SMRT to get DDs soon
-
bendies good for feeder services where on some streets, there's only that 1 bus service plying....
but it's good that SMRT finally has 1 DD, at least. and passengers better do their part by crowding this DD.
-
To end the “dispute” on the use of Bendy buses and Double Decker buses, here is a list of features that make each type different:
Bendy bus
- • Capacity for 115 customers
- • Suitable for high demand or long distance routes
- • Three sets of doors to make it quicker for customers to get on and off
- • Suitable for Rapid routes, selected Suburban routes and some Local routes operating as peak express services.
Double-decker bus
- • Capacity for 110 customers
- • Suitable for high demand, longer distance routes with fewer stops
- • Suitable for Rapid and Suburban routes
Standard bus
- • Capacity for 60 customers
- • Suitable for intermediate demand routes
- • Suitable for Suburban and Local routes
*Note: this list is copied from http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/b2b/publications/sydney-bus-future-final-web.pdf (page 23) and hence, it is about the buses in New South Wales, Australia. Things may be different in Singapore, especially the capacity part.
-
Yep SD can take 90+pax. You have to include the AM/PM peak squeeze squeeze time right can take up to 100pax liao
-
In reality i doubt SDs like Citaros and NL323 can take 90 paxs unless its an OCs or KUBs.Pervertboy if u suggest 3 doors 2 staircase DDs then theres no need to use bendies anymore cause pax upstairs no need worry about alighting.
Have u heard a 12m MAN A22 DD?
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
Have u heard a 12m MAN A22 DD?
Nope, never heard before
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
In reality i doubt SDs like Citaros and NL323 can take 90 paxs unless its an OCs or KUBs.Pervertboy if u suggest 3 doors 2 staircase DDs then theres no need to use bendies anymore cause pax upstairs no need worry about alighting.
I saw on the License to Carry thingy. (please correct me if it say it CANNOT take 9pax
-
In my own opinion, based on the list I posted earlier, if Double Decker was to be deployed, the routes with DD deployed should have reduced number of bus stops (ie. have (more) express sectors). Hence, I would personally suggest that the DDs should be deployed to the Express (eg.502) bus routes, Premium (eg.536) bus routes, and those routes that inter-connect towns (far away from each other)(more than one)(eg.157). Those routes that inter-connect towns, such as 157, should have reduced number of bus stops, while they are deployed with Double Decker.
Singapore should consider experimenting this, by reducing the number of bus stops on some (long) normal bus routes. This would shorten travelling time on those normal long bus routes, make it more appropriate for Double Decker buses to be deployed and perhaps help to reduce/prevent jams on the road and on the bus bay.
Perhaps Singapore should re-draw the island-wide bus network to make it more suitable to have such bus routes operating on our roads. Not to the extent of introducing Bus Rapid Transit but there should be “bus hubs”(normal bus stops that are expanded to accommodate more buses at the bus bay: already present in Singapore) for commuters to transfer to other bus routes, between the normal bus routes with reduced bus stops and the normal bus routes that are shorter (eg. Feeder bus routes).
Meanwhile, the Bendy buses should remain on our roads. SBS Transit should consider re-introducing Bendy buses to its fleet and deploy them to its own services (eg. the ones originating from Clementi MRT Station and going to Ngee Ann Polytechnic). The 2nd door on the Bendy bus should have "dual function": Boarding allowed at bus stops with high number of commuters waiting to board the bus, Alighting allowed at bus interchanges and bus stops with high number of commuters wanting to alight from the bus.
The length of a Bendy bus(18m) is 150% of an average Single Deck bus(12m) and the capacity is (at least) 157% of it (130+ on Bendy bus versus 83 on SD bus). Meanwhile, the length of a Double Decker bus(12m) is 100%(same) of an average Single Deck bus(12m) and the capacity is 160% of it (133 on DD bus versus 83 on SD). [Source: http://sgwiki.com/wiki/Singapore_Bus_Specification]
Actually, DD and Bendy bus are about the same in terms of capacity. It is only because Bendy bus is 50% longer(occupies 50% more space) that's why it is "inferior" to DD. Therefore, it can be used interchangeably.
