Government contracting model for public bus industry
-
If a foreign operator wins, high chance they might operate like SMRT policy too. SMRT smart- they decide to give up being stubborn and buy DDs just in time before this bus contracting model came about so they are quite diversified. Most of the foreign operators have experience with DDs and articulated buses and I believe they have more experience on articulated buses because they are more commonly used in the world. I believe they will use this as an edge over SBST, unless SBST gave up on its one-size-fits-it-all policy for their bid.
For local the other local companies, they got no experience with high capcity buses at all. So i wonder how they will maintain an edge over these foreign competitors and SBST/SMRT.
-
Originally posted by randomguy10:
If a foreign operator wins, high chance they might operate like SMRT policy too. SMRT smart- they decide to give up being stubborn and buy DDs just in time before this bus contracting model came about so they are quite diversified. Most of the foreign operators have experience with DDs and articulated buses and I believe they have more experience on articulated buses because they are more commonly used in the world. I believe they will use this as an edge over SBST, unless SBST gave up on its one-size-fits-it-all policy for their bid.
For local the other local companies, they got no experience with high capcity buses at all. So i wonder how they will maintain an edge over these foreign competitors and SBST/SMRT.
We also need to look at the operations. I lived in France so i know. The two French operators are not great by any means. Services are always late, buses are dropped, too many strikes.
The UK operator seems good in terms of standards, but may not have experience with bendy buses as UK phased it out in many places like SBST and just maintaining DDs/SDs.
China operator - will never trust.
Australia has good standards. Not sure if they have experience with DDs though coz most fleet is bendy/SDs.
So if we look overall, I think SMRT might be the only operator that has experience with both bendies and DDs (albeit very recent).
SBST has a good chance as most of those services under SBST jurisdiction are managed pretty well by SBST and the need for bendy is not really felt.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
We also need to look at the operations. I lived in France so i know. The two French operators are not great by any means. Services are always late, buses are dropped, too many strikes.
The UK operator seems good in terms of standards, but may not have experience with bendy buses as UK phased it out in many places like SBST and just maintaining DDs/SDs.
China operator - will never trust.
Australia has good standards. Not sure if they have experience with DDs though coz most fleet is bendy/SDs.
So if we look overall, I think SMRT might be the only operator that has experience with both bendies and DDs (albeit very recent).
SBST has a good chance as most of those services under SBST jurisdiction are managed pretty well by SBST and the need for bendy is not really felt.
I don't believe a guy with no credibility in his words. All based on feelings.
-
Yes, I would agree that the UK operator will be more inclined to DDs. In London BB were withdrawn because of the fires and because they were hard to drive on the roads. Their roads were just too narrow and so the full length bendy bus was hard to drive. Their replacements are 2axle DD which is of course easier to turn. In sg case, our DDs are 3 axle and so its definitely harder to maneuvre as compared to a bendy bus, especially feeders. Therefore speed and efficiency is compromised. BTW I dont think articulated buses are extinct in UK, they were just withdrawn from london and to what I read before, these operators transferred these bendys to other states (correct me if I am wrong).
Yes you are right, the need for articulated buses in the Bulim package is not so great except maybe in BBT because SBST has trained people on the DDs all their life. But imo, if an operator is going to better the services there in terms of efficiency, it would be wise to propose articulated buses for the feeders in that package because for sg context, articulated buses have performed well in feeders (London had no feeder routes). Whether that proposal is seen as an edge or not over others remains to be seen with LTAs view on Bendys.
On the other hand, french and china operators are also Bendy/SD I believe
-
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:"">LTA procures them, they will be de-registered and re-registered again with a standard prefix in front. Personally, I do not think it is logical for an operator to use a bus that has prefix of another operator. By the way, around twenty years ago when SBS and TIBS exchanged buses, weren’t those buses re-registered again?
Well, these are just some fruits for thought.
If LTA decides to replace all the bus rego, i hope they only change the 1st 3 alphabets only. eg: SBS5012J becomes TLA5012J SMB5012T becomes TLB5012T -
Originally posted by randomguy10:
Yes, I would agree that the UK operator will be more inclined to DDs. In London BB were withdrawn because of the fires and because they were hard to drive on the roads. Their roads were just too narrow and so the full length bendy bus was hard to drive. Their replacements are 2axle DD which is of course easier to turn. In sg case, our DDs are 3 axle and so its definitely harder to maneuvre as compared to a bendy bus, especially feeders. Therefore speed and efficiency is compromised. BTW I dont think articulated buses are extinct in UK, they were just withdrawn from london and to what I read before, these operators transferred these bendys to other states (correct me if I am wrong).
Yes you are right, the need for articulated buses in the Bulim package is not so great except maybe in BBT because SBST has trained people on the DDs all their life. But imo, if an operator is going to better the services there in terms of efficiency, it would be wise to propose articulated buses for the feeders in that package because for sg context, articulated buses have performed well in feeders (London had no feeder routes). Whether that proposal is seen as an edge or not over others remains to be seen with LTAs view on Bendys.
