800 new buses & 40 new bus routes (8 to ply MRT) by 2016
-
OT: SBS stated on the possibility of bringing in a 25-metre long bus during the launch of 998Y.
-
Originally posted by Myhabit:
That's good. But the B7RLE is a low-entry chassis. B9L is a low-floor chassis.
I don't really quite know about Volvo B9Ls. That's why I prefer Volvo B7RLEs instead. But I think it doesn't matter whether it is low-entry or low-floor right?
-
Originally posted by Gus.chong:
I don't really quite know about Volvo B9Ls. That's why I prefer Volvo B7RLEs instead. But I think it doesn't matter whether it is low-entry or low-floor right?
Check the desciption below:
http://www.volvobuses.com/bus/global/en-gb/products/City%20buses/Chassis/Volvo%20B9L/Pages/Introduction.aspx -
Originally posted by SBS 1000U:
I rather have the 100 B5Ls to be Mercedes-Benz Citaro 3 for SBST, unless there is a 3 axles version of the B5L. 100 Scania K310UDs will do. Another 50 for E500 bodied Volvo B9TL
For SMRT, most likely there will be more MAN bus since SMRT is switching to MAN.
So.
- 50 Mercedes-Benz Citaros (EvoBus GmbH)
- 100 MAN A22
- 150 MAN Double Deckers
Fully agreed.Talking about SBS997A, it think this year is its last year. Don't know will there be extensions given to it.
The fleet I hoped for SBST is talking mostly about double-decks, unless if I replaced it with Volvo 7700 (single-deck version of B5L), then you can consider Citaro 3, but I still won't accept more Citaros other than those ordered in 2010.
As for B9TLs, I think it is too much to purchase so many of such buses. Why not I suggest Alexander Dennis Enviro400 (a complete bus) instead?
-
Originally posted by watson374:
What's the difference? No bus can be made 100% low floor due to the engine.
And yeah, articulated buses have one bend/two sections; biarticulated buses have two bends/three sections.
The only articulated bus I approve of is the Volvo B10MA, because it's a puller config which is easier to maintain.
Puller type articulated buses are siginficantly more dangerous (although cheaper to produce and maintain) than pusher types as its easier to jackknife while at speed, or slowing down without traction. The trailer can skid and swing to either side due to its lower weight and that's what you see in youtube videos. By putting the weight at the rear on pusher artics, it reduces the possiblity of jackknifing.
The newer articulated buses from most major manufacturers (MAN, Volvo, Mercedes Benz, Scania, etc) are all pusher type and ABS brakes helps too to prevent jackknifing.
-
This is my last decision I want to have:
SBS Transit
- 200 Alexander Dennis Enviro 300
- 100 Alexander Dennis Enviro 400
- 150 Alexander Dennis Enviro 500SMRT
- 100 Mercedes-Benz Citaro 3
- 50 Mercedes-Benz Citaro G
- 100 MAN NL323F A22 (Fitted with Voith D864.5)
- 100 MAN NG363F A24 -
My aim is to get at least 250 MB O530G Citaro bendies for SMRT, deliveries at a constant pace (as in divide into 2 batches). Since the box bendies are retiring next year, the new MB O530G Citaro bendies can start coming in to SMRT.
I'm sure SMRT wouldn't want to buy DDs. -
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
Puller type articulated buses are siginficantly more dangerous (although cheaper to produce and maintain) than pusher types as its easier to jackknife while at speed, or slowing down without traction. The trailer can skid and swing to either side due to its lower weight and that's what you see in youtube videos. By putting the weight at the rear on pusher artics, it reduces the possiblity of jackknifing.
The newer articulated buses from most major manufacturers (MAN, Volvo, Mercedes Benz, Scania, etc) are all pusher type and ABS brakes helps too to prevent jackknifing.
OK, look. I realise that pushers are in somes ways better, but let's remember there's a ton of active hydraulics to keep the thing from collapsing like an accordion. Get me a video of puller trailers mucking about. I'm sure this can be dealt with by applying weight to the trailer, e.g. by sticking all the non-traction heavy equipment there, like air-conditioning units, which are very heavy.
Also, you're ignoring the biggest reason why all artics are now pushers - you can't have a puller low-floor. The engine in a puller is between axle A and B, which has to be low floor.
Otherwise, I'm sure pullers would still be built.
-
Originally posted by SBS8533C:
My aim is to get at least 250 MB O530G Citaro bendies for SMRT, deliveries at a constant pace (as in divide into 2 batches). Since the box bendies are retiring next year, the new MB O530G Citaro bendies can start coming in to SMRT.
