Wrong EDS panels are still in the hands of operators...
Recent feedback was re directed to operators to address
Does LTA understand, kbows what is DEAD MILEAGE in the first place...
Originally posted by Acx1688:Does LTA understand, kbows what is DEAD MILEAGE in the first place...
they know... but do they care?!?!
The w.ay LTA carves out its packages, Dead mileage seems inevitable at the moment because there is only 1 bus depot per package and the services under the package is full control under that operator. Dead Mileage puts greater servicing requirement on buses and eventually increases operations costs. The only way dead mileage can be reduced is LTA taking into consideration the previously allocated packages and giving out the newer packages to operators in a way that they can do partial control between 2 depots that are operating
Well, lets see who gets the package, rem incumbents akways ve upper hand...
Juz ignore the cmi operators from SG, Aedge, woodlands n from CN, partnering local or solo
Regarding the long-distance routes which would only operate from one depot at one end, I feel that to prevent or reduce mileage wastage, one possible solution is to have the last few buses of the day run fresh from the depot at one end, park over night at the interchange at the other end, and run to and fro both ends, until when the bus does not have enough fuel to run both directions (complete one cycle) already, then stop at the end where the depot is, and return to depot to re-fuel and maintain.
I believe buses are allowed to stay over night at bus interchanges. If yes, then there should not be the problem of mileage wastage.
Unless, the bus breaks down along the route. If it breaks down nearer to one end, where the depot is at the other end, there may be a service disruption. To solve that, one possible solution is to always have one bus on stand by at the bus interchange at other end without bus depot for the bus service.
But to bring the faulty bus all the way back to the bus depot is going to inevitably consume quite a significant amount of resources. Unless, there are external workshops at the other side that the bus operator can have contract with to send their buses for repairs, if there is any.
Well, there should be solutions to every issue. I believe whichever proposals that can address these long-distance issues well would have an edge over other proposals.
I foresee SBST will lose some of its territory..in return get a bigger DTL or even the Thomson line as compensation.
So Braddell and Hougang(SBST HQ & bus assembly) also kena eaten up by LTA also right?
Originally posted by carbikebus:So Braddell and Hougang(SBST HQ & bus assembly) also kena eaten up by LTA also right?
I don't think LTA will want any direct ownership over bus manufacture and assembly.
Hahaha I know parking at the opposite interchange is an option to reduce the dead mileage. But the point is will they be allowed to? The interchange on the other end is not under the management of the current winner of the 1st package. Plus I dont believe bedok interchange has overnight parking currently. If do overnite parking there, there is also a need for security right? Cant just leave the buses there unguarded mah. And in future bedok interchange might be operated by a different winner. How then?
Since all depots and interchanges will be owned by LTA,Dont you think 66 will be Budep-Bndep?We might even see svc like 168 Wldep-Bndep too.
But each bid winner has its own interchanges and depots to operate although all the assets owned by LTA mah. So how can there be a split depot if the operator of the other depot is different? Doesnt make sense to ask a operator to take charge of the depot but the buses parked within could come from other operators too right. like who will take responsibility of the buses parked mah. unless the depot becomes co-operated.
You will never knew what will happen if LTA took over all assets,If they say must do then must do.I believe they aint plain stupid to waste diesel off service all the way from Toa Payoh/Bedok to Bulim everyday right?What if LTA purposely built a bus park near Bishan or Kallang for parking of these svc?
hahaha but the way they have been planning the BSEP routes hasnt been reflecting too well.
Originally posted by randomguy10:Hmm I think most services will be full control under a particular depot leh. For example look at Bulim Package tender. It says operator manage Bulim Depot, Clementi, JE and BBT interchange. Doesnt this mean all the bus services under Bulim Package will be parked in Bulim irregardless of where the other end of the route is? Because if the nearest depot to the terminating interchange is managed by another operator, there wont be a partial control right.
For eg. Sv 66 Bedok to JE. JE side park at Bulim but Bedok side if the depot is managed by another operator how can that operator do a partial control?
If 66 is majority SLBP, then it falls under JUE contract. If BN majority, then it is better for it to be under BDK.
