Want to chat about Singapore MRT trains ? Post here
-
Well... If im not wrong.. if SMRT maintain their Trains well... they could run beyond 30 yrs...Originally posted by cck_190:What is the Life span of an SMRT Train? Is it 20 years? -
think there were problems with NEL trains again in the evening peak.....the trains were stopping (with doors opened) with average of 45 secs in each station towards punggol. Maximum was 2++mins at Clarke Quay and Serangoon....Dhoby Ghout clocked 1.5mins.....
geee....think there will be complaints again..... -
no doubt.. it always happens.. NEL trains likalways have "this train will stop here for a short while" announcements.. wonder how it can catch up for the loss time.. and dont forget NEL fares are a"premium" over SMRT fares.. for dont know what reason.. platform aircon i guessOriginally posted by bendy2003:think there were problems with NEL trains again in the evening peak.....the trains were stopping (with doors opened) with average of 45 secs in each station towards punggol. Maximum was 2++mins at Clarke Quay and Serangoon....Dhoby Ghout clocked 1.5mins.....
geee....think there will be complaints again..... -
tat usually means there is some disruption to the scheduled service. it seems the computer is not very good at handling such situations where trains fall too far behind schedule due to some incident.Originally posted by bendy2003:think there were problems with NEL trains again in the evening peak.....the trains were stopping (with doors opened) with average of 45 secs in each station towards punggol. Maximum was 2++mins at Clarke Quay and Serangoon....Dhoby Ghout clocked 1.5mins.....
geee....think there will be complaints again.....
as for the premium fares, actually behind the scenes it's the government who will support it. why? cos SBST have to repay LTA the cost of building NEL over 30 years, of cos if it helps SBST to pay the govt back the govt will support the higher fares initially. after all, new things are always more expensive at the start cos they wan to recoup the payments as fast as possible. -
yeah.. in all services and industries, everything is ran as a business with the interests of profits only.still, NEL is new and clean and bright.. and that makes things better..Public transport is seen as a business to SBS/SMRT more than providing an essential services to the people. Do SBS/SMRT receives subsidies or grants from government?
-
I think SMRT should buy new trains (Kawasaki 2001 Black Trains) to replace the 1987, 1988 & 1989 trains. The new black trains got alot of add in features and new things, eg. VPIS (Visual Passanger Information system), 3 way grap pole, luggage racks, clear announcement...etc. Sick of taking the old ones.
-
Bishan NSL Station is unique and different from ALL other stations because it is neither underground nor elevated. Dont know why a few accidents happened there, but somehow i feels that the platform seems to be rather narrow....how would u like the bishan NSL station to hav platform screen doors and make it air-conditioned? dont know if this is feasible, but since they are building the bishan CCL and making alterations to the current NSL station(see what is happening to it!!), could they like make use of this opportunity to install the doors and 'upgrade' the current station as well...?
-
Deleted
-
Bishan is a ground station. I think you'r right, should upgrade Bishan station.Originally posted by disappear:Bishan NSL Station is unique and different from ALL other stations because it is neither underground nor elevated. Dont know why a few accidents happened there, but somehow i feels that the platform seems to be rather narrow....how would u like the bishan NSL station to hav platform screen doors and make it air-conditioned? dont know if this is feasible, but since they are building the bishan CCL and making alterations to the current NSL station(see what is happening to it!!), could they like make use of this opportunity to install the doors and 'upgrade' the current station as well...? -
actually bishan is formally known as an on-grade station.Originally posted by disappear:Bishan NSL Station is unique and different from ALL other stations because it is neither underground nor elevated. Dont know why a few accidents happened there, but somehow i feels that the platform seems to be rather narrow....how would u like the bishan NSL station to hav platform screen doors and make it air-conditioned? dont know if this is feasible, but since they are building the bishan CCL and making alterations to the current NSL station(see what is happening to it!!), could they like make use of this opportunity to install the doors and 'upgrade' the current station as well...? -
It is the one and only of its kind in Singapore.Originally posted by ^tamago^:actually bishan is formally known as an on-grade station.
