Guess the next WAB service(s) thread
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
Good. SBST finally did not repeat their mistake.
Saw an unknown DM3500 on 83 today too.
It should be SBS 2713P,the only DM500 that is perm 83.
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
Good. SBST finally did not repeat their mistake.
Saw an unknown DM3500 on 83 today too.
All 83 citaro should be out from 83.It`s useless when the bus service is not a WAB service.Give the citaros to other bus services that is likely suitable to declare as a WAB service in the upcoming future like 159
-
159 need more than Citaros la..
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
159 need more than Citaros la..
DD buses? Impossible to have this DD buses to do 159.You do know the reason why 159 can't have DD buses,right? Many people want DD buses on this service,even I also want 159 to have DD buses but it's just impossible
-
Originally posted by SBS 6238T:
DD buses? Impossible to have this DD buses to do 159.You do know the reason why 159 can't have DD buses,right? Many people want DD buses on this service,even I also want 159 to have DD buses but it's just impossible
Unless 159 doesnt ply Lor Chuan/Braddell Rd then it will get DDs, Otherwise 159 and 105 wont get DDs like forever due to the height limit of 3.5m
-
do u all know last time for the old route 159 hv NON AIR CON DDs deployed b4 ? dat was many years back liao .
-
Originally posted by SBS 6238T:
DD buses? Impossible to have this DD buses to do 159.You do know the reason why 159 can't have DD buses,right? Many people want DD buses on this service,even I also want 159 to have DD buses but it's just impossible
I didn't mention DDs but they need more KUBs for the crush loadings rather than Citaroks
-
Originally posted by Lsk138:
do u all know last time for the old route 159 hv NON AIR CON DDs deployed b4 ? dat was many years back liao .
That was before 1989. 159 used to ply CTE before 1989 and in 1989 it was amended to ply Lor Chuan by SBS.
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
I didn't mention DDs but they need more KUBs for the crush loadings rather than Citaroks
159 and 101 same case... Very high loading [ Though 101 is high loading for PM Peak from Hougang Int > Buangkok Drive ] and yet all citaros. But there are occasional KUB cameos.
-
Originally posted by SBS2656X:
159 and 101 same case... Very high loading [ Though 101 is high loading for PM Peak from Hougang Int > Buangkok Drive ] and yet all citaros. But there are occasional KUB cameos.
159 ought to give back to Amdep or Brbp...👳
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
159 ought to give back to Amdep or Brbp...👳
I think control by both HG snd BR better .
-
159 to Br while 163 maintain Hg
-
Originally posted by SBS 9631X:
Uh yeahs. Those few Sv 88 CDGE B9TLs that were perm since new new in 2006, finally are able to be put to use to ferry PIWs..nearly 7 years later.
And if I didn't rmb wrongly, Sv 88 is the last out of those initial svcs that received the then-new-new CDGE B9TLs back in 2006 to go WAB.
I remember somewhere in 2006, when I first saw a CDGE B9TL on 88, wah I was super happy but I also thought, why of all services, 88 suddenly get CDGE? And somemore during that time 88 had alot of CDGEs. It had 7489D, 7490Z, 7491X (first WAB bus I took, hence my username), 7492T, 7493R, 7494M, 7495K, 7496H, 7497E and 7498C. And since there were only 200 CDGEs introduced, 88 was a really lucky service to get some, even though its fleet before was perfectly fine. The sudden change made me think that 88 gonna get WAB but only now, 7 years later, it goes WAB. 88 has an award now. Longest time having DD WAB perms but not WAB service.
-
Originally posted by SBS7491X:
I remember somewhere in 2006, when I first saw a CDGE B9TL on 88, wah I was super happy but I also thought, why of all services, 88 suddenly get CDGE? And somemore during that time 88 had alot of CDGEs. It had 7489D, 7490Z, 7491X (first WAB bus I took, hence my username), 7492T, 7493R, 7494M, 7495K, 7496H, 7497E and 7498C. And since there were only 200 CDGEs introduced, 88 was a really lucky service to get some, even though its fleet before was perfectly fine. The sudden change made me think that 88 gonna get WAB but only now, 7 years later, it goes WAB. 88 has an award now. Longest time having DD WAB perms but not WAB service.
badgerS badgerS badgerS WAB badgerS DD badgerS CDGE badgerS not WAB service badgerS badgerS 7 yearS badgerS badgerS
-
Originally posted by SBS7491X:
I remember somewhere in 2006, when I first saw a CDGE B9TL on 88, wah I was super happy but I also thought, why of all services, 88 suddenly get CDGE? And somemore during that time 88 had alot of CDGEs. It had 7489D, 7490Z, 7491X (first WAB bus I took, hence my username), 7492T, 7493R, 7494M, 7495K, 7496H, 7497E and 7498C. And since there were only 200 CDGEs introduced, 88 was a really lucky service to get some, even though its fleet before was perfectly fine. The sudden change made me think that 88 gonna get WAB but only now, 7 years later, it goes WAB. 88 has an award now. Longest time having DD WAB perms but not WAB service.
