SMRT to get DDs soon
-
Meanwhile, in London, England, there was a switch from Bendy buses to Double-Decker buses done 2 years ago, after 3 years of discussions.
*'Pros' in green , 'Cons' in red.
(2008, March 3). Johnson aims to scrap bendy buses. BBC. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/.
... Bendy buses "were never suited to London's roads" and conductors would prevent fare evasion, Mr Johnson said... Routemasters stopped serving normal London routes in December 2005. Mr Johnson wants to introduce a new version of the double-decker bus "that will once again give London an iconic bus that Londoners can be proud of"... Each new Routemaster would come with a conductor, comply with EU legislation, have disabled access and run on environmentally-friendly fuel, he said. He would also scrap bendy buses. "The truth is they were never suited to London's roads and the facts show they have twice as many accidents as normal buses," Mr Johnson said..."In addition, open boarding means they have become known as 'free buses', and the facts show they lose almost three times as much fare revenue as other types of bus." ..."
(2011, December 10). Bendy bus makes final journey for Transport for London. BBC. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/.
The vehicles were used on 12 routes over the past decade but Mayor Boris Johnson called them "cumbersome machines" which were too big for narrow streets and encouraged fare-dodgers.
He has ordered nearly 500 new buses to replace them and promised more vehicles on the routes during the rush hour. But campaigners said they were "the most accessible bus in London" and would be missed by wheelchair users.
The final route to be operated with bendy buses has been the 207 between Hayes and White City, and the last of the long vehicles was to run late on Friday.
Transport for London (TfL) predicted it would increase its takings by £7.4m because fare-evasion would now become harder. The "hop-on, hop-off" style of the bendy buses, with few checks on tickets, had encouraged thousands of people to avoid paying.
But Transport for All, which speaks for older and disabled transport users, said TfL was "nuts" to scrap the vehicles, especially as their new Routemaster-style replacements had only "a tiny wheelchair space". "On every other bus in London, wheelchair users are frequently left stranded at the bus stop when pushchair users refuse to fold their buggy and give up the wheelchair bay," said spokeswoman Lianna Etkind. "Many wheelchair users simply won't travel at the time of the school run, because conflict with pushchair users who won't move is so common."
The Liberal Democrats said while 120 passengers could board a bendy bus, a double-decker could hold only 85. "As the replacement buses to the bendy buses are often just maintaining the same frequency, the reality is significant less capacity on numerous bus routes across London," said London Assembly member Caroline Pidgeon.
And Labour member Val Shawcross said "a considerable amount of TfL's time, effort and money had been spent replacing these buses, which covered just 12 out of 700 bus routes in London".
Replacing Bendy buses with Double-deckers would save road space and improve safety on the roads, while also help prevent fare evasion. As Singapore is land-scarce, the priority would always be to maximize space. Therefore, since Double-deckers occupy less road space than Bendy buses, switching from Bendy buses to Double-deckers is a right move by SMRT.
However, it seems that the capacity of Double-deckers is smaller than the capacity of Bendy buses and the space for wheelchair is smaller. With smaller capacity, it may be harder for us to board the bus during peak hours, hence leading to longer waiting time and subsequently longer travelling times. Of course, more DDs can be bought to compensate the loss of capacity (2 DDs may occupy the same space as 1 Bendy bus and have higher capacity) but this may mean higher costs for SMRT, which ultimately leads to higher bus fares.
Unless, 2 DDs cost cheaper than 1 Bendy bus...
Anyway, I am just sharing with you all that a similar move to replace Bendys with DDs was done 2 years ago.
Perhaps we (SMRT) can use London’s case as reference and take the necessary measures (eg. replace 1 Bendy with 2 DDs) to ensure that while DDs replace Bendys, the service standard is not compromised.
-
Both PTOs i believe already save cost by buying the chassis and bodies at GML..
-
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
Meanwhile, in London, England, there was a switch from Bendy buses to Double-Decker buses done 2 years ago, after 3 years of discussions.
*'Pros' in green , 'Cons' in red.
(2008, March 3). Johnson aims to scrap bendy buses. BBC. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/.
