SBST ordered new buses to replace Mark twos
-
holy.Originally posted by demag_ac:And I also can confirm that I saw 1709 last thursday, and 1705 this morning serving Service 157.
From tamago's post, it was stated "09/06/2005: 1701E, 1702C, 1703A, 1704Y, 1705U, 1706S, 1707P, 1708L, 1709J, 1710D " will be scrapped. But so far, seems like SBST is still using them.
a check with LTA revealed a mysterious extension of the life span of these 10 buses of 2 years to 09/06/2007.
life span of SBS1696L to SBS1700H have not been extended.
even though at this moment buses later than SBS1710D still reflect the old life span expiry (which is 2005/2006), it's believed the others after this batch will follow suit, extending their life span to 19 yrs and into 2007/2008.
i'll be asking LTA for the reason behind this, but i think all of us are very pleased with this!
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
holy.
a check with LTA revealed a [b]mysterious extension of the life span of these 10 buses of 2 years to 09/06/2007.
life span of SBS1696L to SBS1700H have not been extended.
it's believed the others after this batch will follow suit, extending their life span to 19 yrs.
i'll be asking LTA for the reason behind this, but i think all of us are very pleased with this![/b]
Why the hell did it happen? How come LTA allowed the lifespan of only some Mk IIs to be extended? If the CAC buses were permitted to serve longer, that sounds more logical, but I am sure many Mk IIs from the 1701-1895 range are NAC. -
well, i guess we will just have to wait for an answer from LTA about this.Originally posted by iveco: Why the hell did it happen? How come LTA allowed the lifespan of only some Mk IIs to be extended? If the CAC buses were permitted to serve longer, that sounds more logical, but I am sure many Mk IIs from the 1701-1895 range are NAC. -
Could the delay in getting the OC500s have influenced LTA's decision?
-
i dun think so. i haven't heard of any delays in the procurement of OC500.LE's.Originally posted by iveco:Could the delay in getting the OC500s have influenced LTA's decision?
when the retirement is near and SBST's fleet renewal plans were known, no one thought that SBST would ever face a shortage shld the Mk II's leave, with 150 each of B9TL's and OC500.LE's.
in fact, when the thought that only 150 B9TL's are going to replace all the 200 Mk II's, no one bat an eyelid and believed SBST could survive in time for the retirement of Mk II's.
maybe we will jus wait for LTA and SBST to explain to my mail about tis.
looks like now SBST is going to have a bus fleet exceeding 3k for next year. -
it sounds a case of LTA still awaiting approval from their heads or departments on the possibility of tis extension of life span, thus those 5 buses who retired early, they were not ready for tis unexpected decision to go-ahead with the extension (though not confirmed for the other 185 buses yet).Originally posted by iveco: Why the hell did it happen? How come LTA allowed the lifespan of only some Mk IIs to be extended? If the CAC buses were permitted to serve longer, that sounds more logical, but I am sure many Mk IIs from the 1701-1895 range are NAC. -
Seeing this long thread, i really have to salute the mk2s, and also the LO2x..
the LO2x served many services, especially the JIS for a long period of time. the buses has a higher capacity than the VO2x. also, i had taken LO2x when 97 was still NAC svcs, right up to 97 becomes FAC, thereafter, on JIS services. without them, JIS may had a bad time.
for the mk2s especially WA body), well, one big group of them had served the famous 170, with the tireless trips to Larkin. Many passengers had relied on it to go to JB. long-lasting and durable, the mk2s performed its best on the long 170 journey. long queues and cramped 170 were normal on 170 that time. Now, its heydays are over, and they are mostly left to run "simple routes" like 125 and Bukit Merah feeders, exceptions are 151.
However, mk2s has a strange property in its good ability to heat up in hot afternoons. Long trips can be tiring and sleepy, but overall, rides on it were good and enjoyable, maybe because of its engine sound and its "rickety" interior condition. the same goes to the LO2x. Simple yet useful, these 2 buses would be missed by me..
Another bus i have to add is the Scanias CRB. Even though i dont ride on them very often, their quiet engine impresses me, and any long journey was never a "threat" to me as they travels at a reasonable speed, and i liked scanias psychologically.
Finally, are the MBO405s. like the VO2x, hey can make even a short trip a nightmare. Slow in moving, and hot all the time. the MBO405 are also famous for hot-con.. Grew up taking them, i only liked their CACs as the aircon was cold. However, overall, these 2 buses (MBO405 and VO2x) are condemned by me! Slow and Hot.. and the standees on the MB certainly dont help things out..
Good Riddance to them!
Well. Farewell to the departed tireless mk2s and the hardy LO2x!!
-
MB0405s, noisy, unreliable AC, but the MB0405, as far as I can see gets me home the fastest compared to other types, becos of its pick-up speed. MKIIs are quite noisy inside, but, now that they are going, I will miss them.
This year, MKII.
Next year, 3624 and gang.
Year after, MB0405s.
Later, MKIIIs.
Later, LO3X.
.
.
.
.
.
So we will lose sth each year.
