SMRT launches Alexander Dennis Enviro 500 MMC
-
67,851 & 854 definately can use DD better..look at the route they ply all jam prone and ending at SBST interchange
-
Originally posted by randomguy10:
I would say 172 could take in more bendies. For 172 loading, most of the crowds at peak hours come from the SCDF/Tengah Airbase/Keat Hong Camp. All these people usually carry very big bags and I doubt they will go up. And the people that board earlier on in the route, they are more likely to stay dowstairs since there is space. Also, between CCK int and CCK Ave 1, the travel time is very short and people boarding 172 in these areas will not go up. It would be better to let 180 take in DDs and the Bendies go over to 172.
Overall SMRT Trunk services that should definitely use DD (IMO): 106, 180, 188, 190, 700, 857, 960, 963, 965, 966, 969, 972, 985
SMRT Trunks that could use Bendies: 67, 172, 176, 187, 189, 851, 854, 856, 962, 964
Agreed..
180 should get DDs..most of their pax alights only at BPJ.
Prob. 855 can try having BSEP DDs..
-
Originally posted by TIB429E:
Agreed..
180 should get DDs..most of their pax alights only at BPJ.
Prob. 855 can try having BSEP DDs..
855 will surely get BSEP DDs once Yishun int opens. 180 I doubt for the moment coz SMRT does not have enough DDs, else it is a very good route suitable for DDs. Most ppl who board at Boon Lay alight only at Phoenix and BPJ.
-
Well who knows LTA might be interested in buying another 100 E500s?
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
Well who knows LTA might be interested in buying another 100 E500s?
I think they will... but SMRT also has to... coz the major fleet change needs to come from SMRT side.
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
Well who knows LTA might be interested in buying another 100 E500s?
Yeah if that happens then i predict some 0405Gs would likely retire early like how the Lances were dereged early, if LTA announces the purchase of more E500s like in late 2015.
-
I believe SMRT will procure more Double Decker buses this year and in the next few years.
Last year it only procured 201 units most likely because this was its first year procuring Double Decker buses. Now that it has experience, it may procure more units of Double Decker buses.
I feel that eventually, the Articulated buses (including that SMB-registered one) will all be phased out and replaced with Double Decker buses.
Speaking of which, an articulated bus caused a traffic jam inside Boon Lay Bus Interchange bus bay recently. That bus occupied around half of the driveway where buses from sawtooth berths drive through to loop and exit the bus interchange. Only one bus can drive through to loop, and some departures were delayed.
In my opinion, there should not be Articulated buses here where traffic volumes are high and traffic congestions are common.
According to the article on Wikipedia, last updated on 29 December 2014, SMRT has 315 units of Articulated buses.
When SMRT procures Double Decker buses again, it shoud procure at least 315 units to replace all its Articulated buses. Considering that more high capacity buses will be needed in future, the figure should be doubled to around 630. SMRT should procure around 630 units of Double Decker buses when it procures Double Decker buses again.
-
I still strongly feels that the bendies will eventually found itself on feeder services and short trunk service. DD can give long trunk svc that plies expressway etc.
Boon Lay part that one i cant comment coz i strongly feel 180 172 need DDs to bendies as their passenger are not those stop 1-2 bus stop away.
Pros of DD
More capacity, less space on road, pax can sit down longer.
Cons of DD
Loading and unloading can take more than 5 minutes as they is only one door, one staircase to unload.
Best case study example 154 at Clementi MRT AM Peak.
A lot of people disembark at MRT Station and it seems like the whole upper deck disembark, A lot of Ngee Ann Poly students had trouble boarding because they have to wait for everyone to alight then they can board and it cause a major obstruction to other buses like 52,105,106 etc.
Students then chose to take 2 184 bendies wich can take pax faster and get off the bus bay faster in which the 154 bus still stuck at the bus bay.