(2011, December 10). Bendy bus makes final journey for Transport for London. BBC. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/.
Replacing Bendy buses with Double-deckers would save road space and improve safety on the roads, while also help prevent fare evasion. As Singapore is land-scarce, the priority would always be to maximize space. Therefore, since Double-deckers occupy less road space than Bendy buses, switching from Bendy buses to Double-deckers is a right move by SMRT.
However, it seems that the capacity of Double-deckers is smaller than the capacity of Bendy buses and the space for wheelchair is smaller. With smaller capacity, it may be harder for us to board the bus during peak hours, hence leading to longer waiting time and subsequently longer travelling times. Of course, more DDs can be bought to compensate the loss of capacity (2 DDs may occupy the same space as 1 Bendy bus and have higher capacity) but this may mean higher costs for SMRT, which ultimately leads to higher bus fares.
Unless, 2 DDs cost cheaper than 1 Bendy bus...
Anyway, I am just sharing with you all that a similar move to replace Bendys with DDs was done 2 years ago.
Perhaps we (SMRT) can use London’s case as reference and take the necessary measures (eg. replace 1 Bendy with 2 DDs) to ensure that while DDs replace Bendys, the service standard is not compromised.
I absolutely DISAGREE with your statement that DDs have lesser capacity than bendy buses. In fact, DDs have more capacity than bendy buses in Singapore.
1. You have 82 seats compared to 59 seats in a bendy
2. Standing space in bendies is more than DDs because of its length, and overall bendies as well as DDs can comfortably fit 120-125 pax. So the logic of 2 DDs = 1 bendy is absurd
3. DDs consume lesser fuel than bendy buses. It is just by the logic of more wheels on the road, more consumption
4. Maintenance of bendy buses is higher because of the mid-joint connecting the two parts.
5. Road space of course is critical in a country like ours. Also, boarding time is the same for both, alighting bendy might provide better option.
6. Bendies often face the issue of people not moving to the rear, which is not a big issue with DDs. This is often seen on even crowded buses like 190 that the 2nd compartment has lot of space, but people have not moved back.
7. We should not even be talking about PIW for bendies in Singapore, as we don't have experience with it yet. For bringing the full bus to the PIW level might again require more effort than a DD or rigid.
Just my thoughts...
-
On paper the capacity is on par for the 2 different type of buses.
How about reality ?
From my experience a bendy can easily carry 105 - 110 passengers while a DD can only carry about 90-100pax. This fact along contributes 10% more capacity.
Take a look at some of the DDs running on some of the feeder services. Lower deck pack with people while upper deck is empty. Again, looks nice on paper where the capacity is able to match the demand but how about reality ?lastly, anybody did a test about loading time at bus stops during peak hours ? I agree that bendy buses takes up a longer space at the bus stops but how about loading time, with the 3 doors available, the loading time for bendy buses are easily 50% of that of a double decker bus.
The list can go on and on and ppl can argue for the longest period of time of which bus type is suitable. Lets not forget that different bus types were designed for different purposes and each of the bus types do comes with their own pros and cons. With carful planning, a mixture of both types of high capacity buses could actually help the PTOs.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
My friend working with LTA who had given the tip off earlier, confirmed that this is soon becoming a reality. I won't disclose his identity of course, but just thought of sharing the news with you all.
Do you not understand the possible unintended consequences of what you revealed?
Are you really really really wanting to ask for trouble?
In fact if it ever comes to my knowledge that I have irresponsible colleagues like your friend, I would probably slap the shit out of him/her.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I absolutely DISAGREE with your statement that DDs have lesser capacity than bendy buses. In fact, DDs have more capacity than bendy buses in Singapore.
1. You have 82 seats compared to 59 seats in a bendy
2. Standing space in bendies is more than DDs because of its length, and overall bendies as well as DDs can comfortably fit 120-125 pax. So the logic of 2 DDs = 1 bendy is absurd
3. DDs consume lesser fuel than bendy buses. It is just by the logic of more wheels on the road, more consumption
4. Maintenance of bendy buses is higher because of the mid-joint connecting the two parts.
5. Road space of course is critical in a country like ours. Also, boarding time is the same for both, alighting bendy might provide better option.