-
The government foots the bill for the construction of the MRT line and all initial sets of equipment. It's the subsequent purchase of new equipment and maintenance that the company has to take care off.Originally posted by ^tamago^:tat usually means there is some disruption to the scheduled service. it seems the computer is not very good at handling such situations where trains fall too far behind schedule due to some incident.
as for the premium fares, actually behind the scenes it's the government who will support it. why? cos SBST have to repay LTA the cost of building NEL over 30 years, of cos if it helps SBST to pay the govt back the govt will support the higher fares initially. after all, new things are always more expensive at the start cos they wan to recoup the payments as fast as possible. -
Yar. they are taking the opportunity now. Soon, NSL Bishan station will be have screendoors.Originally posted by disappear:Bishan NSL Station is unique and different from ALL other stations because it is neither underground nor elevated. Dont know why a few accidents happened there, but somehow i feels that the platform seems to be rather narrow....how would u like the bishan NSL station to hav platform screen doors and make it air-conditioned? dont know if this is feasible, but since they are building the bishan CCL and making alterations to the current NSL station(see what is happening to it!!), could they like make use of this opportunity to install the doors and 'upgrade' the current station as well...? -
"In 1987, MRTC leased the running of the rail system to a new company, the Singapore MRT Limited, which is commercially run, although wholly government-owned. The conditions of the first 10-year lease state that SMRT must pay an annual rental for the lease of the train fleet and upon expiration of the lease term may be required to purchase the rolling stock at its book value. As a pioneer company, SMRT enjoyed tax exempt status. The SMRT must also set aside funds for the replacement or overhaul of major capital assets required to operate the MRT system."Originally posted by kenmin:The government foots the bill for the construction of the MRT line and all initial sets of equipment. It's the subsequent purchase of new equipment and maintenance that the company has to take care off.
"The SMRT's 10-year licence and operating contract with LTA to operate the
MRT system expired on 26 August 1997 and was extended by the LTA to 31 March 1998 (the end of LTA's financial year). LTA signed a new 30-year licence and operating agreement with SMRT which commenced on 1 April 1998. Under the new LOA, which will be reviewed every 5 years, SMRT will pay a licence fee to the LTA each year. As part of the agreement, the operating assets for the MRT system were sold at net book value to the SMRT, with the proceeds from the sale of $1.2 billion payable in five equal instalments from 1998 to 2002. At the same time, the LTA provided the SMRT with a grant amounting to $480 million to help SMRT purchase the assets (1999 Annual Reports of LTA and SMRT)."
quote from http://web.mit.edu/ctl/www/research/utc/Sing%20Trans%20Final.pdf.
note that from NEL onwards, it became like this:
"The study process for the development of the first stage of the MRT was extremely long and detailed, comprising the better part of a decade. While the government wanted Singapore to have a healthy and vibrant public transport system, it did not wish public transport to be a continual drain on government funds. The bus system in Singapore had always operated (and continues to operate) without direct public subsidy. Fares and other non-operating revenue must cover the costs of operating the system, including the replacement cost of buses as they reach the end of their useful life. The “universal service obligation” imparts a requirement for the bus companies to offer some services
that are not financially viable, but these routes are cross-subsidized by other parts of the companyÂ’s operations. The financial viability of the proposed rail system was one of the key elements of the MRT studies. Most rail systems in North America and Europe are heavily subsidised by the government. In the United States, for example, public transport systems rarely recover more than 50% of the operating costs from users. To improve the financial sustainability of the proposed rail system in Singapore, service would be limited to the
Central Business District and outlying areas with heavy demand. The government insisted that the revenue generated from MRT fares should cover operating and maintenance costs, including the replacement of operating assets like rolling stock. Put differently, if the government paid for the capital cost of the project, the system should be able to continue to operate indefinitely without further financial help from the government.