Bendy buses should be deployed to bus services with high flow of passengers (alighting and boarding) at the bus stops they serve. Since Singapore is land scarce, they should be deployed to services that use "straight roads"(or less number of roads, which means less turns required). Again, Singapore should re-draw the island-wide bus network, to better accomodate Bendy buses and make them more effective on our roads.
Therefore, with proper planning of bus routes and proper deployment to services, Double Decker buses and Bendy buses can both co-exist in Singapore, and be used more effectively. Of course, for these co-exist and higher effectiveness scenarios to happen, Singapore should really re-draw its island-wide bus network.
After all, the current bus network also has flaws here and there. So might as well re-draw it to fix those flaws, while making it better accomodate Bendy buses and enable both Bendy and DD buses to be used more effectively.
-
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
In my own opinion, based on the list I posted earlier, if Double Decker was to be deployed, the routes with DD deployed should have reduced number of bus stops (ie. have (more) express sectors). Hence, I would personally suggest that the DDs should be deployed to the Express (eg.502) bus routes, Premium (eg.536) bus routes, and those routes that inter-connect towns (far away from each other)(more than one)(eg.157). Those routes that inter-connect towns, such as 157, should have reduced number of bus stops, while they are deployed with Double Decker.
Singapore should consider experimenting this, by reducing the number of bus stops on some (long) normal bus routes. This would shorten travelling time on those normal long bus routes, make it more appropriate for Double Decker buses to be deployed and perhaps help to reduce/prevent jams on the road and on the bus bay.
Perhaps Singapore should re-draw the island-wide bus network to make it more suitable to have such bus routes operating on our roads. Not to the extent of introducing Bus Rapid Transit but there should be “bus hubs”(normal bus stops that are expanded to accommodate more buses at the bus bay: already present in Singapore) for commuters to transfer to other bus routes, between the normal bus routes with reduced bus stops and the normal bus routes that are shorter (eg. Feeder bus routes).
Meanwhile, the Bendy buses should remain on our roads. SBS Transit should consider re-introducing Bendy buses to its fleet and deploy them to its own services (eg. the ones originating from Clementi MRT Station and going to Ngee Ann Polytechnic). The 2nd door on the Bendy bus should have "dual function": Boarding allowed at bus stops with high number of commuters waiting to board the bus, Alighting allowed at bus interchanges and bus stops with high number of commuters wanting to alight from the bus.
The length of a Bendy bus(18m) is 150% of an average Single Deck bus(12m) and the capacity is (at least) 157% of it (130+ on Bendy bus versus 83 on SD bus). Meanwhile, the length of a Double Decker bus(12m) is 100%(same) of an average Single Deck bus(12m) and the capacity is 160% of it (133 on DD bus versus 83 on SD). [Source: http://sgwiki.com/wiki/Singapore_Bus_Specification]
Actually, DD and Bendy bus are about the same in terms of capacity. It is only because Bendy bus is 50% longer(occupies 50% more space) that's why it is "inferior" to DD. Therefore, it can be used interchangeably.
Bendy buses should be deployed to bus services with high flow of passengers (alighting and boarding) at the bus stops they serve. Since Singapore is land scarce, they should be deployed to services that use "straight roads"(or less number of roads, which means less turns required). Again, Singapore should re-draw the island-wide bus network, to better accomodate Bendy buses and make them more effective on our roads.
Therefore, with proper planning of bus routes and proper deployment to services, Double Decker buses and Bendy buses can both co-exist in Singapore, and be used more effectively. Of course, for these co-exist and higher effectiveness scenarios to happen, Singapore should really re-draw its island-wide bus network.
After all, the current bus network also has flaws here and there. So might as well re-draw it to fix those flaws, while making it better accomodate Bendy buses and enable both Bendy and DD buses to be used more effectively.
there is a vacancy at Ministry of Transports. you interested? Yearly pay is more than S$1 million... but first you must apply to be a party member of PAP first..
reduce the number of bus stops and causing inconvenience to everyone and have to transfer bus? imagine sv157 skip all the bus stops along Bukit Timah road? so do u think there will be much paxes on the buses? Even Sv157 is long route, does not mean that every one are taking from one end to the other end...