6. Bendies often face the issue of people not moving to the rear, which is not a big issue with DDs. This is often seen on even crowded buses like 190 that the 2nd compartment has lot of space, but people have not moved back.
7. We should not even be talking about PIW for bendies in Singapore, as we don't have experience with it yet. For bringing the full bus to the PIW level might again require more effort than a DD or rigid.
Just my thoughts...
Sorry for the erroneous statement on capacity in Double-decker versus Bendy bus. The statement was made based on the 2 news articles – which are referring to the London Routemaster. Based on the designs, the seating capacity of Singapore’s Double-decker (in this case, it’s a MAN A39) is definitely bigger than London’s (Routemaster).
Since there is a frequent issue of commuters not moving to the 2nd compartment, it would mean that the standing capacity of Bendy buses is actually more or less similar to that of Double-deckers, likewise for the wheelchair space and boarding/waiting time. It is faster to alight from Bendy buses only because they have an additional door – at the 2nd compartment.
Overall, a Double-decker has a higher capacity than a Bendy bus. Also, as there is more seating capacity, the proportion of commuters on DD getting a seat is larger, which means the comfort level of DD is higher than that of Bendy bus (although I do not know how is the standard of comfort measured). Other than the alighting time part, Double-deckers are better for commuters than Bendy buses.
On the Technical aspect, since it requires less fuel than a Bendy bus and it is cheaper to maintain, Double-deckers are also better for the operators (in this case, it’s SMRT) than Bendy buses.
When the MAN A39 makes its debut in Singapore on SMRT bus routes, I hope to (joy)ride on one of the buses, if I have the time. From the videos I viewed on Youtube showing rides on the MAN A39, it seems that the ride is smooth and the interior design of the upper deck looks sleek.
-
Originally posted by sBs_boy:
On paper the capacity is on par for the 2 different type of buses.
How about reality ?
From my experience a bendy can easily carry 105 - 110 passengers while a DD can only carry about 90-100pax. This fact along contributes 10% more capacity.
Take a look at some of the DDs running on some of the feeder services. Lower deck pack with people while upper deck is empty. Again, looks nice on paper where the capacity is able to match the demand but how about reality ?lastly, anybody did a test about loading time at bus stops during peak hours ? I agree that bendy buses takes up a longer space at the bus stops but how about loading time, with the 3 doors available, the loading time for bendy buses are easily 50% of that of a double decker bus.
The list can go on and on and ppl can argue for the longest period of time of which bus type is suitable. Lets not forget that different bus types were designed for different purposes and each of the bus types do comes with their own pros and cons. With carful planning, a mixture of both types of high capacity buses could actually help the PTOs.
in reality, bendies also never carry that much people.. go and look at those bendies on WL feeder services.. the back part of the buses are seem to be haunted...
DDs can seat more people.. this is the main factors. u go ask those taking sv190.. will they prefer to have a seat on a DD or prefer to squeeze like sardine for 45 mins back?
-
It is this "all-or-nothing" attitude by everyone that takes us nowhere and none of our current public transportation issues ressolved.
Bendy buses and double-decker buses are designed for very different and specific purposes. Decades on neither operators nor authorities got them right.
I would not care if bendy buses allowed for boarding from all doors on feeder routes and full fare enforcement is sacrificed. It would be a concern under the old fare regime but distance fare? Revenue collection from feeder routes is practically nil. Don't believe? Try transferring from MRT to feeder bus and observe the fare deducted for the feeder leg of your journey.
On the other hand, 190 is the worst possible route to deploy bendy buses. Long-haul and express routes should not be using any bendy buses at all.
-
I will use Australia as an example to illustrate how bendy buses can help to reduce congestion at bus interchanges in Singapore if utilised correctly on feeder and other short-haul routes.
There is a "timed stop" concept in use Down Under that requires buses that have reached early or at major bus stops to park their buses and wait until the stipulated time to depart has reached. At such bus stops, a larger bus lane is created specially for these buses to park there for a few minutes.
