Originally posted by wsy1234:i read somewhere LTA is buying all the buses from both operators? So if that the case why so many buses tranfering going on? just use back whatever bus TT take over and add a few new one will do. What LTA should do is to paint all the buses to one standard LTA colour and have operators logo attach to it. also using one standard licence plate SGxxxx for example for all buses. waste money doing all the stupid jobs tranfering here and there. one time job should be better. actually those brand new buses not in use can have it paint white colour or LTA colour like the DTL train.
This is eventually. For now, since they only need a few (ok maybe not a few, but only a portion) of buses to give Bulim, the BSEP buses will do. So they are transferring around such that the Bulim services are full-fleet Bulim buses, even if those services are not introduced under BSEP. This ensures that all buses in Bulim are govt assets.
Originally posted by wsy1234:i read somewhere LTA is buying all the buses from both operators? So if that the case why so many buses tranfering going on? just use back whatever bus TT take over and add a few new one will do. What LTA should do is to paint all the buses to one standard LTA colour and have operators logo attach to it. also using one standard licence plate SGxxxx for example for all buses. waste money doing all the stupid jobs tranfering here and there. one time job should be better. actually those brand new buses not in use can have it paint white colour or LTA colour like the DTL train.
I still do not think LTA is going to buy every bus from SBS Transit and SMRT Buses.
That would be giving them a windfall and indeed there may be investors who have bought shares of both operators on this very basis and are waiting for that free money to come.
Originally posted by sgbuses:I still do not think LTA is going to buy every bus from SBS Transit and SMRT Buses.
That would be giving them a windfall and indeed there may be investors who have bought shares of both operators on this very basis and are waiting for that free money to come.
i think it will need to take over some buses at least?
bulim package =300 BSEP buses gone
Loyang Package = 400 BSEP buses gone...
so what about service 50 (and other BSEP services or services which got BSEP improvement), but using current SBST buses after the bulk of BSEP buses transferred to TT? currently, it is just the switching of buses, so no issue..(LTA ust paying the cost of operation - i.e BC/maintainance/diesel etc)
But after next June, 300 BSEP went over to TT, so effectively, SBST is using its own buses to operate part of Sv 50 and other BSEP service (or service with BSEP improvement).. So LTA either need to compensate SBST for the cost of these buses or buy over them? unless, LTA go order new buses now, but kinda impossible...
Originally posted by lemon1974:i think it will need to take over some buses at least?
bulim package =300 BSEP buses gone
Loyang Package = 400 BSEP buses gone...
so what about service 50 (and other BSEP services or services which got BSEP improvement), but using current SBST buses after the bulk of BSEP buses transferred to TT? currently, it is just the switching of buses, so no issue..(LTA ust paying the cost of operation - i.e BC/maintainance/diesel etc)
But after next June, 300 BSEP went over to TT, so effectively, SBST is using its own buses to operate part of Sv 50 and other BSEP service (or service with BSEP improvement).. So LTA either need to compensate SBST for the cost of these buses or buy over them? unless, LTA go order new buses now, but kinda impossible...
If LTA is bearing the cost of day to day operation (fuel/maintenance), then that continues. You do not have to buy over the whole fleet to do that.
The loan taken out to purchase BSEP buses is taken over by LTA.
Shouldn't be long before LTA orders new buses, though the concept buses would come first. None of these are surprising.
Originally posted by sgbuses:If LTA is bearing the cost of day to day operation (fuel/maintenance), then that continues. You do not have to buy over the whole fleet to do that.
The loan taken out to purchase BSEP buses is taken over by LTA.
Shouldn't be long before LTA orders new buses, though the concept buses would come first. None of these are surprising.
then LTA still need to pay for the depreciation cost of these buses under BSEP service..not just the day to day operation cost... why would SBST use their own buses at their own cost to operate BSEP service? so either LTA compensate SBST or simply take over these buses...(might not be all)..
even if LTA order new buses, it will take time also.. govt procuring will take some time...
the issue is that LTA need more BSEP buses .
