LTA calls tender for mock-ups for Concept Bus
-
I hope Scania has the winning formula that nobody (not even fellow VW company MAN) possesses. If Hino does win I'd say it's a huge step up for them. But the biggest surprise would be Sino-Australian BCI group.
-
Originally posted by SexyMichael:
winning designs do not translate into winning production contracts - there is a significant difference between design capability and production capability, and you seem to be assuming:
1) LTA should award the production contract to the company that designed it (goes against tender rules!)
2) the bidders for the design contract can BOTH design well and produce cheaply (how true??)there is NO play-out involved because, by virtue of the contract, LTA has to renumerate the bidder with the best possible design, and expect LTA to purchase the winning design (IP rights, TDPs and the related) at the conclusion of the contract. once that is done, the design does not belong to the company that designed it, but instead belongs to LTA.
when LTA decides, further down the road, to issue a manufacturing contract, there is no sell-out because LTA is merely having people tender to build their design, yes LTA's design. it can be argued that LTA's design is a defacto design from a bus company, but the design, legally, still belongs to LTA.
Here is the thing, bus manufacturers don't earn money by coming out with concepts and selling IPs to authorities, design firms, like those in NBFL design competition, can as that is what they do for a living, but in the NBFL the design firms didn't had to care about the engineering design and TFL wasn't looking for experienced bus manufactuers during this phase. When the TFL wanted the buses to be built (ie the next phase), they required the bus manufacturers to come out with the engineering design, in return for building the buses.
A bus manufacturer on the other hand, has to manufacture buses to make money. Selling IPs to authorities and letting them use it while not getting any actual deals is simply unfair to the bus manufacturers, especially when they no longer hold legal rights to what they have created.
Its like creating a whole new bus, just that there is a chance that you can't get the business. Manufacturers (not just bus manufacturers) usually recoup their design costs only after a certain X amount of units produced, either the costs they are tendering has to be so high that they recoup the whole design cost (that it makes more sense for the authority to buy a lot of buses using the money instead) or they can choose to bid lower and hope that the authorities award a future bus tender to them.
This is why I would rather they skip this whole concept bus bullshit, and evaluate bus manufacturers when they actually need the buses.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Alternatively, it is possible to argue the other way round.
If I were a manufacturer and I wanted to keep other manufacturers out for the next round, I would propose a mock-up with technologies that other manufactures find it difficult or are unable to replicate (e.g. steel structure or cutting edge aluminum structure design). That will put many of my competitors out of the game for the next round.
That is why this looks like Masterchef if you have watched episodes of it, "whoever wins this challenge will gain a significant advantage in the next round". The winner of the first challenge will usually pick ingredients/choices for their competitors for the elimination round that put them in an very vulnerable position.
One thing is, bus manufacturing (in terms of body as this contract looks like its focusing more on the body) doesn't really involve much precision engineering. A lot of stuffs regarding buses are very easy to replicate, the Chinese are very good at doing such replicating, why do you think you see a lot of Chinese at European bus shows snooping at booths other than their own when most buses in China are domestically made? This is why bus manufacturers turn to patents, but if you sell your design to LTA, then the patents will be owned by LTA, wouldn't you as a manufacturer lose out then as there isn't any contractual agreement to buy your buses?
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Generally, a rail system is preferred to a BRT if it exists.
I have seen at least one major urban city tear down BRT facilities to substitute it for a metro system. Taichung is tearing down theirs in a few months.
The main benefits of a BRT system is its flexibility and shorter period of construction.
singapore cannot compare to a taiwan city and also the taichung brt system idea is a rush into it idea as the former city mayor try to bulid it to win vote and it poorly plan. for us if LTA can think different like appple and plan the system well it could be very useful. as you said BRT system is its flexibility and shorter period of construction. combine with MRT system could be one of the best transport network here.
-
Originally posted by SBS351M:
One thing is, bus manufacturing (in terms of body as this contract looks like its focusing more on the body) doesn't really involve much precision engineering. A lot of stuffs regarding buses are very easy to replicate, the Chinese are very good at doing such replicating, why do you think you see a lot of Chinese at European bus shows snooping at booths other than their own when most buses in China are domestically made? This is why bus manufacturers turn to patents, but if you sell your design to LTA, then the patents will be owned by LTA, wouldn't you as a manufacturer lose out then as there isn't any contractual agreement to buy your buses?
Based on LTA's experience with rolling stock procurements, I do not think LTA did or will buy patents or any other intellectual property.
If there is a risk of intellectual property of one manufactuer stolen by another, then the outcome is already obvious. The tender will close either with no prospective bidders (forcing LTA to redesign the tender), or only the Chinese manufactuers will bid.