On your view on BNL int, that one i have to agree on the bendy part but i seen DDs jammed up the entrance not due to bendy but due to the JIS svc having to alight their whole bus worth of pax which jammed up the place during PM peak and i hope Joo Koon opened up soon to minimise the strains of peak hour for the JIS
-
For Sevices like 67, 851, 854 - Ive noticed that loading pattern on these services does not see passengers travelling very long distances. Most of them travel for 15-20mins max and these services have no express sectors, meaning there is very little incentive for people to go to upper deck. Also, there is alot of boarding and alighting activity along the route, making a 3-door bus more efficient. Given that these services are already having bendies and terminating at SBST interchange on one side, such operations might still be feasible. The problems with Bendies are actually the space it occupies on the road. As such it would be wise if SMRT actually does not deploy consecutive bendies so that they will not cause long queues at busstops when they bunch together
-
Originally posted by randomguy10:
For Sevices like 67, 851, 854 - Ive noticed that loading pattern on these services does not see passengers travelling very long distances. Most of them travel for 15-20mins max and these services have no express sectors, meaning there is very little incentive for people to go to upper deck. Also, there is alot of boarding and alighting activity along the route, making a 3-door bus more efficient. Given that these services are already having bendies and terminating at SBST interchange on one side, such operations might still be feasible. The problems with Bendies are actually the space it occupies on the road. As such it would be wise if SMRT actually does not deploy consecutive bendies so that they will not cause long queues at busstops when they bunch together
67 does not serve a lot of residential area so it is possible but 851 n 854 i think the pax are long haul esp 854 wich serve Yishun,HG,Eunos and Bedok n it passed by some factories at YCK Rd. 851 case it passed by Yishun,Marymount,AMK, Tiong Bahru and ultimately Bukit Merah. The peak load comes from Chinatown and Bukit Timah and i see the pax took all the way to Marymount,Yishun meaning they are considered long haul pax
-
Just what I noted when I took 190 back to CCK from opp far east plaza 2 days ago at about 10.30pm. 2DDs, 2 Bendies and 1 SD came together. The order was SMB5003U, TIB1127U, a E500, a MAN A22 and a Box O405G. I wanted to board SMB5003U but the BC did not open the door as it was fully packed to the front door (but upper deck seemed to be only 75% full). So I ended up on TIB1127U, standing at the front door. TIB1127U overtake SMB5003U along PIE. When I reached CCK, I alighted and was waiting for 172 and I noticed SMB5003U arrived a full 10mins after TIB1127U. Even the Box O405G had overtaken SMB5003U. Which makes me think, are DDs really so much more better? For a service like 190, the pros of DDs definitely outweigh the cons.
But in a feeder service where passenger boarding and alighting activities are so high, is DD really the best choice to solve the overcrowding problem? Imagine you make the feeder full DD, the dwell times increase and the total duration to complete the route increase, you also have to buy more buses to take maintain the frequency. And then you get bunching of buses (Example 241). On the whole, you are using more buses and prolonging the travel time - Does this really reduce the footprint on the road as opposed to Bendies? I really cant imagine Yishun feeders using DDs. The dwell times are going to be just too high and the travel time is going to increase for every passenger making people think about the efficiency of SG public transport. Like wise, if a service like 241 used a mix of Bendies and SDs, travel time would be shorter, dwell times will be shorter, you will need lesser buses plying the route and Im sure passengers will have a better ride. For feeders, seats are never a priority for passengers anyway....Just some food for thought!
(You might think the congestion to turn into BL int might be a problem, I dont deny - but Id say mix Bendies and SDs. If you do these for all feeders, you are reducing the number of buses turning in anw. Since DDs have been added, Ive noticed greater bunching and more buses being deployed due to additional travel times and this is partially responsible for the congestion too...)