Bulim Package =300
Loyang Package =400... so 700 BSEP already needed for these two packages, plus the current 600-700 needed for current BSEP service/fleet improvement.... so by next Sept, LTA will need to have around 1400 BSEP buses.. but they order only 1000...
Originally posted by lemon1974:then LTA still need to pay for the depreciation cost of these buses under BSEP service..not just the day to day operation cost... why would SBST use their own buses at their own cost to operate BSEP service? so either LTA compensate SBST or simply take over these buses...(might not be all)..
even if LTA order new buses, it will take time also.. govt procuring will take some time...
the issue is that LTA need more BSEP buses .
Bulim Package =300
Loyang Package =400... so 700 BSEP already needed for these two packages, plus the current 600-700 needed for current BSEP service/fleet improvement.... so by next Sept, LTA will need to have around 1400 BSEP buses.. but they order only 1000...
This is the problem...Some of the buses have fully deprecated.
If you are buying or paying lease for an asset which has no book value, then it is a windfall to the operator.
I have no issues with LTA buying buses that are the same model as the BSEP fleet. My contention is about LTA buying every bus asset, including those with no book value.
Originally posted by sgbuses:This is the problem...Some of the buses have fully deprecated.
If you are buying or paying lease for an asset which has no book value, then it is a windfall to the operator.
I have no issues with LTA buying buses that are the same model as the BSEP fleet. My contention is about LTA buying every bus asset, including those with no book value.
most likely they will be taking same model of buses and most of them are quite new actually (less than 5 years for citaros/B9TL)...
as for those older buses, most likely LTA will just pay SBST/SMRT slightly higher amount to run them (to cover more frequent maintainance, etc etc)...
I believe that LTA has clearly stated before that when the GCM is fully implemented, all bus assets will be government-owned. Whether this is accomplished by LTA buying new buses and forcing the SBS/SMRT non-BSEP assets off the road, or LTA buying over the non-BSEP buses, in the end the outcome is the same: all buses to be Government assets.
It is possible that from now on, we may not see any new bus purchases (new orders) by SBS and SMRT, maybe in future all new orders will come from LTA.
Originally posted by CB2883J:I believe that LTA has clearly stated before that when the GCM is fully implemented, all bus assets will be government-owned. Whether this is accomplished by LTA buying new buses and forcing the SBS/SMRT non-BSEP assets off the road, or LTA buying over the non-BSEP buses, in the end the outcome is the same: all buses to be Government assets.
It is possible that from now on, we may not see any new bus purchases (new orders) by SBS and SMRT, maybe in future all new orders will come from LTA.
yes... but depend on how u interpret "fully implemented". is it based on current 3 packages + 9 existing packages or based on all 12 packages are tendered out completely... i think it will be the latter (which mean 2022 and later )...by that time, can almost retire KUB already...
Originally posted by lemon1974:yes... but depend on how u interpret "fully implemented". is it based on current 3 packages + 9 existing packages or based on all 12 packages are tendered out completely... i think it will be the latter (which mean 2022 and later )...by that time, can almost retire KUB already...
Indeed I am referring to the latter. KUB may be retired by that time, but do remember that right now Volvo is still producing a 4th batch of B9TLs in SBS specifications, part of which are BSEP (34xx) and hence Government owned, but the remainder of which (SBS1Z onwards) are still SBS assets at the moment. I am referring to these buses which I expect to be bought (or otherwise taken over somehow) by LTA to become Government assets.
Originally posted by sgbuses:I still do not think LTA is going to buy every bus from SBS Transit and SMRT Buses.
That would be giving them a windfall and indeed there may be investors who have bought shares of both operators on this very basis and are waiting for that free money to come.
They probably only buying the BSEP models (Wrights, Citaros, E500s and A22s). KUBs, CDGE B9TLs, OC500s, A24s and A95s will remain with their respective operators until they're decommissioned.
In future, only 4 bus models will be deployed by LTA itself. Unlikely we'll be seeing new Scanias anytime soon unless PAP lost power and incoming party strikes an exclusive deal with the Swedish automotive firm.
I have a question. Temasek owned SMRT, so aren't SMRT considered government-owned? If that is the case, the current SMRT fleets are technically government assets too. Please correct me.