-
Originally posted by wsy1234:
singapore cannot compare to a taiwan city and also the taichung brt system idea is a rush into it idea as the former city mayor try to bulid it to win vote and it poorly plan. for us if LTA can think different like appple and plan the system well it could be very useful. as you said BRT system is its flexibility and shorter period of construction. combine with MRT system could be one of the best transport network here.
Make that a few major cities in People's Republic of China.
But more likely, the answer you will get for a BRT proposal is "Singapore is not Taiwan/China, BRT won't fit here".
Or...you could try joining one of the Big Four and try convincing LTA when asked for advice.
-
Originally posted by SBS351M:
Here is the thing, bus manufacturers don't earn money by coming out with concepts and selling IPs to authorities, design firms, like those in NBFL design competition, can as that is what they do for a living, but in the NBFL the design firms didn't had to care about the engineering design and TFL wasn't looking for experienced bus manufactuers during this phase. When the TFL wanted the buses to be built (ie the next phase), they required the bus manufacturers to come out with the engineering design, in return for building the buses.
A bus manufacturer on the other hand, has to manufacture buses to make money. Selling IPs to authorities and letting them use it while not getting any actual deals is simply unfair to the bus manufacturers, especially when they no longer hold legal rights to what they have created.
Its like creating a whole new bus, just that there is a chance that you can't get the business. Manufacturers (not just bus manufacturers) usually recoup their design costs only after a certain X amount of units produced, either the costs they are tendering has to be so high that they recoup the whole design cost (that it makes more sense for the authority to buy a lot of buses using the money instead) or they can choose to bid lower and hope that the authorities award a future bus tender to them.
This is why I would rather they skip this whole concept bus bullshit, and evaluate bus manufacturers when they actually need the buses.
never have I, in my previous replies, suggested that bus companies make money the way you described it.
so the question now is this: is this 'concept bus' an engineering and/or conceptual design?
i can agree that bus companies shouldnt be selling IPs as their manin route of profit, but let's keep the discussion in context - if this were a 'design competition' to put it in the worst way possible, shouldnt the winning design be renumerated in some way or another? if there is NO renumeration, I wouldnt expect any bus company to participate in this tender at all!
your argument ties design with production, and my argument serves to delink that association given the potential cirucmstances of this tender.
to also add on, given the scale of potential procurement by LTA post-2016, I am well expecting joint bids by manufacturers should that arise, hence it would also make sense that LTA owns the IPs to the winning design.
-
Originally posted by SexyMichael:
never have I, in my previous replies, suggested that bus companies make money the way you described it.
so the question now is this: is this 'concept bus' an engineering and/or conceptual design?
i can agree that bus companies shouldnt be selling IPs as their manin route of profit, but let's keep the discussion in context - if this were a 'design competition' to put it in the worst way possible, shouldnt the winning design be renumerated in some way or another? if there is NO renumeration, I wouldnt expect any bus company to participate in this tender at all!
your argument ties design with production, and my argument serves to delink that association given the potential cirucmstances of this tender.
to also add on, given the scale of potential procurement by LTA post-2016, I am well expecting joint bids by manufacturers should that arise, hence it would also make sense that LTA owns the IPs to the winning design.
What kind of renumeration can you get out of this? This is not going to bring in the kind of money you would expect from a bus order (ie VERY significantly lower profit margins), and yet you have to do the same designing work, which takes a large portion of the cost, and then you probably have to give the design up to the authority. And even if you get to keep the design rights, there's no stopping LTA from speccing something similar to your design (this is what Chinese bus manufacturers do - come out with something similar but not 100% to circumvent patents). What bus manufacturers need are actual orders, not concepts.
If I'm a bus manufacturer, I'm stuck in between a rock and hard place, on one hand I have to enter this because you'll never know whether this design tender forms a prequalification for future tenders (ie only companies who have entered this tender can tender for future tenders - whether stated explicity or as an informal gesture). On another hand, there is a chance that I am giving out the design, but not winning a future tender for bus orders.
If you are thinking of joint bids, all I can say is this industry is a man for his own. Don't expect joint bids between companies of the same field. You could expect joint chassis manufacturer and body manufacturer bids but don't expect body and body, or chassis and chassis working with each other.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Based on LTA's experience with rolling stock procurements, I do not think LTA did or will buy patents or any other intellectual property.
If there is a risk of intellectual property of one manufactuer stolen by another, then the outcome is already obvious. The tender will close either with no prospective bidders (forcing LTA to redesign the tender), or only the Chinese manufactuers will bid.