-
Yeap, there are MAN A22 DDs in other countries... :)
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
there is a vacancy at Ministry of Transports. you interested? Yearly pay is more than S$1 million... but first you must apply to be a party member of PAP first..
reduce the number of bus stops and causing inconvenience to everyone and have to transfer bus? imagine sv157 skip all the bus stops along Bukit Timah road? so do u think there will be much paxes on the buses? Even Sv157 is long route, does not mean that every one are taking from one end to the other end...
Nice one!!!!LOL
-
Originally posted by At the Bed:
Yep SD can take 90+pax. You have to include the AM/PM peak squeeze squeeze time right can take up to 100pax liao
To At the Bed & Perverted Boy:
Sorry my friend. You are highly misinformed. don't go by what is written on the bus. I have spent a lot of time on ground at Tampines, Boon Lay, Jurong East counting passengers boarding a bus.A Citaro once it has 60 pax on board, it is already full. Now if there are very courteous people who squeeze and move right to the back, it can take max to max upto 70 pax.
A KUB can easily take 70 pax, but that is the limit. Max to max you can push it to 75 pax (which is the max limit I have seen). For 334, during the not-so-many-DD era (with only 2 DDs in fleet until early this year), the queue for 334 used to be super long. The KUB would max take 70 pax and leave - packed to the door, leaving around 50 pax still in the queue. Also, the step on KUB refrains more people from going to the back of the bus.
A DD can easily take 120 pax if the upper deck is fully seated. You can push this limit to 125-126 pax, which is the max I have seen.
On a 190 bendy, cannot get a better example for bendy bus loading, the max people I have counted is 112 pax. Again, here the problem is that not everyone goes to the back. Especially, when people on WRI/CCK feeders have to go just 2-3 stops, they won't go all the way to the 2nd compartment, but will wait in the first one. Because of this you will see 300 during PM peak is already full when 90-95 pax board the bus. Same for 190, if you see the video posted by our friend of leaving 13 buses, you will see for most buses, there was still room in the 2nd compartment.
Hence, the actual and perceived loading is very different on buses in Singapore.
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
In reality i doubt SDs like Citaros and NL323 can take 90 paxs unless its an OCs or KUBs.Pervertboy if u suggest 3 doors 2 staircase DDs then theres no need to use bendies anymore cause pax upstairs no need worry about alighting.
Have u heard a 12m MAN A22 DD?
Originally posted by TIB1234T:Yeap, there are MAN A22 DDs in other countries... :)
I guess you guys are referring to the normal buses in the Western countries with 3 doors - in front, at the center and at the back.
Single Deck (MAN Lion's City Hybrid): http://youtu.be/qT18EnA741s?t=4m
Double Deck (in addition, there are 2 staircases: in front and at the back) (MAN Lion's city DD): http://youtu.be/ccZqeEFjvec?t=45s
Personally, I feel that if the Single Deck buses have 3 doors, they would be as efficient as the Bendy buses in terms of enabling quicker alighting/boarding.
If the Double Decker buses have 3 doors, and 2 staircases to complement, they would be as good as the Bendy buses and indeed, the Double Decker buses can replace Bendy buses totally.
However, the additional door and staircase will reduce the capacity of the (Double Decker) bus. To maintain the current capacity of the (Double Decker) bus, the (Double Decker) bus would have to be longer.
If the lengthened (Double Decker) bus is longer than a Bendy Bus (12 metres), I think Bendy Bus is still better than Double Decker bus (and Single Deck bus, only in terms of efficiency).
-
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
In my own opinion, based on the list I posted earlier, if Double Decker was to be deployed, the routes with DD deployed should have reduced number of bus stops (ie. have (more) express sectors). Hence, I would personally suggest that the DDs should be deployed to the Express (eg.502) bus routes, Premium (eg.536) bus routes, and those routes that inter-connect towns (far away from each other)(more than one)(eg.157). Those routes that inter-connect towns, such as 157, should have reduced number of bus stops, while they are deployed with Double Decker.
Singapore should consider experimenting this, by reducing the number of bus stops on some (long) normal bus routes. This would shorten travelling time on those normal long bus routes, make it more appropriate for Double Decker buses to be deployed and perhaps help to reduce/prevent jams on the road and on the bus bay.
Perhaps Singapore should re-draw the island-wide bus network to make it more suitable to have such bus routes operating on our roads. Not to the extent of introducing Bus Rapid Transit but there should be “bus hubs”(normal bus stops that are expanded to accommodate more buses at the bus bay: already present in Singapore) for commuters to transfer to other bus routes, between the normal bus routes with reduced bus stops and the normal bus routes that are shorter (eg. Feeder bus routes).