I'm sure SMRT wouldn't want to buy DDs.I agree with you, otherwise when the passenger load is increasing, why wouldn't TIBS purchase the DDs in the first place?
-
Originally posted by Myhabit:
This is my last decision I want to have:
SBS Transit
- 200 Alexander Dennis Enviro 300
- 100 Alexander Dennis Enviro 400
- 150 Alexander Dennis Enviro 500SMRT
- 100 Mercedes-Benz Citaro 3
- 50 Mercedes-Benz Citaro G
- 100 MAN NL323F A22 (Fitted with Voith D864.5)
- 100 MAN NG363F A24Your SMRT fleet looks like mine, except for the Citaro 3 and the quantity.
-
I think tat time SBS was looking into BRT project
-
Originally posted by Gus.chong:
I agree with you, otherwise when the passenger load is increasing, why wouldn't TIBS purchase the DDs in the first place?
The 2nd bus company, TIBS needs to be more unique in purchasing their buses rather than surveying on SBS over the bus models. If TIBS were to buy DDs, then it will merely copy the way SBS did. TIBS was just a competiting bus company and had to stick to their own intentions before the purchase of a new bus models as TIBS cannot just copy most of the idea from SBS in terms of its fleet.
If you notice in the past, TIBS was the first bus company to be equipped with EDS on its buses and had grown further in purchasing the O405 buses with clearer EDS. The feasbility must be taken into consideration before implementation.
Bendies are a hallmark to TIBS after a few years of planning. TIBS began final plans for bendies in 1994, after the trial of the O405s and the 1st bendy came in 1996. -
EDS was epic.. look at the NAC O405's EDS
If it's all abt avoiding the copy of DD ops, then take a look at CMB/ KMB
-
Originally posted by watson374:
OK, look. I realise that pushers are in somes ways better, but let's remember there's a ton of active hydraulics to keep the thing from collapsing like an accordion. Get me a video of puller trailers mucking about. I'm sure this can be dealt with by applying weight to the trailer, e.g. by sticking all the non-traction heavy equipment there, like air-conditioning units, which are very heavy.
Also, you're ignoring the biggest reason why all artics are now pushers - you can't have a puller low-floor. The engine in a puller is between axle A and B, which has to be low floor.
Otherwise, I'm sure pullers would still be built.
It's possible to have fully low floor mid-engined puller articulated buses, Van Hool produces their AG300 and AGG300 while keeping their low floor design. As mentioned, ABS brakes have improved safety on such puller types.
As for pusher, their tendancy to jackknife tends to occur when the vehicle is moving off, and the middle axle has no grip at all (e.g. snow). This will result the in vehicle ending up in a jackknifed position, but its still safe as its not at speed.
Lastly, the safest articulated bus would probably be one that provides traction on the two rear axles.
-
I guess many problems arose later when Tibs mgmt may not have forseen..
New bus stops: The 3rd door would be entirely exposed to the rain.
Integrated hubs: The parking bays's primarily consideration were 12m parking bay.
Woodlands Int: Today's alighting mess. Esp w/ more n more bus trips made.
Sv 190: If it's ADD, the turnaround time at 270 might not be tat bad. It's boarding mostly after all, the fast alighting stance would make no sense over here.
Some special bus stops: Take a look at tat small bus stop at Jln Jurong Kechil, Bt Timah Rd/ Sixth Ave mark, Maple Ave, Upp Bt Timah Rd/ Shophouse opp MINDEF...
mmm... Many of these problems are mostly at their own area somemore wo...
-
I would prefer
SBST:Volvo B7RLE,Scania K320UD Euro 6,MB O530 Citaro 3
SMRT:More MAN NL323F with diff body,Scania K280UB Euro 6,MAN ND363F A39
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
It's possible to have fully low floor mid-engined puller articulated buses, Van Hool produces their AG300 and AGG300 while keeping their low floor design. As mentioned, ABS brakes have improved safety on such puller types.
As for pusher, their tendancy to jackknife tends to occur when the vehicle is moving off, and the middle axle has no grip at all (e.g. snow). This will result the in vehicle ending up in a jackknifed position, but its still safe as its not at speed.
Lastly, the safest articulated bus would probably be one that provides traction on the two rear axles.
How? If you're not putting it under the floor, you have to put it somewhere. Unlike trolleybuses, motor buses can't have the luxury of sticking this bit here and that bit there, like you can with hub motors. That somewhere means using up seating space, which is a waste. What annoys me most about low-floor buses is the fact that those huge wheel-wells eat up so much space. About the only place to make good use of the space is some of the older buses in Penang, where they put a bench on top of each.
At least the K230UBs use half of it to put an aunty seat.