Rolling stock is a different matter as LTA actually provides the drawings for the manufacturers to follow, ie LTA designs a great deal of the trains, and therefore owns a great deal of IP.
-
Originally posted by SBS351M:
What kind of renumeration can you get out of this? This is not going to bring in the kind of money you would expect from a bus order, and yet you have to do the same designing work, which takes a large portion of the cost, and then you probably have to give the design up to the authority. And even if you get to keep the design rights, there's no stopping LTA from speccing something similar to your design (this is what Chinese bus manufacturers do - come out with something similar but not 100% to circumvent patents). What bus manufacturers need are actual orders, not concepts.
If I'm a bus manfacturer, I'm stuck in between a rock and hard place, on one hand I have to enter this because you'll never know whether this design tender forms a prequalification for future tenders (ie only companies who have entered this tender can tender for future tenders - whether stated explicity or as an informal gesture). On another hand, there is a chance that I am giving out the design, but not winning a future tender for bus orders.
If you are thinking of joint bids, all I can say is this industry is a man for his own. Don't expect joint bids between companies of the same field. You could expect joint chassis manufacturer and body manufacturer bids but don't expect body and body, or chassis and chassis working with each other.
my point was never about renumeration per se - LTA would have to reward the best design accordingly, fair enough? as to the extent of renumeration, let's leave that an open question, although I will agree with you that the murky world of IP rights does complicate issues alot.
if this design tender indeed forms an implicit pre-requisite for future production tenders, yes i will fully agree with your earlier points that manufacturers are stuck between a rock and hard place because they either get all (design and production) or maybe a passing mention where the money glides by (design only).
i'm aware that the industry is every man for himself, but if LTA specifies delivery committments that not even a single company can commit to, wouldnt joint bids by manufacturers be the only other way out? the argument could go along the lines of "LTA should just have had more realistic tender conditions", but the question i'm asking is: what if?
-
Originally posted by SexyMichael:
my point was never about renumeration per se - LTA would have to reward the best design accordingly, fair enough? as to the extent of renumeration, let's leave that an open question, although I will agree with you that the murky world of IP rights does complicate issues alot.
if this design tender indeed forms an implicit pre-requisite for future production tenders, yes i will fully agree with your earlier points that manufacturers are stuck between a rock and hard place because they either get all (design and production) or maybe a passing mention where the money glides by (design only).
i'm aware that the industry is every man for himself, but if LTA specifies delivery committments that not even a single company can commit to, wouldnt joint bids by manufacturers be the only other way out? the argument could go along the lines of "LTA should just have had more realistic tender conditions", but the question i'm asking is: what if?
I still don't think joint bids are going to be possible. Its just not so easy for manufacturers to work together over so many years, much less within a period of one month. Even VW as the majority shareholder, took years trying to force MAN and Scania together and they've only started looking at synergies regarding transmissions.
And apart from all these comments I have made, I hope LTA isn't looking for an iconic external design ala NBFL, the travelling public doesn't care and don't need it. they just need buses running.
-
Designing a better ride on public buses
Catering to various commuter groups part of LTA tender requirementsPUBLIC buses will offer a better ride in the future as the Land Transport Authority (LTA) studies how to improve their design.
It is looking at tweaks to improve commuter flow, for instance getting passengers to move to the back of the bus, and to minimise the time they take to board and alight.
It will also look at catering to different groups of commuters, including the elderly who need seats, the visually challenged with guide dogs, and travellers with bulky items.
Last week, the LTA called a tender asking manufacturers and suppliers to submit design proposals based on these considerations, and to build actual-size mockups of prototype buses.
“LTA is studying what enhancements in design and features could be incorporated for future bus purchases and are best suited to operations in Singapore,� a spokesman said.
The concept models must have passenger seats, driver’s cabin, handrails and other interior and exterior fittings, according to the tender documents.
A workable door system, interior lighting and air-conditioning will also have to be installed.
The tender, which closes next month, requires companies to consider factors such as comfort, safety and carrying capacity during peak hours.
These concept buses – two single-deckers and two double-deckers – will be shown to the public to gather their feedback.
This will be valuable when deciding on future bus purchases, LTA said.
As the bus industry transits into a state contracting model, all fleets and infrastructure will be government-owned, with routes tendered out to operators to run.
The first tender package for 24 routes in the western part of the island is expected to be awarded soon. Eight companies shortlisted include local operators SBS Transit and SMRT, and players from Australia, Britain and France.
A poll of 30 bus commuters found that enhancements relating to safety, accessibility and comfort were top of their wishlists.