88 also has another award. one of the few services with most WAB DDs in the fleet, apart from svc 72. thanks to ITE college central, it has sudden increase in the DDs deployed lol -
I still remember 88 started off as a PAC service in early 1999, the fleet wasn't very fantastic fleet then. But a few months later ever since SBS started to take over Sengkang, 88 suddenly became very pampered by SBS. It got converted to FAC and started getting all the fleet upgrades to brand new MK4 DM3500 and VO3x.
-
Originally posted by SBS8676Z:
I still remember 88 started off as a PAC service in early 1999, the fleet wasn't very fantastic fleet then. But a few months later ever since SBS started to take over Sengkang, 88 suddenly became very pampered by SBS. It got converted to FAC and started getting all the fleet upgrades to brand new MK4 DM3500 and VO3x.
But that's how you make a service popular with commuters by increasing capacity and frequency that commuters start trusting the service.
SBS did the same with sv 43 last year when everyone said so many DD additions not required. It wasn't required at that time, but today you see sv 43, the DDs are well utilized. Why? Because people have started trusting the sv and have moved to this svc.
Many people from YCK Road that took 325 from Buangkok or 72 from YCK Rd to HG MRT have shifted to 43/70 because it takes them in the same amount of time to Serangoon from where they can get both NEL and CCL.
-
Originally posted by SBS 6238T:
DD buses? Impossible to have this DD buses to do 159.You do know the reason why 159 can't have DD buses,right? Many people want DD buses on this service,even I also want 159 to have DD buses but it's just impossible
I wrote to SBS about DDs on 159 from AMK to Sengkang or TPY to Sengkang via CTE. The reply was "159 was monitored for both AM and PM peak and operated between 60-80% of its capacity". It also mentioned that with more buses on 159A and 159B, it has taken care of the high loading sector for sv 159. The reply further mentioned that commuters can opt for sv 50, sv 88 that have higher capacity to reach their destination from AMK. So guys, no DDs for 159.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
But that's how you make a service popular with commuters by increasing capacity and frequency that commuters start trusting the service.
SBS did the same with sv 43 last year when everyone said so many DD additions not required. It wasn't required at that time, but today you see sv 43, the DDs are well utilized. Why? Because people have started trusting the sv and have moved to this svc.
Many people from YCK Road that took 325 from Buangkok or 72 from YCK Rd to HG MRT have shifted to 43/70 because it takes them in the same amount of time to Serangoon from where they can get both NEL and CCL.
During am peak hours ,I once saw a 43 DD bus full on both the lower and upper deck
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I wrote to SBS about DDs on 159 from AMK to Sengkang or TPY to Sengkang via CTE. The reply was "159 was monitored for both AM and PM peak and operated between 60-80% of its capacity". It also mentioned that with more buses on 159A and 159B, it has taken care of the high loading sector for sv 159. The reply further mentioned that commuters can opt for sv 50, sv 88 that have higher capacity to reach their destination from AMK. So guys, no DDs for 159.
Why you never mention Seng Siong Hypermart to them?
-
BackToTheTopic, Next WAB Wave Candidates [ I guess ]
20, 23?, 26, 89/89e?, 90?, 139, 141, 145, 155
? = Needs spectulaton. -
Originally posted by SBS2656X:
BackToTheTopic, Next WAB Wave Candidates [ I guess ]
20, 23?, 26, 89/89e?, 90?, 139, 141, 145, 155
? = Needs spectulaton.145 is going WAB this time round. 155 should be next, the berth is already done constructing and ready for wab. For 89, I don't think so. Other possible candidates for the aforementioned are 20 and 141. I don't think 139's berth is ready constructing.
159 could be the next.
-
Originally posted by SBS 6078 M:
145 is going WAB this time round. 155 should be next, the berth is already done constructing and ready for wab. For 89, I don't think so. Other possible candidates for the aforementioned are 20 and 141. I don't think 139's berth is ready constructing.
159 could be the next.
89 got some wrights added... If HGDEP wants to replace those remaining Vo3x and Dennis Tridents with wrights...
-
Originally posted by SBS2656X:
89 got some wrights added... If HGDEP wants to replace those remaining Vo3x and Dennis Tridents with wrights...
The 2 Wrights are meant to replace the two VO3X which was transferred to SLBP.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I wrote to SBS about DDs on 159 from AMK to Sengkang or TPY to Sengkang via CTE. The reply was "159 was monitored for both AM and PM peak and operated between 60-80% of its capacity". It also mentioned that with more buses on 159A and 159B, it has taken care of the high loading sector for sv 159. The reply further mentioned that commuters can opt for sv 50, sv 88 that have higher capacity to reach their destination from AMK. So guys, no DDs for 159.
159 don't really need DDs lah actually... Fleet add and good freq is good enough. However if DDs ARE deployed I wouldn't really complain too.