost more to purchase initially, but if it uses 10L less diesel per 100km compared to Chassis 'B' (which costs, say, 10% less to purchase initially) in the same operating conditions, has longer service intervals and a guaranteed powertrain lifespan of 10 years compared to 8 years for Chassis 'B', you'll find that the overall whole-of-life cost associated with the operation of Chassis 'A' will be lower.
In Australia, it is widely accepted that the Mercedes-Benz OC 500 LE has extremely good fuel consumption figures compared to the competition (easily averaging below 40L/100km on urban duties). The performance and reliability of the powertrain and transmission are also second-to-none. I can personally understand why SMRT have chosen Mercedes-Benz over its rivals.
I don't really agree on your first explanation paragraph. If that company so to close down, how is SMRT gonna continue their services?
Originally posted by SMB66X:I don't really agree on your first explanation paragraph. If that company so to close down, how is SMRT gonna continue their services?
they can use third-party parts at the worst, and provide the necessary evaluation if there are a few potential suppliers.
and every manufacturer has the same risk of closing down, why worry about what might happen versus what is already happening now?
Originally posted by SMB66X:I don't really agree on your first explanation paragraph. If that company so to close down, how is SMRT gonna continue their services?
Leyland produced the last batch of Olympian chassis for SBS in 1993... So has SBS Transit collapsed?
Originally posted by S.Solitaire:Leyland produced the last batch of Olympian chassis for SBS in 1993... So has SBS Transit collapsed?
There's only 200 LOs.
And the VOs share commonality in many areas, even if they have different engines.
Weight the costs and the benefits. Spreading of risk vs economies of scale.
The OM 906 hLA is suitable for use in RIGID buses in conditions where the average speed is either very low (no need for the extra performance of the OM 457 hLA) or very high (no need for constant acceleration). This engine may also be suitable for ARTICULATED buses working in flat topographies with low demand on acceleration. The small displacement (6.4L over 6 cylinders) ensures low fuel consumption when the engine is not working hard.
The OM 457 hLA is suitable for uses in RIGID and ARTICULATED buses. In the case of rigid buses, this engine provides the best driveability when the topography of the target operating area dictates the need for a high-torque engine, or when the operation places a high demand on acceleration (i.e. a mix of start-stop and long-distance running). The large displacement (12L over 6 cylinders) ensures smooth power delivery at all engine speeds and effortless acceleration no matter which gear you're in.
Originally posted by Powered_By_CNG:Guys,
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that many of you fail to factor in LOGISTICS and WHOLE-OF-LIFE COSTS when taking into consideration the types of buses that operators purchase.
Let me start with the former. SMRT already operates a large fleet of Mercedes-Benz buses. This means that their engineers and mechanics already have experience working on this make of bus and that potentially they have a stockpile of spare parts that can be interchanged between the O 405-series and the OC 500 / O 530-series of buses or chassis. Introducing a new make of bus into the fleet will require retooling, retraining, and stocking a unique set of spare parts. It would be economically more feasible for the operator therefore to continue to buy from the same manufacturer provided that the latest offerings meet their requirements.
Secondly, the overall cost of a vehicle to operate revolves around more than just the initial cost of the chassis and the bodywork. Operators need to factor in such details as fuel consumption, spare parts costs, servicing requirements (and associated downtime) as well as the projected longevity major components (e.g. drivetrain). Chassis 'A' may cost more to purchase initially, but if it uses 10L less diesel per 100km compared to Chassis 'B' (which costs, say, 10% less to purchase initially) in the same operating conditions, has longer service intervals and a guaranteed powertrain lifespan of 10 years compared to 8 years for Chassis 'B', you'll find that the overall whole-of-life cost associated with the operation of Chassis 'A' will be lower.
In Australia, it is widely accepted that the Mercedes-Benz OC 500 LE has extremely good fuel consumption figures compared to the competition (easily averaging below 40L/100km on urban duties). The performance and reliability of the powertrain and transmission are also second-to-none. I can personally understand why SMRT have chosen Mercedes-Benz over its rivals.