On the other hand, french and china operators are also Bendy/SD I believe
True. Even UK is moving towards converting majority of its fleet to 3 axle DD now. I wonder why. As stated before, I would not rely on French and Chinese operators for the reasons mentioned.
I am secretly hoping that the first package goes to a local service provider. I somehow feel SBST would be more fit given it has experience on Clementi/JE that is bulk of the services in this package. If not, I am rooting for the UK service provider. The service standard in UK buses, whether in London, Aberdeen or Scotland is quite good.
-
So you think if UK wins then it will bring UK buses and drivers too?What crap you all talking about?So if French win meaning they dont know about DDs also?They still need to employ locals also what..Its the drivers and bus planning dept that made the difference albiet the culture..What if the French win and theyve already a pool of ex-SBST/SMRT drivers?Sucks and terrible too?
-
Thought LTA doesnt wanna purchase anymore of low entry buses so K250 is out,Try the N250/280 instead
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
So you think if UK wins then it will bring UK buses and drivers too?What crap you all talking about?So if French win meaning they dont know about DDs also?They still need to employ locals also what..Its the drivers and bus planning dept that made the difference albiet the culture..What if the French win and theyve already a pool of ex-SBST/SMRT drivers?Sucks and terrible too?
No... we have to evaluate who has proper strategy and management of operations. The buses and drivers will not change irrespective of who the operator will be as the buses are provided by LTA and drivers will be local+some foreign hired.
How they carry out their operations, their experience on different types of buses, the number of buses under operation need to be considered.
For instance, take Paris as an example: it has a robust MRT network, just like Japan has. Buses are very few and mostly operated in the periphary. Would you say they have good experience even with SD/bendies? I would argue yes for France, not suitable for Singapore.
UK operates a robust bus network just like Singapore, inspite of having a decent tube network. I would say they are better off.
-
They are bound to have hiccups when first time operating on Spore soil,Trust me..I knew Europeans too well having work with them for years..Their ego is as big as Gorilla
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
They are bound to have hiccups when first time operating on Spore soil,Trust me..I knew Europeans too well having work with them for years..Their ego is as big as Gorilla
Ha ha... ego is universal... I tell you my sales director has so much ego... let's just wish all the best for whoever takes over.. and hope that the new way of operating does not create too much nuisance for commuters.
-
IMO, LTA might not award it to SBST because SBST is going to be the operator of the upcoming downtown line. If SBST wins, not only their train network increase but their bus network is also going to increase till 2nd contract is out.Means SBST shares of sg public transport go up 2 fold. I believe LTA will try diversify.
Besides DTL is going to be commissioned around the same period as the take over of first contract. Thats why if were to be a local operator, I rather it be SMRT. SMRT has been improving ever since the E500s came in and now A24s are coming in too. And since LTA is going to allocate the buses for this contract, I believe LTA will allocate more than sufficient buses for the operator to work with. so there would not be a shortage of buses like what SMRT is facing with its own services now.
I feel LTA will play safe and give 1st contract to incumbant local operator. Because for foreign company, culture and operations methods will differ according to their local needs. Local private hire companies lack experience in running citybus and high capacity bus. The risk of hiccups is much larger than a incumbant local operator. The last thing LTA would want is give to a foreign operator and all hell breaks lose. Because people will start to criticise the whole bus contracting model thereafter and elections are around the corner too. Better to play safe and earn some good words first before taking the gamble because lta reputation at stake too. The setback they might consider is the deterrence to foreign operators in future contracts.
-
Originally posted by randomguy10:
IMO, LTA might not award it to SBST because SBST is going to be the operator of the upcoming downtown line. If SBST wins, not only their train network increase but their bus network is also going to increase till 2nd contract is out.Means SBST shares of sg public transport go up 2 fold. I believe LTA will try diversify.
Besides DTL is going to be commissioned around the same period as the take over of first contract. Thats why if were to be a local operator, I rather it be SMRT. SMRT has been improving ever since the E500s came in and now A24s are coming in too. And since LTA is going to allocate the buses for this contract, I believe LTA will allocate more than sufficient buses for the operator to work with. so there would not be a shortage of buses like what SMRT is facing with its own services now.
I feel LTA will play safe and give 1st contract to incumbant local operator. Because for foreign company, culture and operations methods will differ according to their local needs. Local private hire companies lack experience in running citybus and high capacity bus. The risk of hiccups is much larger than a incumbant local operator. The last thing LTA would want is give to a foreign operator and all hell breaks lose. Because people will start to criticise the whole bus contracting model thereafter and elections are around the corner too. Better to play safe and earn some good words first before taking the gamble because lta reputation at stake too. The setback they might consider is the deterrence to foreign operators in future contracts.
The first contract should have been experimental, with a smaller number of bus services. for instance: Only Bukit Batok services should have been given out. This way LTA would also learn about early hiccups and how to avoid it next time. How much ever they try, it will be difficult in the beginning like it is for anything that is new. You need time to put the processes and methods in place. By putting some of the high loading service from JE in first package, LTA is in risk of severe backlash. Lets hope for the best.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
The first contract should have been experimental, with a smaller number of bus services. for instance: Only Bukit Batok services should have been given out. This way LTA would also learn about early hiccups and how to avoid it next time. How much ever they try, it will be difficult in the beginning like it is for anything that is new. You need time to put the processes and methods in place. By putting some of the high loading service from JE in first package, LTA is in risk of severe backlash. Lets hope for the best.