Many feeder routes in Singapore, especially at looping point, serve an quieter inner road in the neighbourhood that is usually not as busy as avenues and main roads. A clearway could be created at the "timed" bus stop for the feeder bus to turn in and park for a brief layover period, taking in passengers at the same time.
Alternatively, it could even serve as a terminal on its own (e.g. Route 49). If done correctly it can even remove entirely the need for bendy buses to park at bus interchanges, instead parking at these looping points or terminals. This takes out most of the pain that is currently occuring with bus interchanges being less able to accomodate to bendy buses.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Do you not understand the possible unintended consequences of what you revealed?
Are you really really really wanting to ask for trouble?
In fact if it ever comes to my knowledge that I have irresponsible colleagues like your friend, I would probably slap the shit out of him/her.
Whatever man!! Unlike some people, I have never done name dropping. I respect people's private image.
-
Originally posted by sBs_boy:
On paper the capacity is on par for the 2 different type of buses.
How about reality ?
From my experience a bendy can easily carry 105 - 110 passengers while a DD can only carry about 90-100pax. This fact along contributes 10% more capacity.
Take a look at some of the DDs running on some of the feeder services. Lower deck pack with people while upper deck is empty. Again, looks nice on paper where the capacity is able to match the demand but how about reality ?lastly, anybody did a test about loading time at bus stops during peak hours ? I agree that bendy buses takes up a longer space at the bus stops but how about loading time, with the 3 doors available, the loading time for bendy buses are easily 50% of that of a double decker bus.
The list can go on and on and ppl can argue for the longest period of time of which bus type is suitable. Lets not forget that different bus types were designed for different purposes and each of the bus types do comes with their own pros and cons. With carful planning, a mixture of both types of high capacity buses could actually help the PTOs.
Lemon, has addressed your point on capacity, so I won't speak about that again, coz in reality bendies 2nd compartment also run empty.
Also, let's look at it in two ways:
Long haul trunk routes: Seat 82 pax. Upper deck always full during peak hours. More comfortable journey for people compared to bendies. Capacity > Bendies on long haul routes (in reality)
Feeder services: Bendies could prove better here. But DDs have also shown to do very well on feeder services. It is a thing of the past when DDs were under-utilized on feeder services. It is amazing to see how on a very short route on 225G/225W, a good number of people actually go upstairs and the DD takes 90+ pax during peak hours compared to the KUB that can manage only 70. Faster clearance of lines. If you have noticed feeders on Boon Lay services 240/241/243 or 334, the upper deck is completely utilized. Take even 291/293 for example, the buses are taking 100+ pax, at times upto 120 pax. Definitely, this would not be possible if the upper deck was not completely used.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Whatever man!! Unlike some people, I have never done name dropping. I respect people's private image.
Are you really lacking in the ability to think?
If nobody owns up should shit happen, the ENTIRE department gets the shit!
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Do you not understand the possible unintended consequences of what you revealed?
Are you really really really wanting to ask for trouble?
In fact if it ever comes to my knowledge that I have irresponsible colleagues like your friend, I would probably slap the shit out of him/her.
People like you seem to cause riots
-
So if you are working with LTA, do some good work there. Take people's suggestions to the teams, rather than only policing out here. People need DDs for SMRT area. And as I mention in my 3rd post (do read it), I am saying that unless it is an official announcement, it is only speculation and hearsay.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
So if you are working with LTA, do some good work there. Take people's suggestions to the teams, rather than only policing out here. People need DDs for SMRT area. And as I mention in my 3rd post (do read it), I am saying that unless it is an official announcement, it is only speculation and hearsay.
Why quote me the third post when the first post says: confirmed...?
And look at the title of thread....which part of it seems speculatory by nature?
Are you really incapable of thinking?
And no.
I dont work at LTA anymore.
I am not policing.
I just think you are bloody irresponsible and incapable of thinking!
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Why quote me the third post when the first post says: confirmed...?
And look at the title of thread....which part of it seems speculatory by nature?
Are you really incapable of thinking?
And no.