Originally posted by SMB195G:I have a question. Temasek owned SMRT, so aren't SMRT considered government-owned? If that is the case, the current SMRT fleets are technically government assets too. Please correct me.
I don't exactly believe Temasek own SMRT... SMRT is a public listed company I know, so i think temasek own majority stake or something... got people own SMRT shares. either way SMRT bus is not govt asset.
Originally posted by CB2883J:I believe that LTA has clearly stated before that when the GCM is fully implemented, all bus assets will be government-owned. Whether this is accomplished by LTA buying new buses and forcing the SBS/SMRT non-BSEP assets off the road, or LTA buying over the non-BSEP buses, in the end the outcome is the same: all buses to be Government assets.
It is possible that from now on, we may not see any new bus purchases (new orders) by SBS and SMRT, maybe in future all new orders will come from LTA.
If LTA is sticking to this eventual plan, then SMRT's purchase of production batch A95 is bizarre.
Originally posted by sgbuses:If LTA is sticking to this eventual plan, then SMRT's purchase of production batch A95 is bizarre.
Whether or not LTA stick to the plan, the PB A95s never made sense to me, especially if small order lol
Originally posted by SG5001C:Whether or not LTA stick to the plan, the PB A95s never made sense to me, especially if small order lol
To an extent, SMRT Buses is betting that MAN A95s (and perhaps the MAN A24?) will have a future with LTA.
Originally posted by sgbuses:To an extent, SMRT Buses is betting that MAN A95s (and perhaps the MAN A24?) will have a future with LTA.
There is nothing to bet about, SMRT is just buying what they feel is best for themselves at this moment. Nobody, not SBS, SMRT or any right minded private company, will buy anything based on any sense of consideration for a third party, in part because they wouldn't exactly know what the third party (in this case, the LTA) wants but more importantly, because, in a free market, they shouldn't need to care about that as they are private companies.
But IMO, if and when LTA decides to buy the A24s and A95s from SMRT, they will find it easy to integrate them into the rest of the fleet as these buses are just so similar to the A22s.
Originally posted by SBS351M:There is nothing to bet about, SMRT is just buying what they feel is best for themselves at this moment. Nobody, not SBS, SMRT or any right minded private company, will buy anything based on any sense of consideration for a third party, in part because they wouldn't exactly know what the third party (in this case, the LTA) wants but more importantly, because, in a free market, they shouldn't need to care about that as they are private companies.
But IMO, if and when LTA decides to buy the A24s and A95s from SMRT, they will find it easy to integrate them into the rest of the fleet as these buses are just so similar to the A22s.
You try telling that to Adelaide (8 L-series and 12 K-series variants) and Melbourne (4 L-series and 6 K-series variants) commuters, who are paying $3.48 and $3.76 bus fares because the fleet purchases are "just so similar" and "easy to integrate" too.
Also recall London, where Boris Johnson has no hesitation in asking Transport for London to get rid of the entire articulated bus fleet as a matter of policy, no matter how new they were when purchased by private operators and it happened that their contracts were up for renewal.
What if LTA does refuse to buy the MAN A24 and A95 fleet from SMRT Buses? Then what is SMRT going to do with them?
If years down the road LTA does procure MAN A95s themselves (and STK has a pretty good chance at this), then the future of SMRT's A95 fleet is assured.
Originally posted by sgbuses:You try telling that to Adelaide (8 L-series and 12 K-series variants) and Melbourne (4 L-series and 6 K-series variants) commuters, who are paying $3.48 and $3.76 bus fares because the fleet purchases are "just so similar" and "easy to integrate" too.
Also recall London, where Boris Johnson has no hesitation in asking Transport for London to get rid of the entire articulated bus fleet as a matter of policy, no matter how new they were when purchased by private operators and it happened that their contracts were up for renewal.
What if LTA does refuse to buy the MAN A24 and A95 fleet from SMRT Buses? Then what is SMRT going to do with them?
If years down the road LTA does procure MAN A95s themselves (and STK has a pretty good chance at this), then the future of SMRT's A95 fleet is assured.