This jacknifing is exactly why pushers need so much active hydraulics.
And yeah, you're probably right. That would be only possible with a trolleybus, though.
-
What I want: watson374: Black high heels shoes from New Look carbikebus: Blue high heels shoes from Payless Shoe Source
-
Originally posted by SBS8533C:
The 2nd bus company, TIBS needs to be more unique in purchasing their buses rather than surveying on SBS over the bus models. If TIBS were to buy DDs, then it will merely copy the way SBS did. TIBS was just a competiting bus company and had to stick to their own intentions before the purchase of a new bus models as TIBS cannot just copy most of the idea from SBS in terms of its fleet.
If you notice in the past, TIBS was the first bus company to be equipped with EDS on its buses and had grown further in purchasing the O405 buses with clearer EDS. The feasbility must be taken into consideration before implementation.
Bendies are a hallmark to TIBS after a few years of planning. TIBS began final plans for bendies in 1994, after the trial of the O405s and the 1st bendy came in 1996.So when TIBS was re-branded as SMRT they still have to be like TIBS?
No wonder why I don't see DDs on TIBS buses, yet SBS had single rigids, bendies and DDs together at a point of time only.
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
I would prefer
SBST:Volvo B7RLE,Scania K320UD Euro 6,MB O530 Citaro 3
SMRT:More MAN NL323F with diff body,Scania K280UB Euro 6,MAN ND363F A39
Is there any Scania K320UD in production?
-
So many type and model of buses. All the people take public transport is to get to the place on time. just get a good and comfort bus for all and be on time at the bus stop end to end. one way to have more bus lanes and have "give way to bus" on the lane of expressway like YOG days.
-
New engines for Scania K-Series 230,270,280,310.320.360
-
Originally posted by SBS8533C:
The 2nd bus company, TIBS needs to be more unique in purchasing their buses rather than surveying on SBS over the bus models. If TIBS were to buy DDs, then it will merely copy the way SBS did. TIBS was just a competiting bus company and had to stick to their own intentions before the purchase of a new bus models as TIBS cannot just copy most of the idea from SBS in terms of its fleet.
If you notice in the past, TIBS was the first bus company to be equipped with EDS on its buses and had grown further in purchasing the O405 buses with clearer EDS. The feasbility must be taken into consideration before implementation.
Bendies are a hallmark to TIBS after a few years of planning. TIBS began final plans for bendies in 1994, after the trial of the O405s and the 1st bendy came in 1996.Bus companies should look into praticability in operations, not trying to be different for the sake of it. It is really a short sighted decision, which in turn looms into big problems for SMRT now.
KMB, CityBus, CMB are all different bus companies trying to operate different but why do all of them use double deckers? It's a simple logic for all 3 companies, highly populated areas have problems have land and road constraints. Thus they never use bendies in such kind of roads, which Singapore faces the same problem too.
-
Originally posted by sinicker:
erm, biarticulated bus has two trailers... 998 is articulated.
Yep, I know.What I meant was if SBS998Y trial was successful, SBS will bring in the even longer bi-articulated bus possiblity of the BRT project since they were looking at the guided bus system as well.
-
Originally posted by watson374:
How? If you're not putting it under the floor, you have to put it somewhere. Unlike trolleybuses, motor buses can't have the luxury of sticking this bit here and that bit there, like you can with hub motors. That somewhere means using up seating space, which is a waste. What annoys me most about low-floor buses is the fact that those huge wheel-wells eat up so much space. About the only place to make good use of the space is some of the older buses in Penang, where they put a bench on top of each.
At least the K230UBs use half of it to put an aunty seat.
This jacknifing is exactly why pushers need so much active hydraulics.
And yeah, you're probably right. That would be only possible with a trolleybus, though.
Erm, i'm not trying to be rude but its not hard to google right? The model and brand have all be stated there. Van Hool keeps the engine in the center between the first and second axle, and its vertically installed so it takes up just a column of space.
You can stuff hub motors on diesel-hybrid buses too, that's exactly what is being done on the Citaro G Hybrid and HESS's articulated hybrid buses. Hub motors on the 4 rear wheels and powered by batteries and a serial hybrid drivetrain. The smaller diesel engine is placed at the rear and does not disrupt passenger flow.
Last of all, low floor buses are mainly designed for passenger accessiblity, not seats. This means more doors for passenger flow. However, as they were designed for LHD markets, the engine is placed on the left and an additional 3rd door can be placed on the right. The same chassis however is also used for our citaros and a22, so we're using the low floor chassis without gaining the full advantages of it. Effectively speaking, we're just using it as a low entry chassis with steps moved further to the rear.