"Consistent with this philosophy, the government funded the construction cost of the long-term MRT infrastructure – tunnels, viaducts and stations. The government also funded the first set of operating assets, including trains and signalling systems, that would be expected to wear out and require replacement after about 30 years of operation. Commuter fares were set to cover the day-to-day operating cost of the MRT and, under the Licence and Operating Agreement (LOA), the SMRT was required to make annual deposits to an Assets Replacement Reserve that would accumulate funds to replace the
original equipment with a second set in due course. In the 1996 White Paper, the LTA moved away from this financing approach because it was felt that asset inflation placed the burden of paying for the future operating assets on
the present generation of commuters. Assuming an asset inflation of 5%, the LTA estimated that the first set of operating assets, which had cost S$1.6 billion when the system was constructed in 1987, would cost S$6.9 billion by 2017 when they were due for replacement. The LTA recognized that a sharply higher fare would be required if the new assets were to be supported by deposits to the Asset Replacement Reserve.
"The LTA White Paper proposed to revise the requirement for asset replacement as follows:
"The Government to continue funding infrastructure and the first set of
operating assets, and commuters to continue paying fares which cover
operating costs including depreciation. However, the second set of operating
assets will be financed by fare revenue covering only the historical cost of the
first set of operating assets, while Government co-finances the balance.
Thus, when the present operating assets are due for replacement in 2017 at a cost of S$6.9 billion, the operator would pay S$1.6 billion while the government would pay the remaining S$5.3 billion. In another 30 years, when the second set of assets would be due for replacement, the Asset Replacement Reserve will have to come up with S$6.9 billion and the government will again pay the inflationary costs. In this way, each generation would pay for the operating assets that they consume.
"The LTA White Paper was presented to Parliament on 2 January 1996 and was approved by the government soon after."
North-East Line (NEL) was approved by the Cabinet on 16th January 1996, 2 weeks after the approval of the LTA White Paper. -
I wonder why Bishan Stn Having renovation works.
-
They are doing the hording works, because they are constructing circle line MRT next to BishanOriginally posted by SBS9889U:I wonder why Bishan Stn Having renovation works. -
HOUGANG CENTRAL? HOUGANG??
Why doesn't SBS Transit rename Hougang Central bus interchange to HOUGANG BUS INTERCHANGE, so that it shares the same name as its adjacent NEL station; hence causing less confusion?
Anyway, the former Hougang South bus interchange is no longer around.... -
oic!! i didnt know that this idea has already materialised. I just found this too:Originally posted by kenmin:Yar. they are taking the opportunity now. Soon, NSL Bishan station will be have screendoors.
http://www.platformscreendoors.com/psd/projects/current.php
(Current Projects)
Bishan Station, Singapore
Metro System with Driver
6 car trains x 4 doors
2 platforms x 24 doors = 48 doorways
Main Contractor: LTA
Signal Interface: TBA
Retrofit on one Platform
Opening 2008
This is definitely referring to the NSL part of the station.
Bishan Station with platform screen doors will look different from underground stations with the screen doors since it is not in an underground tunnel and light comes from behind so i think it will look quite cool. -
Tamago: I had a read of the full version of the article you quoted. It was released in 1999, before SBS won the NEL tender. I wonder what does the author/s have to comment on having more than one subway operator here when some larger cities have a subway/commuter rail monopoly in place.
-
The following article was quoted in another forum more than one year ago, but i thinks it is still relevant, so i puts it here again. however, it looks like they are not going to change. i dont know if the presently higher bus and MRT fares has got anything to do with this..
Govt must steer the necessary MRT U-turn
if SMRT run NEL then it will has experience in running automated driverless line by the time CCL open
By Christopher Tan
When is it justified for the state to interfere in the affairs of a listed company? Clearly, one occasion would be when that company is in a position to influence national welfare.
In the public transport domain, the players are listed entities. But they operate within a regulatory framework, unlike, say, a popiah-skin maker or water treatment firm. In the framework lies non-commercial clauses and conditions.
For instance, these companies cannot charge their customers more any time they feel like it - even if they are the only game in town. Neither can they serve only lucrative routes and ignore the rest. Many operate with an implicit contract that dictates thin margins in return for the privilege of monopoly and, more importantly, guaranteed economic viability.
Whether or not that contract is adhered to can be debated another time; for now, the issue has to do with our budding rail network.
In Parliament last week, when MPs questioned the wisdom of the Government seemingly directing SMRT and SBS Transit to merge their rail operations, Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong stood up to clarify that he had 'at no time' done so.