Look at 147 & 165. They both start from HGN and end @ CLE, but since the former is majority BBDEP, I consider it part of CLE route group, while 165 being majority HGDEP should fall under HGN route group.
Long distance routes like 14, 51, 61 & 67 should get more than one operator if all sectors get carved up. In fact, right now 61 needs joint control. It should have happened back in 2007.
Originally posted by carbikebus:You will never knew what will happen if LTA took over all assets,If they say must do then must do.I believe they aint plain stupid to waste diesel off service all the way from Toa Payoh/Bedok to Bulim everyday right?What if LTA purposely built a bus park near Bishan or Kallang for parking of these svc?
Hopefully ARBP takes over the CBD routes (120, 121, 122, 186, 400 & 402). No point AMDEP controlling NBR and SWT while MCT (195) under ARBP.
Originally posted by iveco:If 66 is majority SLBP, then it falls under JUE contract. If BN majority, then it is better for it to be under BDK.
Look at 147 & 165. They both start from HGN and end @ CLE, but since the former is majority BBDEP, I consider it part of CLE route group, while 165 being majority HGDEP should fall under HGN route group.
Long distance routes like 14, 51, 61 & 67 should get more than one operator if all sectors get carved up. In fact, right now 61 needs joint control. It should have happened back in 2007.
If LTA were to follow closely to Perth's model, there are two approaches to this issue:
1. 66 will operate under single depot control first. The winner for Bulim may then use it as an advantage in future tender (e.g. Loyang). They can propose a lower bid because they are able to factor in cost savings for operating out of two depots. This will continue until either the package containing the route is lost, or the other package involving the second depot is lost (e.g. Swan/Tower Transit losing Kalamunda).
2. LTA decides to allow dual operators to run 66. In Perth, 99 (Circle Route, 3.5 hr either direction) is operated by all 3 operators. Superbus 950 has been given to two incumbent operators, of which passengers have a choice which they can board (although a normal passenger will not recognize which operators as livery across operators is uniform).
Another 450 buses to ply streets by 2017: Lui Tuck Yew
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/another-450-buses-to-ply/1708542.html
Note: This is an re-iteration of the expanded BSEP announced back in 2014. Orders for these additional buses are already in place.
Originally posted by sgbuses:If LTA were to follow closely to Perth's model, there are two approaches to this issue:
1. 66 will operate under single depot control first. The winner for Bulim may then use it as an advantage in future tender (e.g. Loyang). They can propose a lower bid because they are able to factor in cost savings for operating out of two depots. This will continue until either the package containing the route is lost, or the other package involving the second depot is lost (e.g. Tower Transit losing Kalamunda).
2. LTA decides to allow dual operators to run 66. In Perth, 99 (Circle Route, 3.5 hr either direction) is operated by all 3 operators. Superbus 950 has been given to two incumbent operators, of which passengers have a choice which they can board (although a normal passenger will not recognize which operators as livery across operators is uniform).
The second Government Contracting Model has been announced. Operating from Loyag Bus Depot, "the bus package consists of 25 bus services, including 22 existing SBS Transit bus services and three new services which will be announced closer to the implementation date.
The existing bus services to be included in the package are:
Should include 5,29 too leh
Third package is obviously from Mandai (Sungei Seletar Bus Depot).
If the intention is to have an equal rollout of GCM, the fourth package will be in the South. Thereafter, the
I think not more than 6 packages that were offered,Rest will stay with the two incumbents..I hope the new operator will win first 3 packages..
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:Third package is obviously from Mandai (Sungei Seletar Bus Depot).
If the intention is to have an equal rollout of GCM, the fourth package will be in the South. Thereafter, the
- 5th package will be in the West
- 6th package will be in the East
- 7th package will be in the North
- 8th package will be in the South
- 9th package will be in the West
- 10th package will be in the East
- 11th package will be in the North
- 12th package will be in the South
#justsaying
Mandai control which areas?seletar?
Originally posted by carbikebus:Mandai control which areas?seletar?
How would I know?
But based on its location at Lentor Avenue/Seletar Expressway, it is quite likely that it will operate bus services at Yio Chu Kang Bus Terminal and Yishun Bus Interchange.
These two combined already have around twenty five bus services. If not, can include Seng Kang Bus Interchange.
Well, just guessing.