-
FYI, according to sgwiki, Feeder 804 operates with 10 buses but Feeder 241 operates with 9-16 buses. 804 has a longer route and more busstops, with definitely a greater passenger load to deal with as opposed to 241. If 804 were to convert all its 10 buses to DD slots, I doubt 10 buses will be sufficient to run the route at its current frequency. So yeah, just an example to my point.
-
Talking about DDs, 179 bunching problem havent been solved. Off peak 5 DD bunched up and all are empty. Deployment problem?
-
Originally posted by randomguy10:
Just what I noted when I took 190 back to CCK from opp far east plaza 2 days ago at about 10.30pm. 2DDs, 2 Bendies and 1 SD came together. The order was SMB5003U, TIB1127U, a E500, a MAN A22 and a Box O405G. I wanted to board SMB5003U but the BC did not open the door as it was fully packed to the front door (but upper deck seemed to be only 75% full). So I ended up on TIB1127U, standing at the front door. TIB1127U overtake SMB5003U along PIE. When I reached CCK, I alighted and was waiting for 172 and I noticed SMB5003U arrived a full 10mins after TIB1127U. Even the Box O405G had overtaken SMB5003U. Which makes me think, are DDs really so much more better? For a service like 190, the pros of DDs definitely outweigh the cons.
But in a feeder service where passenger boarding and alighting activities are so high, is DD really the best choice to solve the overcrowding problem? Imagine you make the feeder full DD, the dwell times increase and the total duration to complete the route increase, you also have to buy more buses to take maintain the frequency. And then you get bunching of buses (Example 241). On the whole, you are using more buses and prolonging the travel time - Does this really reduce the footprint on the road as opposed to Bendies? I really cant imagine Yishun feeders using DDs. The dwell times are going to be just too high and the travel time is going to increase for every passenger making people think about the efficiency of SG public transport. Like wise, if a service like 241 used a mix of Bendies and SDs, travel time would be shorter, dwell times will be shorter, you will need lesser buses plying the route and Im sure passengers will have a better ride. For feeders, seats are never a priority for passengers anyway....Just some food for thought!
(You might think the congestion to turn into BL int might be a problem, I dont deny - but Id say mix Bendies and SDs. If you do these for all feeders, you are reducing the number of buses turning in anw. Since DDs have been added, Ive noticed greater bunching and more buses being deployed due to additional travel times and this is partially responsible for the congestion too...)
You observations on route 172 is in line with the academic findings here.
I think the lesson here is be to consistent when it comes to bus fleet deployment on any given route. Deploying bendy buses and double-deck buses on the same route is the worst thing you can do if you wish to maintain a regular headway.
How about getting route 172 to loop at Boon Lay and use the same bus stop as CW6?
-
Being a student in NTU myself for 4 years already, I am a regular commuter on SBST 179, 179A and 199. IMO, given the loading pattern of 179, DDs are definitely a wrong choice for this service. There is too much boarding and alighting at almost every busstop in NTU and Pioneer MRT station too, with no traffic lights in NTU campus. Also, many students do not wish to go up when they are going to alight at pioneer (I also dont know why but this is very true amongst most of my friends and what I see when Im on board) so upper deck is usually only 50-75% utilised.
However, the number of passengers taking 179 everyday is just too high and the number of buses required to operate this service is just too many to say 179 should use bendies. Though bendies are a better fit for this service and no doubt the number of buses used on this service can be reduced with bendies, it wont be feasible with the current Boon Lay interchange and wont be wise because bendies occupy space.
With the bus contracting model and a possibility of DDs and Bendies being better utilised to their pros and cons, my suggestion for 179 will be as follows:
179 - SLBP - NTU - SLBP via Pioneer MRT (stops at all busstops)
179A - Boon Lay - Pioneer - NTU - Pioneer - Boon Lay (basically the same 179A route as currently except that it should call at the 2 busstops between Pioneer MRT and Boon Lay Int)In this way, 179A can use a full DD sleet with 179 exploring a possibility of running on SDs and Bendies. This way you also eliminate congestion at Boon Lay Int.
