actually it's 1900 - 0630 the next day. now u noe why morning trains before 7am are especially crowded and buses too.Originally posted by leeJZ:Most of us know off peak as 0900 - 1630 and 1900 - 2400.
no no. bus drivers do change shift at afternoon but it does not mean frequency is shorter. buses are dispatched out, but at the same time other buses come in to the depot.Originally posted by sbst275:Peak hr actually starts at 1400 as buses are slowly dispatched out from depots. It is like a semi-peak hr.
woohoo Thursday evening 1855 hrs 969 queue all the way to SMRT control officeOriginally posted by leeJZ:969 is NOT trying hard to survive. It is still doing very well and virtually every trip during weekends / peak goes out with standing pax, even with bendies. There are still alot of bendies during weekends and a fair number on Thurs / Fri.
now let me give u a general picture of what's happening...Originally posted by sbst275:What I meant is that 189 is low in demand near its loop areas
Peak hr actually starts at 1400 as buses are slowly dispatched out from depots. It is like a semi-peak hr.
As for 969, there is nothing special actually.. 965 and 966 have similar cases, low wkday demand but high weekend demand.
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
no no. bus drivers do change shift at afternoon but it does not mean frequency is shorter. buses are dispatched out, but at the same time other buses come in to the depot.
No, Ind svs frequency is better aft 1430Originally posted by ^tamago^:no no. bus drivers do change shift at afternoon but it does not mean frequency is shorter. buses are dispatched out, but at the same time other buses come in to the depot.
If we follow your skewed logic then everyone will obviously have different off peak timings right? What makes you think that everyone on this forum will know what time your supposedly off-peak timings will be?Originally posted by sbst275:What I meant is the off peak to me (I.e 0930-1400 & 2000-2300)
That's why I'm writing it down clearly right?Originally posted by SBS9818A:If we follow your skewed logic then everyone will obviously have different off peak timings right? What makes you think that everyone on this forum will know what time your supposedly off-peak timings will be?
originally posted by service_238Where did you get so much information from? Was it from Cpt Carbikebus of HGDEP?
now let me give u a general picture of what's happening...
Better write down clearly, before you post your stand...Originally posted by sbst275:That's why I'm writing it down clearly right?
ahha. for your info this info is based on my analysis of freq timings and deployments over the past 2-3 years.Originally posted by iveco:Where did you get so much information from? Was it from Cpt Carbikebus of HGDEP?
nah...I think it'll be handed over to SMRTB to operate.Originally posted by ^tamago^:dun think Tibs will find it feasible. it's not a money-tree or a cash-cow.expect to see it vanish in about 6 to 12 months from now (my estimation).
elaborate?Originally posted by Kiv:nah...I think it'll be handed over to SMRTB to operate.
S/605 was unfortunate because of the rules and regulations governing it's operations' flexibility. Otherwise, it wld still continue to exist, but as a much shorter route.
Well, for one, S/605 runs into SBST's territory. Any changes made to it's route will thus be met with lots of protest and resistance, u can be sure of that.Originally posted by ^tamago^:elaborate?
what about 608? does your logic apply to it as well?Originally posted by Kiv:Well, for one, S/605 runs into SBST's territory. Any changes made to it's route will thus be met with lots of protest and resistance, u can be sure of that.
Yes, they are considered Scheme B rts actually (But is it logical as it has its own rts like serving Chancery Lane for former 603? Scheme B duplicates (Like 60%) of a public bus rt)Originally posted by iveco:what about 608? does your logic apply to it as well?
In a way, yes. It wld be hard for S/608 to become a "real" SMRTB service for the same reasons, even when it gets transfered over to SMRTB.Originally posted by iveco:what about 608? does your logic apply to it as well?
CTS- Cross-Territorial ServiceOriginally posted by iveco:CTS? What's that?
Already, we have lost many CSS connections. Thomson Rd to Stevens Rd via Chancery Lane/Balmoral Rd, Moulmein Rd to Bencoolen St via Thomson/Keng Lee Rds and soon, Sin Ming to Orchard Rd via PIE. I don't wish to see the demise of the familiar orange buses just like that.
Also, Balestier Rd (between Thomson Rd and Kim Keat Rd) to Scotts Rd, Orchard Rd by CSS 603.Originally posted by iveco:CTS? What's that?
Already, we have lost many CSS connections. Thomson Rd to Stevens Rd via Chancery Lane/Balmoral Rd, Moulmein Rd to Bencoolen St via Thomson/Keng Lee Rds and soon, Sin Ming to Orchard Rd via PIE. I don't wish to see the demise of the familiar orange buses just like that.
FYI, the 2 pairs of stops along Nicoll Highway (Suntec City and The Concourse) were added in 1994. Prior to that, the only pair of stop along the highway is near the National Stadium. And I don't think CSS 4 still existed in 1994.Originally posted by iveco:What's more, last time Chinatown had direct links to Nicoll Highway. If CSS 4 still existed, it would be the main link between Chinatown & Suntec.
I know. This svc was plugged long ago, but it is in the CSS bus guide @ JRL. If it was never touched, it would serve as the link between Suntec and Chinatown.Originally posted by tranquilice:FYI, the 2 pairs of stops along Nicoll Highway (Suntec City and The Concourse) were added in 1994. Prior to that, the only pair of stop along the highway is near the National Stadium. And I don't think CSS 4 still existed in 1994.
How to? Passengers at Shenton Way will have no bus to Kim Seng Rd/ Zion RdOriginally posted by iveco:I know. This svc was plugged long ago, but it is in the CSS bus guide @ JRL. If it was never touched, it would serve as the link between Suntec and Chinatown.
I did feedback Tibs about extending 970 to Suntec, but they didn't seem very keen.