I am not sure what is your obsession with linking high fares with everything related to the contracting model; you have mentioned this quite a few times in contracting threads. I doubt we will reach that kinds of fares anytime soon, it is just politically unwise for that to happen and that would mean that the contracting model has failed, therefore LTA will not allow that to happen. The wages, which if I am not wrong, are the biggest costs, and I doubt Singapore will reach Australian or UK levels of wages for drivers.
If LTA doesn't buy those buses then SMRT could use them as a additional buses for the contracts that it wins, under the worst case scenairo (which is very unlikely due to the structure of GLCs), they could sell those buses, for overseas or for scrap. But then it will lead the public to question LTA on why are perfectly usable buses not being used, so LTA will want to avoid these issues.
Furthermore, I think LTA will need every available bus to run its services + operational spares, it is financially unwise to buy a brand new bus when you have perfectly usable buses that won't be hitting the statutory lifespan expiry yet, and these buses will be cheaper to acquire due to depreciation.
Till date the wording used in LTA's press releases does seem to signal that they will purchase the whole fleet. I am infering that this refers to the buses that would still be around in 2022 or so. It could happen before this, though, if they feel a need for a smoother transition.
I think the MAN A22, A24 and A95 are probably the family of chassis with the most commonalities available in the market. More so than Scania, though Scania do have a product line in which buses have a lot of commonalities. Some product lines look and sound related and may even use the same engine but aren't really the same, eg. ADL E400 and E500 have very different engine compartment layouts, the Volvo B9L and B9TLs too have different engine compartment layouts, and this means more parts that are different are needed for the families of products from ADL, Volvo, etc.
Since the MANs have similar engine compartment layouts, same engine, same gearboxes*, lots of common parts, integration of the MAN products is going to be easier than you think if and when LTA decides to buy the buses.
*Dependent on individual buses compared.
Originally posted by SBS351M:I am not sure what is your obsession with linking high fares with everything related to the contracting model; you have mentioned this quite a few times in contracting threads. I doubt we will reach that kinds of fares anytime soon, it is just politically unwise for that to happen and that would mean that the contracting model has failed, therefore LTA will not allow that to happen. The wages, which if I am not wrong, are the biggest costs, and I doubt Singapore will reach Australian or UK levels of wages for drivers.
If LTA doesn't buy those buses then SMRT could use them as a additional buses for the contracts that it wins, under the worst case scenairo (which is very unlikely due to the structure of GLCs), they could sell those buses, for overseas or for scrap. But then it will lead the public to question LTA on why are perfectly usable buses not being used, so LTA will want to avoid these issues.
Furthermore, I think LTA will need every available bus to run its services + operational spares, it is financially unwise to buy a brand new bus when you have perfectly usable buses that won't be hitting the statutory lifespan expiry yet, and these buses will be cheaper to acquire due to depreciation.
Till date the wording used in LTA's press releases does seem to signal that they will purchase the whole fleet. I am infering that this refers to the buses that would still be around in 2022 or so. It could happen before this, though, if they feel a need for a smoother transition.
I think the MAN A22, A24 and A95 are probably the family of chassis with the most commonalities available in the market. More so than Scania, though Scania do have a product line in which buses have a lot of commonalities. Some product lines look and sound related and may even use the same engine but aren't really the same, eg. ADL E400 and E500 have very different engine compartment layouts, the Volvo B9L and B9TLs too have different engine compartment layouts, and this means more parts that are different are needed for the families of products from ADL, Volvo, etc.
Since the MANs have similar engine compartment layouts, same engine, same gearboxes*, lots of common parts, integration of the MAN products is going to be easier than you think if and when LTA decides to buy the buses.
*Dependent on individual buses compared.
And I am not sure what's with your obsessive support for MAN Truck and Bus products either from your previous posts.
If LTA wants to avoid the issues of dealing with SMRT's unused fleet in the first place, this is the time to deal with it. Not wait until as in the case of Melbourne, the Victorian state government and Transdev are forced to deal with over 30 different bus models from defunct operators for the size of less than 2 Singapore bus packages.