“I hope for more handrails, especially in the middle of the bus,� said undergraduate Alison Ong, 20. Ms Clare Wong, 51, a homemaker, wanted more space for big items like market trolleys and luggage. Others suggested wider seats and more seating set aside for the elderly and disabled.
Retiree Lee Ley Lun, 60, said: “How about some piped music and brighter (interior) colours to cheer everyone up?� -ST
-
Since the contract asks for experienced bus manufacturers rather than design firms, it is asking for an engineering rather than conceptual/aesthetic design. The outcome is more likely to be similar to currently available buses on the market, with modifications here and there such as an extra rear door (for RHD), wider aisles, optimised seating configuration/ interior layout etc, or even exploring electric or hybrid buses on a commercial scale (though unlikely).
The purpose is to explore various ideas and find out what is feasible and suitable for Sg's market, so that LTA has a basis for procuring buses in future. This could be similar to the Bombardier mockup for Downtown Line MRT trains, which was modified into what we see today. I suspect this exercise is also for LTA to get some in-house expertise on bus design and procurement, since that is currently under the 2 PTOs.
As for the issue of IP rights to the design and the possibility of a different company doing the actual mass production of buses, that's perfectly ok from LTA's point of view because the company with the winning design may not be the most cost-efficient manufacturer. If you know how LTA and stat boards work, they are focused on protecting the authority's (and public's) interest, which numerous clauses in tenders specifying the conditions to be met and the tenderer's obligations in the event of various difficult circumstances, in some cases disclaiming the authority from liability, and the work done by others becoming the authority's property.
It's tough for the manufacturers because this concept bus mockup is likely crucial to procuring huge orders under GCM in future, but they may get undercut by more cost-efficient rivals when it comes to the large orders.
-
i spit out my food, when i saw someone suggest to install lift in the buses.... so where will the parts that are going to run the lift be stored at? at the top of the bus? or underground?
-
the safety of the bus the number one. and base on the present bus first not be so rocky and the floor must be flat all the way to the back. and have three doors. the best is fix with vehicle anti collision system. and also be child and old fork frendly in term of sit arrangement.
-
some new but (still) practical ideas:
- - MRT style seat arrangements with all seats (only at lower deck) foldable. during peak hours, all have to stand. this will increase capacity. :)
- - free wi-fi on buses. :)
- - computer for internet surfing on the seats of buses.. similar to aeroplane. :)
- - music on buses. maybe can play some classical or some musical instruments music on the buses. :)
- - automatic air fresherner that is activated after certain time intervals. :)
- - solar panels to operate the electrical components. :)
- - aircon unit can be placed at the bottom instead, similar to "Green" buildings. saves energy. :)
-
I would like to see some improvements in bus stop announcement on buses (especially SBST)... Very often people who are not familiar with the route alight at the wrong bus stop because they're not informed at all which bus stop the bus is reaching. Sometimes even the information panel at bus stops don't show the routes (especially for newly introduced and amended services).
-
Originally posted by array88:
I would like to see some improvements in bus stop announcement on buses (especially SBST)... Very often people who are not familiar with the route alight at the wrong bus stop because they’re not informed at all which bus stop the bus is reaching. Sometimes even the information panel at bus stops don’t show the routes (especially for newly introduced and amended services).
got announcement, also sure got ppl alight at wrong bus stop lah.. then later want multi langauge display, multi language annoucement... and need to install more LED panels cos ppl at back of buses cant see the panels at the front......
-
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:
some new but (still) practical ideas:
- - MRT style seat arrangements with all seats (only at lower deck) foldable. during peak hours, all have to stand. this will increase capacity. :)
- - free wi-fi on buses. :)
- - computer for internet surfing on the seats of buses.. similar to aeroplane. :)
- - music on buses. maybe can play some classical or some musical instruments music on the buses. :)
- - automatic air fresherner that is activated after certain time intervals. :)
- - solar panels to operate the electrical components. :)
- - aircon unit can be placed at the bottom instead, similar to "Green" buildings. saves energy. :)
add in bus stewardess to serve you drink and food ok?