Meanwhile, the Bendy buses should remain on our roads. SBS Transit should consider re-introducing Bendy buses to its fleet and deploy them to its own services (eg. the ones originating from Clementi MRT Station and going to Ngee Ann Polytechnic). The 2nd door on the Bendy bus should have "dual function": Boarding allowed at bus stops with high number of commuters waiting to board the bus, Alighting allowed at bus interchanges and bus stops with high number of commuters wanting to alight from the bus.
The length of a Bendy bus(18m) is 150% of an average Single Deck bus(12m) and the capacity is (at least) 157% of it (130+ on Bendy bus versus 83 on SD bus). Meanwhile, the length of a Double Decker bus(12m) is 100%(same) of an average Single Deck bus(12m) and the capacity is 160% of it (133 on DD bus versus 83 on SD). [Source: http://sgwiki.com/wiki/Singapore_Bus_Specification]
Actually, DD and Bendy bus are about the same in terms of capacity. It is only because Bendy bus is 50% longer(occupies 50% more space) that's why it is "inferior" to DD. Therefore, it can be used interchangeably.
Bendy buses should be deployed to bus services with high flow of passengers (alighting and boarding) at the bus stops they serve. Since Singapore is land scarce, they should be deployed to services that use "straight roads"(or less number of roads, which means less turns required). Again, Singapore should re-draw the island-wide bus network, to better accomodate Bendy buses and make them more effective on our roads.
Therefore, with proper planning of bus routes and proper deployment to services, Double Decker buses and Bendy buses can both co-exist in Singapore, and be used more effectively. Of course, for these co-exist and higher effectiveness scenarios to happen, Singapore should really re-draw its island-wide bus network.
After all, the current bus network also has flaws here and there. So might as well re-draw it to fix those flaws, while making it better accomodate Bendy buses and enable both Bendy and DD buses to be used more effectively.
I don't think your suggestions are valid for Singapore. As lemon has mentioned, I completely agree with his points. And a big no-no for SBST to have bendy buses. They have high maintenance and take up a lot of space. Have you been to Jurong, Boon Lay, Bedok, Tampines Interchange. Even though there are only SMRT operated bendies here, the space is completely full. Where will bendies fit in? There is no space at interchanges, leave alone roads.
Even a big stop like Little India becomes crazy when 2 bendies come - especially 67 and 960 always come together - most of the times. When this happens, it takes upto 3-4 minutes for the 166 to just come to the stop. It is waiting behind these buses. Even if their unloading time is lower, remember the loading time is same as DDs. This causes, a longer queue, more space occupied at the bus stop when 2-3 buses could have loaded/unloaded at the same time. The problem with bendies is graver than you think.
I am not saying do away with bendies. The ones that are there use them properly for boosting capacity of SMRT feeders/intra-towns that need more higher capacity buses than WAB buses.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I don't think your suggestions are valid for Singapore. As lemon has mentioned, I completely agree with his points. And a big no-no for SBST to have bendy buses. They have high maintenance and take up a lot of space. Have you been to Jurong, Boon Lay, Bedok, Tampines Interchange. Even though there are only SMRT operated bendies here, the space is completely full. Where will bendies fit in? There is no space at interchanges, leave alone roads.
Even a big stop like Little India becomes crazy when 2 bendies come - especially 67 and 960 always come together - most of the times. When this happens, it takes upto 3-4 minutes for the 166 to just come to the stop. It is waiting behind these buses. Even if their unloading time is lower, remember the loading time is same as DDs. This causes, a longer queue, more space occupied at the bus stop when 2-3 buses could have loaded/unloaded at the same time. The problem with bendies is graver than you think.
I am not saying do away with bendies. The ones that are there use them properly for boosting capacity of SMRT feeders/intra-towns that need more higher capacity buses than WAB buses.
The same argument could be used for the reasons why SMRT Buses is hesitating to, or reasons against adopting double-decker buses. New training costs, new operational costs and maintenance issues, etc.