SMRT Buses already has to deal with redeploying articulated buses away from the Bulim package routes. If the third package is in SMRT's territory and SMRT Buses goes on to lose that tender, the result may be a large fleet of "homeless" step-floor articulated buses.
The writing is on the wall, look at the private sector:
http://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore-news/jurong-primary-school-bus-fare-rises-50-120-month
http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/school-bus-fare-rise-i-didnt-think-it-would-be-more-double
NMP Thomas Chua said that the GCM would “exacerbate the manpower shortage" and "present a great challenge to the operators of current bus services, school bus services and logistics services".
There is good reason why LTA is tendering out 3 packages until 2022. It gives them a viable exit option if the whole scheme turned out to be a disaster. Already, there are calls by academics for Singapore's public transport to be nationalised.
Originally posted by sgbuses:And I am not sure what's with your obsessive support for MAN Truck and Bus products either from your previous posts.
If LTA wants to avoid the issues of dealing with SMRT's unused fleet in the first place, this is the time to deal with it. Not wait until as in the case of Melbourne, the Victorian state government and Transdev are forced to deal with over 30 different bus models from defunct operators for the size of less than 2 Singapore bus packages.
SMRT Buses already has to deal with redeploying articulated buses away from the Bulim package routes. If the third package is in SMRT's territory and SMRT Buses goes on to lose that tender, the result may be a large fleet of "homeless" step-floor articulated buses.
The writing is on the wall, look at the private sector:
http://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore-news/jurong-primary-school-bus-fare-rises-50-120-month
http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/school-bus-fare-rise-i-didnt-think-it-would-be-more-doubleNMP Thomas Chua said that the GCM would “exacerbate the manpower shortage" and "present a great challenge to the operators of current bus services, school bus services and logistics services".
There is good reason why LTA is tendering out 3 packages until 2022. It gives them a viable exit option if the whole scheme turned out to be a disaster. Already, there are calls by academics for Singapore's public transport to be nationalised.
The whole idea is to have competition. This is why TIBS (Trans-Island Bus Services) was created. TIBS was created to compete with SBS (Singapore Bus Services).
In around year 2008, they say they want to have a third bus operator. ... That's probably how GCM (Government Contracting Model) came about.
Until now, the competition is artificially created. Soon, the competition will become "natural".
The whole idea is to have competition.
Originally posted by sgbuses:You try telling that to Adelaide (8 L-series and 12 K-series variants) and Melbourne (4 L-series and 6 K-series variants) commuters, who are paying $3.48 and $3.76 bus fares because the fleet purchases are "just so similar" and "easy to integrate" too.
Also recall London, where Boris Johnson has no hesitation in asking Transport for London to get rid of the entire articulated bus fleet as a matter of policy, no matter how new they were when purchased by private operators and it happened that their contracts were up for renewal.
What if LTA does refuse to buy the MAN A24 and A95 fleet from SMRT Buses? Then what is SMRT going to do with them?
If years down the road LTA does procure MAN A95s themselves (and STK has a pretty good chance at this), then the future of SMRT's A95 fleet is assured.
The second tender went to the lowest bid. The first tender went to the third lowest bid.
It seems that one objective of the GCM (Government Contracting Model) is to lower costs of operating bus services.
If costs is lower, the fares should also be lower. :)
Hi all, sorry to step in here again. I do not mind the discussions about bus assets and ownership, but kindly leave all general discussions and judgements about the benefits or drawbacks of GCM to the main thread. This thread is discussing about the buses themselves (or as LTA would like to call it, the bus assets). Thank you.
Originally posted by jurongresident:The whole idea is to have competition. This is why TIBS (Trans-Island Bus Services) was created. TIBS was created to compete with SBS (Singapore Bus Services).
In around year 2008, they say they want to have a third bus operator. ... That's probably how GCM (Government Contracting Model) came about.
Until now, the competition is artificially created. Soon, the competition will become "natural".
The whole idea is to have competition.
Competition does not equate lower fares. The example I previously gave was the bidding wars by local cable TV operators over football broadcasting rights. A similar principle applies to bus operators where they compete for drivers as a scarce resource.