-
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:
some new but (still) practical ideas:
- - MRT style seat arrangements with all seats (only at lower deck) foldable. during peak hours, all have to stand. this will increase capacity. :)
- - free wi-fi on buses. :)
- - computer for internet surfing on the seats of buses.. similar to aeroplane. :)
- - music on buses. maybe can play some classical or some musical instruments music on the buses. :)
- - automatic air fresherner that is activated after certain time intervals. :)
- - solar panels to operate the electrical components. :)
- - aircon unit can be placed at the bottom instead, similar to "Green" buildings. saves energy. :)
1. foldable seats spoil ppl will kpkb :D
2. who pay for 3g/4g/5g connection from bus to base station? if internet connection speed on bus fluctuate ppl kpkb again? :D
3. LE/LF bus got space to put mainframe that runs the computers? also ar, if the individual computers overheat and catch fire how ar? :D
4. then ppl will kpkb and want the operator to play justin bieber/one direction/maroon 5 so on so forth :D
5. air freshener empty you refill ar? also ar, who pays for the refill? :D
6. when you have a rooftop AC, how much solar panel can you install on the roof without overloading it?
7. if you can find space on an LE bus to mount the AC underneath, kudos :D
my dear friends, this is why we are destined to pay $4 for a feeder ride, and maybe $15 for a trunk ride.
-
Originally posted by array88:
I would like to see some improvements in bus stop announcement on buses (especially SBST)... Very often people who are not familiar with the route alight at the wrong bus stop because they’re not informed at all which bus stop the bus is reaching. Sometimes even the information panel at bus stops don’t show the routes (especially for newly introduced and amended services).
some of the overseas operators have seemingly better PIS systems than what the local operators have to offer, but again the cost of such systems needs to be belanced with ease of use (by the commuters), ease of operation (by the BC), ease of maintenance and updating (by depot staff) so on so forth.
id agree that our local PIS systems can be better, but in what ways and what costs involved that remains to be seen.
-
Originally posted by SexyMichael:
some of the overseas operators have seemingly better PIS systems than what the local operators have to offer, but again the cost of such systems needs to be belanced with ease of use (by the commuters), ease of operation (by the BC), ease of maintenance and updating (by depot staff) so on so forth.
id agree that our local PIS systems can be better, but in what ways and what costs involved that remains to be seen.
annoucement in one language wait ppl complain... then announce in 4 languages ppl also complain cos they cant sleep/listen to their music..
then the PIS display if put only english, then these ppl will come complain that their ah ma/ah gong dunno how to read, so must put in chinese... then add in melayu/tamil... . so many things to consider... i think need to put 40inch flat screen tv on the bus?
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
Designing a better ride on public buses
Catering to various commuter groups part of LTA tender requirementsPUBLIC buses will offer a better ride in the future as the Land Transport Authority (LTA) studies how to improve their design.
It is looking at tweaks to improve commuter flow, for instance getting passengers to move to the back of the bus, and to minimise the time they take to board and alight.
It will also look at catering to different groups of commuters, including the elderly who need seats, the visually challenged with guide dogs, and travellers with bulky items.
Last week, the LTA called a tender asking manufacturers and suppliers to submit design proposals based on these considerations, and to build actual-size mockups of prototype buses.
“LTA is studying what enhancements in design and features could be incorporated for future bus purchases and are best suited to operations in Singapore,” a spokesman said.
The concept models must have passenger seats, driver’s cabin, handrails and other interior and exterior fittings, according to the tender documents.
A workable door system, interior lighting and air-conditioning will also have to be installed.
The tender, which closes next month, requires companies to consider factors such as comfort, safety and carrying capacity during peak hours.
These concept buses – two single-deckers and two double-deckers – will be shown to the public to gather their feedback.
This will be valuable when deciding on future bus purchases, LTA said.
As the bus industry transits into a state contracting model, all fleets and infrastructure will be government-owned, with routes tendered out to operators to run.
The first tender package for 24 routes in the western part of the island is expected to be awarded soon. Eight companies shortlisted include local operators SBS Transit and SMRT, and players from Australia, Britain and France.
A poll of 30 bus commuters found that enhancements relating to safety, accessibility and comfort were top of their wishlists.
“I hope for more handrails, especially in the middle of the bus,” said undergraduate Alison Ong, 20. Ms Clare Wong, 51, a homemaker, wanted more space for big items like market trolleys and luggage. Others suggested wider seats and more seating set aside for the elderly and disabled.
Retiree Lee Ley Lun, 60, said: “How about some piped music and brighter (interior) colours to cheer everyone up?” -ST
---- removed ----
-
...
-
Originally posted by array88:
I would like to see some improvements in bus stop announcement on buses (especially SBST)... Very often people who are not familiar with the route alight at the wrong bus stop because they’re not informed at all which bus stop the bus is reaching. Sometimes even the information panel at bus stops don’t show the routes (especially for newly introduced and amended services).
If LTA is receiving the same Trapeze ITS package as ACTION of Canberra have received, then it should not be a problem:
Previous discussion: http://sgforums.com/forums/1279/topics/482783