Operationally SBS Transit and SMRT Buses are very similar. Given the choice I would have just merged both bus operations into one first (or nationalisation, but not necessarily needed).That way I can consolidate all fleet resources and reorganise them overnight, without being subject to existing constrains under both operators. Its all about putting the correct resource in the right places. Once the dust has settled can we actually talk about implementing tenders, contracts and real competition.
Bendy buses should not be operating on long-haul trunks (e.g. 67 and 960) in the first place if there is no height restriction issues that cannot be resolved. They are better off on routes where passengers refusing to move to the upper deck in a perennial issue or has absolute height restrictions.
-
Originally posted by TIB1234T:
Yeap, there are MAN A22 DDs in other countries... :)
Hong Kong has an actual A22 example (Hong Kong Fire Services).
I repeat, once again, that buying the A22 as a rigid for Singapore operations simply made no sense to me.
If you buy a single-deck citybus that is more powerful than a double-deck citybus (Volvo B9TL Euro V), diesel consumption is going to be similar or even exceed the double-deck bus. No prizes for guessing what impact this would have on SMRT Buses' operating costs in the long-term.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Hong Kong has an actual A22 example (Hong Kong Fire Services).
I repeat, once again, that buying the A22 as a rigid for Singapore operations simply made no sense to me.
If you buy a single-deck citybus that is more powerful than a double-deck citybus (Volvo B9TL Euro V), diesel consumption is going to be similar or even exceed the double-deck bus. No prizes for guessing what impact this would have on SMRT Buses' operating costs in the long-term.
I thought that was A69 which HK likes to adopt?
-
Originally posted by TIB1234T:
I thought that was A69 which HK likes to adopt?
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
If you buy a single-deck citybus that is more powerful than a double-deck citybus (Volvo B9TL Euro V), diesel consumption is going to be similar or even exceed the double-deck bus. No prizes for guessing what impact this would have on SMRT Buses' operating costs in the long-term.
Although I would prefer them not using crush loading to overload SDs, but when putting myself in their position, it is a better choice in the long term.
Each bus is an investment over 17 years, and with the non-profitability of feeder routes it is just not a sensible choice to buy large quantities of high capacity buses for such services. Buying high capacity buses instead of these SD for trunk routes are not an option as well, since the train network is set to double within the next 10 years.
I say that because the FC of an under used high capacity bus would be worse than that of a SD, we're talking about 15.3 tonnes vs 11 tonnes unladen. Thats about 60 passengers weighing about 70kg each of deadweight moving around!
One nice way of doing this is to do it like the Swiss, by looking up a trailer unit during peak hours, but unfortunately it would not be suitable for roads here.
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
Although I would prefer them not using crush loading to overload SDs, but when putting myself in their position, it is a better choice in the long term.
Each bus is an investment over 17 years, and with the non-profitability of feeder routes it is just not a sensible choice to buy large quantities of high capacity buses for such services. Buying high capacity buses instead of these SD for trunk routes are not an option as well, since the train network is set to double within the next 10 years.
I say that because the FC of an under used high capacity bus would be worse than that of a SD, we're talking about 15.3 tonnes vs 11 tonnes unladen. Thats about 60 passengers weighing about 70kg each of deadweight moving around!
One nice way of doing this is to do it like the Swiss, by looking up a trailer unit during peak hours, but unfortunately it would not be suitable for roads here.
Actually, my point is that I see no justification in the use of powerful engines with high horsepower in rigid buses, especially given that Singapore buses are speed limited at 60km/h and are mostly start-stop operations.
-
Anyone knows where is the bus?
-
Perhaps at KJDEP? Together with his friend A24.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Actually, my point is that I see no justification in the use of powerful engines with high horsepower in rigid buses, especially given that Singapore buses are speed limited at 60km/h and are mostly start-stop operations.
But that should be a non-issue since it is possible to derate the engines electronically to save fuel. The torque output from these engines are impressive too, and makes acclerating out of a stop a breeze (although this is being abused by some drivers).
-
inside MAN workshop bah ! this bus still all in white leh.
-
Originally posted by Lsk138:
inside MAN workshop bah ! this bus still all in white leh.
Erm you sure? What if it's a Mercedes?
-
Originally posted by SBS9C:
Erm you sure? What if it's a Mercedes?
not sure ! if MERCEDES then C&C lor
anyway can,t be inside SMRT dopots bah .