It is LTA's objective to lower costs (and indeed this is the whole point of GCM, which is also the original objective for Transperth/PTA). However, whether it will eventually work out in the long-term is unclear. There have been mixed results in different cities. Refer to my fictional Merlion Transit scenario for an example of how GCM may go wrong, written way before any package was awarded.
Feel free to reply at the main GCM thread.
Originally posted by sgbuses:And I am not sure what's with your obsessive support for MAN Truck and Bus products either from your previous posts.
If LTA wants to avoid the issues of dealing with SMRT's unused fleet in the first place, this is the time to deal with it. Not wait until as in the case of Melbourne, the Victorian state government and Transdev are forced to deal with over 30 different bus models from defunct operators for the size of less than 2 Singapore bus packages.
SMRT Buses already has to deal with redeploying articulated buses away from the Bulim package routes. If the third package is in SMRT's territory and SMRT Buses goes on to lose that tender, the result may be a large fleet of "homeless" step-floor articulated buses.
The writing is on the wall, look at the private sector:
http://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore-news/jurong-primary-school-bus-fare-rises-50-120-month
http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/school-bus-fare-rise-i-didnt-think-it-would-be-more-doubleNMP Thomas Chua said that the GCM would “exacerbate the manpower shortage" and "present a great challenge to the operators of current bus services, school bus services and logistics services".
There is good reason why LTA is tendering out 3 packages until 2022. It gives them a viable exit option if the whole scheme turned out to be a disaster. Already, there are calls by academics for Singapore's public transport to be nationalised.
I don't profess support for every MAN product, I'm only stating the fact that the MAN A22, A24 and A95 are so similar and credits to them for making these three products for different market segments so similar that it makes maintenance and operations easy. This is in response to the countless posts where people think them as very different buses, they are not, and thats the beauty of the MAN A22, A24 and A95 family which I like about.
If you want me to point out a MAN product which I don't particularly like, it is the MAN A66s/A80s which you can find in Melbourne. Those are problematic especially during summer when they tend to overheat, and you would know it yourself if you follow the discussions on Transdev Melbourne in another forum. And between the O.405 family and the SL/NL family, I would prefer the O.405 family. So its simply a case where my preferences are based on my knowledge of buses, just like a lot of people.
Part of the reason why the contracting model in Melbourne hasn't gone down too well is because the package was too big, 1/3 of the bus network was tendered out. Yes, it may be less than the size of 2 packages in Singapore, but you have to compare the scale of the operations vs network. Australian bus companies have generally smaller fleets but the fleet is more diverse, and have a bigger geographical coverage, the longest bus routes (Smartbuses) in Melbourne were affected. So if sh!t happens, the percentage of commuters affected vis a vis total number of commuters will be bigger. The risk was that a new entrant would not perform up to standards and sadly complains went up. The whole exercise was just poorly planned with regards to risk management. If they had cut it into smaller packages, with more of a local emphasis, the fleet that needs to be taken over will be more homogenous, and less of such problems will occur.
You could see that LTA's approach is different, they are more cautious than PTV, only 3 out of 12 packages are tendered out/to be tendered out, and the 2 which have been awarded are awarded to different operators. This minimises the risk in a case where a certain operator fails to perform up to expectation. And the rest of the packages remain with existing operators until they are up for tender, which I take it that LTA wants to observe how the tendering system turns out before going full scale.
The issues regarding private school bus operators are different from the issues concerning the public bus operators, school bus operators depend on patronage to earn revenue. Under the tendering system, public bus operators are free from revenue risk, and if they have bid for the packages with their eyes open, they should be earning profits. And I doubt LTA will make a politically unwise move to increase fares just because they are taking on the revenue risk.
In any case if SMRT gets affected in the third tender, I'm sure they can find new services for any displaced buses, any upgrade in capacity will be welcomed by commuters of services which get these upgrades. Non WAB or not will become less of an issue as there are already so many WAB buses around that will allow them to meet the requirements.
I do understand your concerns about the GCM, but I hope you look beyond the gloom and doom, because without this, bus operations in Singapore will never be profitable and has to be subsidized from rail operations.