Well, there would be absolutely nothing wrong if he did do so. Do we need more than one MRT operator? Apparently we did; and we had convincing arguments for it. But after a rethink, perhaps we don't - and we had equally convincing reasons for that too.
Conditions have changed; the city is small, ridership modest, and having more than one operator would only duplicate overheads - which, in the case of the rail business, can be exceedingly high.
SBS Transit, for instance, has sunk an estimated $100 million into the North-East Line (NEL), which it operates with a staff of 600 people.
Monthly operating cost of the 20km line is $7 million, or $84 million a year. Based on an average fare of 85 cents and a daily ridership of 175,000, fare revenue comes up to $53.5 million a year.
Assume advertising revenue of $10 million, and you still end up with an operating loss of $20 million for the first year. Against the backdrop of its initial investments - and the prospects of rising capital expenditure as the trains age - it'll be a long time before SBS gets its money back on this venture.
But here's the thing. Even if SMRT takes over the operation tomorrow, the cost of duplication has already been incurred and cannot be made to go away just like that. On the other hand, if we're of the view that other problems might fester if things are left as they are, then we should act.
In fact, we are already seeing some undesirable fallout of a two-operator network: unopened stations, higher fares for those who ride the NEL, and possibly higher fares for those who use the rest of the MRT network.
What next? Fewer bus services? Bus fares costlier than they need to be? Deteriorating service standards?
But how do we resolve this? SMRT obviously would not want to pay for a loss-making entity and has said so. And SBS is unlikely to want to give up the business without being compensated in some way for its investments. Hence neither side will move unless the Government steps in. And for the long-term interest of commuters, it should step in.
It was the Government which facilitated 'competition' in the rail business in the first place. So, too, must it undo the situation if it believes it is untenable. To put it metaphorically, it should not let go of the steering wheel as we negotiate this U-turn.
For Singaporeans, who have forked out $5 billion for the NEL, the cost of the rethink will just have to be written off as an expensive lesson in transport economics. But if we don't grit our teeth and do it, we will never admit that this was a mistake and be able to move on.
To think that a resolution should be purely a commercial prerogative is just prolonging the charade. -
Skytrain Extension ad in Changi Airport T2
-
can some one remove Volvo Plympian quote of the 50 pics?? its slwing down the page loading.. very bad habit of quoting..
-
read the statement highlighted in red.Originally posted by ^tamago^:...
"The LTA White Paper proposed to revise the requirement for asset replacement as follows:
"The Government to continue funding infrastructure and the first set of
operating assets, and commuters to continue paying fares which cover
operating costs including depreciation. However, the second set of operating
assets will be financed by fare revenue covering only the historical cost of the
first set of operating assets, while Government co-finances the balance.
Thus, when the present operating assets are due for replacement in 2017 at a cost of S$6.9 billion, the operator would pay S$1.6 billion while the government would pay the remaining S$5.3 billion. In another 30 years, when the second set of assets would be due for replacement, the Asset Replacement Reserve will have to come up with S$6.9 billion and the government will again pay the inflationary costs. In this way, each generation would pay for the operating assets that they consume.
"The LTA White Paper was presented to Parliament on 2 January 1996 and was approved by the government soon after."
North-East Line (NEL) was approved by the Cabinet on 16th January 1996, 2 weeks after the approval of the LTA White Paper. -
yes, but interestingly SMRT was made to purchase all the first set of rolling stocks. the 30 years mentioned was actually was the money paid to the govt as part of a asset renewal fund. seems like i was misquoted by another article.Originally posted by kenmin:read the statement highlighted in red.
where was ur initial source. -
About the semiens trains.... In the semiens train, they don't have anything or plaque to identify the train model and when it was constructed. In the Kawasaki train, they have this plaque at both ends of the train on top of the driver's door saying :
(Logo) Kawasaki
1988 Nippon Sharyo
but semiens train don't have. At first, I don't know what is the train model. I though that the semiens train is the " brother " of the Kawasaki. After checking on the web, then I know is the semiens train. BTW, when was semiens introduced ?