I dont work at LTA anymore.
I am not policing.
I just think you are bloody irresponsible and incapable of thinking!
And I care a damn of what YOU think...
Have a good day!! -
Wrights carry 131 pax.
-
As I have repeated so many times, bendies are designed for a bloody purpose. NOT for typical commuters to stand and wait for them to pass by 13 times, BUT to allow a much bloody faster time to reach home from the suburban town centres, and not getting squished on DDs and have a wonderfully awful time while alighting.
Since everyone agrees to DDs on trunks I shall comment no further.
But on feeders and Intratowns, it's different story.
1. Alighting problems. On DDs it's a common sight for the amount of pax to get so high, people can stand on the stairs. How are the people ABOVE gonna alight easily then? I'm not saying this in the perspective of the passenger's comfort, but for the good of keeping up to schedule and punctuality, so that the commute wont be disrupted. Another problem is the speed of alighting. Raised many times by me is the 913 example at Admiralty Stn during AM peak. Now compare with 222 at Bedok Stn, big difference in timing! Faster alighting time allows a more efficient service pattern, and better frequencies too, which in turn reduce the amount of pax on each bus.
2. Where people stand. DDs pose a huge problem on feeders and Intratowns, and that is the travelling patterns of Singaporeans, which is most people like to stand the journey as long as it is <15 mins, about the time of a typical short domestic commute for most heartlanders. Most DDs on feeders have upper decks that are half full, if not practically empty. In defence I do acknowledge 291 and 241 as some of the services that do not apply in this example, but other routes, like svc 50 from Fernvale to Sengkang, have near-empty upper decks and full lower decks. This then relates to operating costs. About the profitability of DDs on short haul routes per trip, per bus, and per person.
Bendies should not be looked at from its length, becoz it is not a problem in low-density roads and interchange problems can be easily solved with PROPER PLANNING. It is hard to think of road problems the bendies can cause in small streets and avenues. In fact, it acts as pretty sweet rubber-tyres streetcars and makes the services seem more like a tram service. High maintenance costs may be a problem, but if using bendies means better bus frequencies and proves to be more utilised then why not take it as an investment?
Not to side bendies but IMO bendies do not deserve such low position as described by some users here. Words like "useless" and "redundant". They are NOT, if you use them correctly.
-
Yes, I totally agree that Long-haul bus services (eg. 190, 106, 700, 960, 972, 851, 857), especially those serving the CBD and orchard area should utilize DDs instead of bendies. Since people are staying onboard for a longer period of time and DDs occupy less space in a traffic congested area, DDs will definitely be more practical.
On the other hand, I think bendies are more practical in the case of feeder services. First of all, they have a smaller turning radius than a 3-axle DD and thus are more manuvreable in small areas. Secondly, for feeder buses, people do not travel onboard for very long and so there is lesser incentive for them to go up when a DD is used. For eg. Service 72 (although not a feeder, is a good example of alot of people travelling a short distance) - alot of people take this bus from HG central interchange and alight within the next 6-7stops (till HG ave 9) and most of this people do not go to the upper deck. Hence the bus is packed to the door and more people are unable to board even though seats are available on the upper deck. I think this was also the case on Service 119 before the new extension, resulting in DDs being removed for a short period of time.Bendies on the other hand seem to do well in handling crowds in Yishun area like on Services 804, 806 and 812, which face very high passenger loads during peak hours. People infact do move all the way to the back in these cases. Also bendies allow faster alighting at stops and this is good for feeders because feeders always have heavy passenger activity in terms of boarding and alighting at every stop. With faster alighting, the bus can definitely be more on time and there will be lesser delays in the route. Ever noticed how long a 179 or 199 bus stops at the NTU Lee Wee Nam bus-stop? It takes forever for everyone to alight and the bus to move off, resulting in delays and bunching of buses. 179 and 199 are good examples of where bendies can be used to improve service standards because there is no traffic congestion within NTU and the overall run-time of the service will be faster. BTW is a bus captain is not able to convey the message for passengers to move to the rear of a bendy bus, how are they gonna convince them to go to the upper deck to allow more space on the lower deck!