As for 199 - Current deployments are pretty good with DDs and SDs. DDs are definitely better utilised on 199. -
** means 179A call at the 2 busstops between Pioneer and Boon Lay Int but does not stop at Pioneer MRT station itself.
-
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:
I believe SMRT will procure more Double Decker buses this year and in the next few years.
Last year it only procured 201 units most likely because this was its first year procuring Double Decker buses. Now that it has experience, it may procure more units of Double Decker buses.
I feel that eventually, the Articulated buses (including that SMB-registered one) will all be phased out and replaced with Double Decker buses.
Speaking of which, an articulated bus caused a traffic jam inside Boon Lay Bus Interchange bus bay recently. That bus occupied around half of the driveway where buses from sawtooth berths drive through to loop and exit the bus interchange. Only one bus can drive through to loop, and some departures were delayed.
In my opinion, there should not be Articulated buses here where traffic volumes are high and traffic congestions are common.
According to the article on Wikipedia, last updated on 29 December 2014, SMRT has 315 units of Articulated buses.
When SMRT procures Double Decker buses again, it shoud procure at least 315 units to replace all its Articulated buses. Considering that more high capacity buses will be needed in future, the figure should be doubled to around 630. SMRT should procure around 630 units of Double Decker buses when it procures Double Decker buses again.
Agree to points you made, but SMRT can continue using bendies on certain CCK / Yishun / Woodland feeder intra-town services. For all trunk services, strictly use DDs. Considering this SMRT should maintain 150 units of bendies.
-
Originally posted by randomguy10:
For Sevices like 67, 851, 854 - Ive noticed that loading pattern on these services does not see passengers travelling very long distances. Most of them travel for 15-20mins max and these services have no express sectors, meaning there is very little incentive for people to go to upper deck. Also, there is alot of boarding and alighting activity along the route, making a 3-door bus more efficient. Given that these services are already having bendies and terminating at SBST interchange on one side, such operations might still be feasible. The problems with Bendies are actually the space it occupies on the road. As such it would be wise if SMRT actually does not deploy consecutive bendies so that they will not cause long queues at busstops when they bunch together
This is an absolutely incorrect observation. I have taken these services and this is so not true.
On 854, you have pax who board along YCK Road and alight at Eunos, Airport road junction. You have pax who board at Yishun and alight along HG Ave 3. All this qualifies for long distance travel.
On 851, you have pax who board along Marymount and alight only at Bugis/Little India/Novena. This is long distance travel.
On 67, you have lot of pax who board at CCK and alight along Bukit Timah, pax who board at Bukit Timah and alight along Serangoon rd/Geylang... and so on...
On every route there will be people who take it for short distance, but on all these 3 services you have a good number of pax who take the bus for long distance travel. DDs are PERFECT for all of them.
-
Originally posted by randomguy10:
Just what I noted when I took 190 back to CCK from opp far east plaza 2 days ago at about 10.30pm. 2DDs, 2 Bendies and 1 SD came together. The order was SMB5003U, TIB1127U, a E500, a MAN A22 and a Box O405G. I wanted to board SMB5003U but the BC did not open the door as it was fully packed to the front door (but upper deck seemed to be only 75% full). So I ended up on TIB1127U, standing at the front door. TIB1127U overtake SMB5003U along PIE. When I reached CCK, I alighted and was waiting for 172 and I noticed SMB5003U arrived a full 10mins after TIB1127U. Even the Box O405G had overtaken SMB5003U. Which makes me think, are DDs really so much more better? For a service like 190, the pros of DDs definitely outweigh the cons.