I'd like to add that the presence of a reliable and established local dealer for the particular make also goes a long way to reducing the two aspects of costs mentioned above. It's a mutually beneficial relationship whereby
- the operator is able to receive more timely support e.g. stocking replacement parts
- lower costs and a better deal for the operator through entering long-term service contracts
- the dealer has a better chance of securing future orders from the operator by showing a proven track record.
The mutual synergies between, say, SBS Transit and CDGE (for Volvo) and Scania Singapore, and between SMRT and Cycle & Carriage is probably the reason why they remain loyal to the respective providers.
Not to mention that it is logistically challenging and almost impossible to bring in a particular make without the help of a local dealer, which is the reason why we don't see Alexander Dennis in Singapore yet because there is no local dealership for it. ST Kinetics, being the dealer for MAN, has only recently began pushing buses to the operators having previously focused on military and commercial trucks - a pity for they have missed the boat (or the bus, if you like!)
Anyway spotted SMB136C on 853 near potong pasir mrt station around 1850hrs 17.2.2011 twds Lorong 1 Geylang Terminal
ACx
The Citaro should be registering soon, either next week or earlier before March.
Originally posted by Acx1688:Anyway spotted SMB136C on 853 near potong pasir mrt station around 1850hrs 17.2.2011 twds Lorong 1 Geylang Terminal
ACx
I think this should be a sign 853 might get them first though.
Originally posted by TIB 781 L:
I think this should be a sign 853 might get them first though.
Maybe. Anyway 853 passes by Khoo Teck Puat Hospital rite?
Its a sign that is it going to be WAB soon also
Originally posted by TIB 781 L:
I think this should be a sign 853 might get them first though.
You would never know that AMDEP could just transfer 852 OCs over instead of using Citaros.
Citaros are more suitable for 858 since it goes to CGA. More reliable and stable.
Originally posted by SMB66X:You would never know that AMDEP could just transfer 852 OCs over instead of using Citaros.
We will see about that, most probably they might give 851 first then give the remaining OCs to 853 and transfer any 10 out.
Originally posted by TIB 781 L:
We will see about that, most probably they might give 851 first then give the remaining OCs to 853 and transfer any 10 out.
851 doesn't need more OCs when it have 17 OCs in the fleet.
I think let time tell who gets them first, since they are not dispatched on revenue svc yet.
Agreed but if 854 comes over to WLDEP some re-scheduling has to be done.
It's tiring for the SLs to clock in at such timings though, better make it all buses that leave Woodlands after 2300 terminate at CGA though
By the way, 858 - 854 swap, will there be any complaints coming from the SL?
Originally posted by Glencsoh:Maybe. Anyway 853 passes by Khoo Teck Puat Hospital rite?
Its a sign that is it going to be WAB soon also
explain 854 please. thank you :) after around 5 cameos on both 854E and 854 is it a WAB in spite the fleet of OCs inside? No. :)
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.
if only Singapore is just like Hong Kong. :)
If you have realised, the bus operators in Hong Kong have at least 85% of the fleet comprises of double-deck buses, even if it is KMB or CTB or NWFB or LWB or Cityflyer, which simply means their roads don't really have much height restriction, even if there is it would be way higher than a double-deck bus, with the exception the only bus operator in South Lantau, the NLB, which has only one double-deck(from Kwoon Chung) running the North Lantau routes.
Originally posted by SBS8214Z:if only Singapore is just like Hong Kong. :)
If you have realised, the bus operators in Hong Kong have at least 85% of the fleet comprises of double-deck buses, even if it is KMB or CTB or NWFB or LWB or Cityflyer, which simply means their roads don't really have much height restriction, even if there is it would be way higher than a double-deck bus, with the exception the only bus operator in South Lantau, the NLB, which has only one double-deck(from Kwoon Chung) running the North Lantau routes.
Well, theres a well known height restriction too along NWFB route 15, the Mount Kellett bridge only clears at 4.0m if travelling on both directions. But they still squeeze a 4.15m dd which is custom made for nwfb thru it by running it thru the center of the bridge which has slightly more clearance.
Originally posted by TIB1234T:Citaros are more suitable for 858 since it goes to CGA. More reliable and stable.
i'd rather allow certain svcs like 852, 853, 854, 855 to go WAB asap.