And having an ageing population in Singapore, I think it is important that feeder buses remain friendly to elderly and disabled people because these people utilze these feeder buses quite often. CBD and Orchard areas are more used by working class adults who can easily climb the steps. A WAB bendy will give more space for PIWs and not make elderly people climb stairs to the upper deck of a DD.
So each bus has its own pros and cons and public transport in SG will only become better when the right type of buses are deployed to the right areas. Both SBST and SMRT should consider having a mix of both bendies and DDs. -
Think SMRT will start to explore first.Maybe DDs for svc like 61,67,106,167,169,171
172,176,180,184,187,188,189,190,700,851,854,855,856,857,960,963,964,965,966,969,980 & 985 plus those high loadings premium/express service.They at least need 300 DDs
For Intratowns,Feeders and high loading short haul routes can stick with bendies and rigids.Svc like 859,860,962 can still use bendies...
-
Essays..... Essays everywhere...
-
If DDs are confirmed, must be alot of effort put in to determine DD inaccessible routes and routes with space constraints.. So at the end of the day, not all solutions are able to fully solve every problem, as in the case of SMRT DDs.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I absolutely DISAGREE with your statement that DDs have lesser capacity than bendy buses. In fact, DDs have more capacity than bendy buses in Singapore.
1. You have 82 seats compared to 59 seats in a bendy
2. Standing space in bendies is more than DDs because of its length, and overall bendies as well as DDs can comfortably fit 120-125 pax. So the logic of 2 DDs = 1 bendy is absurd
3. DDs consume lesser fuel than bendy buses. It is just by the logic of more wheels on the road, more consumption
4. Maintenance of bendy buses is higher because of the mid-joint connecting the two parts.
5. Road space of course is critical in a country like ours. Also, boarding time is the same for both, alighting bendy might provide better option.
6. Bendies often face the issue of people not moving to the rear, which is not a big issue with DDs. This is often seen on even crowded buses like 190 that the 2nd compartment has lot of space, but people have not moved back.
7. We should not even be talking about PIW for bendies in Singapore, as we don't have experience with it yet. For bringing the full bus to the PIW level might again require more effort than a DD or rigid.
Just my thoughts...
Why are people still thinking of seats in this day and age? If seats are all you care about, then why not just install a single door or use a WAB high floor coach?
While the entire world is moving towards more doors for better access, why should we be thinking about seats??? We have the NBfL going for 3 doors and 2 stairs (from 2 for a typical dd), and MAN's Lion City GL going for 5 doors from 3 or 4.
The point and benefit of a bendy is not seats, but better access with more doors (even though we are just using them at half efficiency with just alighting on the rear doors). This leads to the question of why are we still using single door boarding for feeders as sgbuses has mentioned.
With 2 doors and a single staircase, the typical DD has a huge bottleneck on services with high turnover. Just look at sv 10 and 30 at Hbf bus stop and count how long it takes for 1 full DD to offload and reboard. Does it make sense for an entire bus to be stationary (and blocking the busstop) for 3 to 4 minutes just because of the seats it provides? This is partially why NBfL is designed with 2 stairs and 3 doors (for both boarding and alighting). Less seats, but better and swifter travel.
Is a 3axle DD with 3 doors and 2 stairs the answer then? Unfortunately no one makes such a bus till date, and most designs cannot be adapted to install a 3rd door due to the engine position. So it will be some time till we find out, but I believe could be.
Having said that, DDs still have their value in moving large number of passengers over a long distance, with little passenger turnover.
And lastly, moving the same 15 tonnes of metal takes the same amount of energy regardless of the number of tyres. More tyres simply reduces the per square inch pressure on the road.
-
As raised before by me, be aware of the standing space that is provided on the articulation joint of bendies, which are not provided on DDs since you can't stand on the stairs.
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
As raised before by me, be aware of the standing space that is provided on the articulation joint of bendies, which are not provided on DDs since you can't stand on the stairs.
Standing is not allowed on the articulation joint of newer bendy buses for similar safety reasons, at least in some cities outside of Singapore:
