Did you know...? (Part 5)
-
Originally posted by dan474:
RWS pays for it so who cares?
so it's correct to waste??? And furthermore, the typical Weekday loading is alrdy not good... waste money somemore... -
Originally posted by dan474:
Which "Mk3" bendy buses have them? I only know of jokers who swap seat colours.
Other private bus companies might not have a fleet as large as SMRT's at RWS disposal that can cope with the loading. What for RWS wastes money buying 15 buses which they might not need it anymore in the future?
I think what he means is that the Hispano MK3s are referring to the Habits.
-
Speaking facts, SBST Iris was very good and useful last time. Now it is shit.
Whenever I'm at places like Bef Thomson Plaza bus-stop, it still gives me my former location as my nearest location. Plus ytd, at thomson view condo bus-stop, iris said 162M freq was
Next Bus: 5min(WAB)
Sub Bus: 14min(WAB)
In 2mins time, 2 bus came, 1 wab and 1 non-wab. checked iris again and they said:
Next bus: 20mins(WAB)
Sub bus: No prediction
-
Originally posted by vicamour:
Isn't this more common on SMRT bendy buses, the MK3 ones?During the olden days of poor SMRT quality, MK2 aka smiley bendy have them, but they aren't commonly seen~ So far only remembered spotted 1. And the seats have been changed.
-
Dan474 seriously it's a wasted to run RWS8.Should just let other private co take over.Those 10 odd buses can easily introduced a new short trunk from Sembawang to Choa Chu Kang with more profits
-
SMRT owes commuters a living.
never mind whether its a private entity or not.
1. Its a public service it runs.
2. The 1.1B subsidy is no freebie.
LG Kuek will understand these.
-
Lg kuek should act fast to reduce the losses incur.Every audit say buses lose money.Shortened 61,961 routes by all means.This measures is to save their bus services and to ensure effiencies.Eunos to Ubi there's SBST buses ardy.Seriously I dun think there's 31 buses for 61..My guess only 15 for Amdep and 12 or 13 for Kjdep
-
The root of the issue is that the scale of bus ops for SMRT is insufficient to reap cross-subsidisation the way SBST can.
That's the demand side.
Cost side, SMRT can quite probably do better in reducing them.
Again, if it wants to reduce costs, one way is to ditch bendies, because if SMRT is indeed looking to DDs as it makes sense, then there really is little point in keeping bendies in the fleet anymore for the sake of homogenisation.
-
Tell me the truth what is the main SMRT buses problem that lead to losses almost every report?Ok I know 61 main loss is Eunos to Curcuit rd sector and McPherson to Eunos.67 doing average.75/77/167/171/852/855/925/927 all so so.The loss is more to svc like 61,961,970 etc..106,169,172,180,187,189,190,700,851,854,857,858,960,962,963,966,969 all is cash cow.
-
I dont know the exact cause.
But its not hard to guess.
Traditionally both PTOs do not generate much revenue from bus division, so the only way to ensure profitability had been to reduce costs where feasible and desirable.
And the cost in operating in per bus terms for SMRT is astonishingly high compared to SBST.
That is definitely a key factor.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
I dont know the exact cause.
But its not hard to guess.
Traditionally both PTOs do not generate much revenue from bus division, so the only way to ensure profitability had been to reduce costs where feasible and desirable.
And the cost in operating in per bus terms for SMRT is astonishingly high compared to SBST.
That is definitely a key factor.
You mean those Bendy consume more fuel than say DDs?DD 24 tons while bendy 27-28 tons?But bendy got 3 doors and some claimed it can take more pax than DDs leh...
-
No....
I dont know where the higher costs come from also.
My guess is that its because either the facilities are under-utilised (need more buses to cover per-bus-cost), or the facilities are in fact, over-utilised.
I only know the figure says that SMRT's costs are higher. It suggests sub-optimal allocation of resources.
-
Their buses usually over utilized one.1 bus can do chartered,express,basic svc,WT and ferry svc..not to mention NR.No standardise one.Sbst one is mostly split buses that will do EB.And mostly on weekends Most of split buses rest well at depot
-
Funny right.
So much money blown on the buses and can still tell me bus catch fire, bus dirty smelly, bus funny noise.
SBST has less problems and needs less money per bus to run them.
In short, LG Kuek was damn brave in taking SMRT under his helm. I salute my ex-CDF. And he himself already said a lot of things Saw never said, namely that SMRT has got VERY serious problems in management.
And he also created new positions last heard to try to tackle the problems.
Let's wait and see what these new division heads do.
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
Their buses usually over utilized one.1 bus can do chartered,express,basic svc,WT and ferry svc..not to mention NR.No standardise one.Sbst one is mostly split buses that will do EB.And mostly on weekends Most of split buses rest well at depot
i agree with NR bit.... like TIB615J. I saw on NR7 then the very next day I saw it on 169.... never let bus rest? and its a full day 169 bus... and most of SMRT's s shift bus either do TQ or fleet add on another svc. barely any rest
-
cbb... it's not so easy over routing issue... LTA now does the routing.. and also, some bus rts to split them can be tricky... like 178... it has to use the new road network to pick up the displaced pax...
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
No....
I dont know where the higher costs come from also.
My guess is that its because either the facilities are under-utilised (need more buses to cover per-bus-cost), or the facilities are in fact, over-utilised.
I only know the figure says that SMRT's costs are higher. It suggests sub-optimal allocation of resources.
a few factors i have come up with
1. too much dead mileage, due to fact that the routes are mostly long haul and where their depot is located.
2. most of their routes have peakish demand. Direction 1 super packed in AM Peak, but Direction 2 is very very very low. look at those that ply expressways.
3. depreciation cost higher for buses that are completely build up, and possibly a shorter depreciation period.
4. most of their catchment in their estates end up taking the MRT, partly due to the routes they ply and the hub and spoke system they have in its estates.
having high demand or high ridership doesnt mean high revenue. analysing their OD is key.
-
Makes sense. In fact if we are to keep with the spirit of an integrated hub-spoke system and also ensure financial viability for the different modes of the system, then I think the best way to go would be combine the bus divisions.
-
Originally posted by service_238:
a few factors i have come up with
1. too much dead mileage, due to fact that the routes are mostly long haul and where their depot is located.
2. most of their routes have peakish demand. Direction 1 super packed in AM Peak, but Direction 2 is very very very low. look at those that ply expressways.
3. depreciation cost higher for buses that are completely build up, and possibly a shorter depreciation period.
4. most of their catchment in their estates end up taking the MRT, partly due to the routes they ply and the hub and spoke system they have in its estates.
having high demand or high ridership doesnt mean high revenue. analysing their OD is key.
Hmm truly agree,Depot allocation one factor,Bus type one problem.At least SBST loyal to tire brand Bridgestone..The best for their depot is of course Woodlands,Bukit Batok or Toh Tuck and Kim Chuan area
-
Originally posted by service_238:
a few factors i have come up with
1. too much dead mileage, due to fact that the routes are mostly long haul and where their depot is located.
2. most of their routes have peakish demand. Direction 1 super packed in AM Peak, but Direction 2 is very very very low. look at those that ply expressways.
3. depreciation cost higher for buses that are completely build up, and possibly a shorter depreciation period.
4. most of their catchment in their estates end up taking the MRT, partly due to the routes they ply and the hub and spoke system they have in its estates.
having high demand or high ridership doesnt mean high revenue. analysing their OD is key.
Too limited like choice of selection for new depots. Should spread out more, don't be like Woodlands area one, double depot~ Unless they arrange the service well(eg. New one take Woodlands/CCK/BPJ side, Old one tkae Woodlands/Yishun/AMK side).
-
Originally posted by dan474:
Other private bus companies might not have a fleet as large as SMRT's at RWS disposal that can cope with the loading. What for RWS wastes money buying 15 buses which they might not need it anymore in the future?
Do you think private bus companies like Woodlands Transport, Bedok Transport cannot afford to have at least 10 buses for RWS bus services?
How about RWS? Do you think that they can't afford to pay for 15 buses and BCs for RWS while they made millions of dollars annually?
Why do we need SMRTB to operate RWS bus services which is not essential for an average Singaporean, as compared to a basic bus service lacking in an area? 15 buses and BCs can be used for more important service like one from Sembawang to Northwest, rather than a bus service that goes into housing estates and actively promote gambling to an average Singapore.
Providing public bus services, not tour bus for gambling dens, wrong channel.
-
Originally posted by vicamour:
Do you think private bus companies like Woodlands Transport, Bedok Transport cannot afford to have at least 10 buses for RWS bus services?
How about RWS? Do you think that they can't afford to pay for 15 buses and BCs for RWS while they made millions of dollars annually?
Why do we need SMRTB to operate RWS bus services which is not essential for an average Singaporean, as compared to a basic bus service lacking in an area? 15 buses and BCs can be used for more important service like one from Sembawang to Northwest, rather than a bus service that goes into housing estates and actively promote gambling to an average Singapore.
Providing public bus services, not tour bus for gambling dens, wrong channel.
Like I said, RWS chose the operator to be SMRT because it probably tendered under Bus-Plus together with other private bus comapnies... You can't do much about why RWS chose SMRT.
What important service now? Now all bus routes are controlled by LTA, if new bus routes are introduced it'll be at LTA's discretion.
-
Originally posted by dan474:
Like I said, RWS chose the operator to be SMRT because it probably tendered under Bus-Plus together with other private bus comapnies... You can't do much about why RWS chose SMRT.
What important service now? Now all bus routes are controlled by LTA, if new bus routes are introduced it'll be at LTA's discretion.
So SMRT should NOT even be participating the tender in the first place, if it is serious in mind of improving public transport first. But no, they don't put that in mind. They are more concerned about profits than what they are supposed to provide.Don't use LTA as an excuse to hide that mistake. If they are serious about their bus services, they should have withdraw their buses to improve their current bus services by their own initiatives and use only their BusPlus buses for RWS till the current contract expires.
Originally posted by sbst275:
so it's correct to waste??? And furthermore, the typical Weekday loading is alrdy not good... waste money somemore...
And waste money who pays? End up increasing bus fares for average Singaporeans to pay for their inefficiencies. -
Actually SBST or CDG Bus can go tender for RWS also... cos in reality, based on the infrastructure... HarbourFront Int > RWS > HarbourFront Int is still the best... Least movement, drivers have layover + meal pt...
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
Actually SBST or CDG Bus can go tender for RWS also…
cos in reality, based on the infrastructure… HarbourFront Int > RWS > HarbourFront Int is still the best…
Least movement, drivers have layover + meal pt…
If that is for private services, ComfortDelgro can allow Comfort Buses to go for the tender, but not SBST.