-
Well... im Happy to tell you that The Mk2s have their lifespan extended for another 2 yrs.. till 2007...Originally posted by SBS3624G:MB0405s, noisy, unreliable AC, but the MB0405, as far as I can see gets me home the fastest compared to other types, becos of its pick-up speed. MKIIs are quite noisy inside, but, now that they are going, I will miss them.
This year, MKII.
Next year, 3624 and gang.
Year after, MB0405s.
Later, MKIIIs.
Later, LO3X.
.
.
.
.
.
So we will lose sth each year. -
Not all...isn't it?Originally posted by sBs_boy:Well... im Happy to tell you that The Mk2s have their lifespan extended for another 2 yrs.. till 2007...
-
U mean each year?Originally posted by SBS3624G:MB0405s, noisy, unreliable AC, but the MB0405, as far as I can see gets me home the fastest compared to other types, becos of its pick-up speed. MKIIs are quite noisy inside, but, now that they are going, I will miss them.
This year, MKII.
Next year, 3624 and gang.
Year after, MB0405s.
Later, MKIIIs.
Later, LO3X..
.
.
.
.
So we will lose sth each year.
how bout DMmk4 and strider? they are only a yr diff too rite? -
At least at this moment we can quite safely say u can still see Mk II's on the roads on 2007, even if it's 10 (which i think will be unlikely).Originally posted by sbs&tibs:Not all...isn't it? -
I am very happy that SBST has extended the life span of the Mk IIs or else it would be very sad to see them go and SBST needs these buses as there can be SP buses.
-
yeah. no matter if the demand for AC buses grows, there are many commuters who takes NAC buses for its cheaper fare, windy rides (vs hot air or fan on AC buses) and its "ambience".Originally posted by 5454:I am very happy that SBST has extended the life span of the Mk IIs or else it would be very sad to see them go and SBST needs these buses as there can be SP buses. -
Are these 10 buses that got their lifespan extended all CAC?Originally posted by ^tamago^:it sounds a case of LTA still awaiting approval from their heads or departments on the possibility of tis extension of life span, thus those 5 buses who retired early, they were not ready for tis unexpected decision to go-ahead with the extension (though not confirmed for the other 185 buses yet). -
Yes, I am glad to see the mark IIs are staying for another 2 years. They are darn good buses . Puts mark III to shame really.
-
Mk2 rules la. I also miss LO2X. Its great news that their lifespan be extended for 2 years. The other bus i will miss in the near future will definitely be the MB0405. Till now, i can't imagine the sight of SBST without 0405s. Looks so "hollow".
As for the reason to why LTA extend the lifespan of the Mk2s.......perhaps the drivers don't want them to leave?? =P Perhaps they are more pleasant to drive then those Mk3s and are fondly liked by the BCs. Another more pratical reason might be that they want to incoporate them into training buses? -
maybe cos there will be shortage g=for NAC service... who knowsOriginally posted by Halide:Mk2 rules la. I also miss LO2X. Its great news that their lifespan be extended for 2 years. The other bus i will miss in the near future will definitely be the MB0405. Till now, i can't imagine the sight of SBST without 0405s. Looks so "hollow".
As for the reason to why LTA extend the lifespan of the Mk2s.......perhaps the drivers don't want them to leave?? =P Perhaps they are more pleasant to drive then those Mk3s and are fondly liked by the BCs. Another more pratical reason might be that they want to incoporate them into training buses?
-
Most probably it's due to a shortage of buses that's why their lifespan are extended.Originally posted by Halide:As for the reason to why LTA extend the lifespan of the Mk2s.......perhaps the drivers don't want them to leave?? =P Perhaps they are more pleasant to drive then those Mk3s and are fondly liked by the BCs. Another more pratical reason might be that they want to incoporate them into training buses? -
If they are going to remain on the road beyond 2005, they may need to have their fuel tanks replaced with Euro-4 ones. It costs an arm and a leg just to do that. Is it really worth it?Originally posted by tranquilice:Most probably it's due to a shortage of buses that's why their lifespan are extended.
-
I wish to be an extend for lifespan forever so long time for a good condition of mk2 buses for NAC and FAC..
-
MK2s also affected?Originally posted by iveco:If they are going to remain on the road beyond 2005, they may need to have their fuel tanks replaced with Euro-4 ones. It costs an arm and a leg just to do that. Is it really worth it? Thought it only applies to new buses? -
Originally posted by Airbus330Captain:Yes, I am glad to see the mark IIs are staying for another 2 years. They are darn good buses . Puts mark III to shame really.
-
Quoting a page from LTA:Originally posted by iveco:If they are going to remain on the road beyond 2005, they may need to have their fuel tanks replaced with Euro-4 ones. It costs an arm and a leg just to do that. Is it really worth it?
"All new diesel-powered vehicles registered from 1 October 2006 will need to comply with the Euro IV emission standard or equivalent alternatives. "
I dun understand why people can't get this clear even though it is being repeated again and again.
It is only for applicable for buses bought after October next year, tat's why the bus companies are now looking at CNG buses and also getting their last orders of diesel buses (assuming Euro-4 diesel is not yet), the B9TL's before the dateline is up. -
Yes, I will also miss them as they goes. They are such good buses and they grew up with me, especially LO2x, Scanias CRB and MKIIs. It is a good news that MKII has extended their lifespan. So happy