But in a feeder service where passenger boarding and alighting activities are so high, is DD really the best choice to solve the overcrowding problem? Imagine you make the feeder full DD, the dwell times increase and the total duration to complete the route increase, you also have to buy more buses to take maintain the frequency. And then you get bunching of buses (Example 241). On the whole, you are using more buses and prolonging the travel time - Does this really reduce the footprint on the road as opposed to Bendies? I really cant imagine Yishun feeders using DDs. The dwell times are going to be just too high and the travel time is going to increase for every passenger making people think about the efficiency of SG public transport. Like wise, if a service like 241 used a mix of Bendies and SDs, travel time would be shorter, dwell times will be shorter, you will need lesser buses plying the route and Im sure passengers will have a better ride. For feeders, seats are never a priority for passengers anyway....Just some food for thought!
(You might think the congestion to turn into BL int might be a problem, I dont deny - but Id say mix Bendies and SDs. If you do these for all feeders, you are reducing the number of buses turning in anw. Since DDs have been added, Ive noticed greater bunching and more buses being deployed due to additional travel times and this is partially responsible for the congestion too...)
Let me tell you - 241 has a much better frequency than 804... and 241 is a better operated service than 804 as well... 804 needs more buses and bendy buses, not rigids.
On your DD v/s bendy point, it has been discussed 100+ times here and it always wages a war, so lets refrain from getting into that discussion again. On 190, DDs are doing excellent and CCK commuters have openly expressed their happiness on all forums.
-
Originally posted by randomguy10:
Being a student in NTU myself for 4 years already, I am a regular commuter on SBST 179, 179A and 199. IMO, given the loading pattern of 179, DDs are definitely a wrong choice for this service. There is too much boarding and alighting at almost every busstop in NTU and Pioneer MRT station too, with no traffic lights in NTU campus. Also, many students do not wish to go up when they are going to alight at pioneer (I also dont know why but this is very true amongst most of my friends and what I see when Im on board) so upper deck is usually only 50-75% utilised.
However, the number of passengers taking 179 everyday is just too high and the number of buses required to operate this service is just too many to say 179 should use bendies. Though bendies are a better fit for this service and no doubt the number of buses used on this service can be reduced with bendies, it wont be feasible with the current Boon Lay interchange and wont be wise because bendies occupy space.
With the bus contracting model and a possibility of DDs and Bendies being better utilised to their pros and cons, my suggestion for 179 will be as follows:
179 - SLBP - NTU - SLBP via Pioneer MRT (stops at all busstops)
179A - Boon Lay - Pioneer - NTU - Pioneer - Boon Lay (basically the same 179A route as currently except that it should call at the 2 busstops between Pioneer MRT and Boon Lay Int)In this way, 179A can use a full DD sleet with 179 exploring a possibility of running on SDs and Bendies. This way you also eliminate congestion at Boon Lay Int.
As for 199 - Current deployments are pretty good with DDs and SDs. DDs are definitely better utilised on 199.Oh, you really are a DD-hater. No more comments.
-
...
-
Registered on 02nd January 2015:
SMB3567Y
SMB3568U
SMB3569S
SMB3570L
SMB3571J
SMB5026D
SMB5027B
SMB5028Z
SMB5029X
SMB5030R
SMB5031M
SMB5032K -
Originally posted by Gus.chong:
Registered on 02nd January 2015:
SMB3567Y
SMB3568U
SMB3569S
SMB3570L
SMB3571J
SMB5026D
SMB5027B
SMB5028Z
SMB5029X
SMB5030R
SMB5031M
SMB5032KSurprising to see LTA still registering BSEP DDs when so many spare.. Let SMRT register instead and increase capacity on its services.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Surprising to see LTA still registering BSEP DDs when so many spare.. Let SMRT register instead and increase capacity on its services.
850E/969 added SMB3539D while suspect 966 & 972 gonna add another DD as requested by Holland/BPJ MP...
-
Originally posted by TIB1234T:
850E/969 added SMB3539D while suspect 966 & 972 gonna add another DD as requested by Holland/BPJ MP...
Seems like LTA only listens to MPs these days... 972 okay... but 966 to get one more... too much!
Rather prefer 969 gets.