Well, to minimize any disruption due to transition, LTA can consider asking the new bus operator to start running services weeks prior to take over - without displaying the numbers or collecting passengers. The new operator can realise and rectify flaws during these weeks, rather than only when it takes over. This way, we can ensure the new bus operator is ready to take over when the ccontract begins.
-
Thats why im confident SMRT will win it beside Go Ahead or Busway,2nd and third package goes to the new operator..Can see the wayang pattern already...Then before the final date LTA might add svc 99 & 175 to make it 30 svc
-
Originally posted by randomguy10:
Yes, I would agree that the UK operator will be more inclined to DDs. In London BB were withdrawn because of the fires and because they were hard to drive on the roads. Their roads were just too narrow and so the full length bendy bus was hard to drive. Their replacements are 2axle DD which is of course easier to turn. In sg case, our DDs are 3 axle and so its definitely harder to maneuvre as compared to a bendy bus, especially feeders. Therefore speed and efficiency is compromised. BTW I dont think articulated buses are extinct in UK, they were just withdrawn from london and to what I read before, these operators transferred these bendys to other states (correct me if I am wrong).
Yes you are right, the need for articulated buses in the Bulim package is not so great except maybe in BBT because SBST has trained people on the DDs all their life. But imo, if an operator is going to better the services there in terms of efficiency, it would be wise to propose articulated buses for the feeders in that package because for sg context, articulated buses have performed well in feeders (London had no feeder routes). Whether that proposal is seen as an edge or not over others remains to be seen with LTAs view on Bendys.
On the other hand, french and china operators are also Bendy/SD I believe
In fact, Jinan Public Transportation Corporation has some experience of operating 2 axle DDs, but majority of buses in Jinan are still bendy/SDs.
-
no point sbst or smrt winning it as LTA want to try out other operators managment. it better than stick to same old operators or else what is a point of tendering in the first place? but i refer a local new company coming in maybe JV with an oversea player etc like KMB. i wonder why no KMB come in for the project as sbst borrow some of it idea and even send people to study the bus fare system like the old mrt fare card system or the new EZ card. sbst even get the idea of DD operaton from them. long before tibs or smrt.
-
Originally posted by wsy1234:
no point sbst or smrt winning it as LTA want to try out other operators managment. it better than stick to same old operators or else what is a point of tendering in the first place? but i refer a local new company coming in maybe JV with an oversea player etc like KMB. i wonder why no KMB come in for the project as sbst borrow some of it idea and even send people to study the bus fare system like the old mrt fare card system or the new EZ card. sbst even get the idea of DD operaton from them. long before tibs or smrt.
Yes how come no HK operators apply? Or did they and I don't know...
-
It has been mentioned countless countless times that the buses will be purchased and provided for by LTA.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Yes how come no HK operators apply? Or did they and I don't know...
Ask your LTA kaki lor...
Unless they are super busy now, doing the tender work, which I would imagine.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Yes how come no HK operators apply? Or did they and I don't know...
could it be language barriers? our local tender documents are all in English. HK uses traditional chinese characters. -
Originally posted by wsy1234:
no point sbst or smrt winning it as LTA want to try out other operators managment. it better than stick to same old operators or else what is a point of tendering in the first place? but i refer a local new company coming in maybe JV with an oversea player etc like KMB. i wonder why no KMB come in for the project as sbst borrow some of it idea and even send people to study the bus fare system like the old mrt fare card system or the new EZ card. sbst even get the idea of DD operaton from them. long before tibs or smrt.
i think the first package would be awarded to a new operator and possibly a foreign operator. to prevent gossips and show to everyone the tender system is transparent and not biased against foreign players. -
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:
could it be language barriers? our local tender documents are all in English. HK uses traditional chinese characters.If China can apply, HK surely can right!? HK was a British colony until late. It is sad though, how English is getting downgraded in HK.
-
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:
i think the first package would be awarded to a new operator and possibly a foreign operator. to prevent gossips and show to everyone the tender system is transparent and not biased against foreign players.Look at the corporate structure of LTA carefully.
Safety and Contracts - Provides comprehensive solutions for safety, time cost and environmental management for land transport system. They also oversee areas of safety and environmental management, planning and scheduling, tender and procurement, contract management and administration, as well as cost control and monitoring to ensure that all projects are delivered safely, with excellent environmental management, on time, within budget and are value-for-money.
The tender evaluation is not any-oh-how hamtum you know. With the tender evaluation arm being a distinct entity in itself within LTA, your allegations hardly hold water under typical circumstances.
Govt slowness in dealing with these sorts of contracts is precisely due to need for "fairness". And what do you do? You accuse them of both being slow and unfair. Seemingly contradictory?
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
If China can apply, HK surely can right!? HK was a British colony until late. It is sad though, how English is getting downgraded in HK.
Stop speculating la.
Either you ask your LTA friend, and keep mum, or you don't assume this and assume that.
Assumption kills the rat!