SMRT MAN NG363F A24 discussions
-
SMB8030X 858 @ T2
https://youtu.be/2PMMqbAHPH8 -
maybe 53 should borrow SMRT bendy bus for the service
-
Originally posted by wsy1234:
maybe 53 should borrow SMRT bendy bus for the service
All airport services should... -
Originally posted by array88:
All airport services should...Not all services. Common services that are very packed always are these services:
Svc 27: Hougang Central - Changi Airport
Towards Airport: Hougang Central (Depends), Buangkok MRT Stn, Compassvale Rd, Punggol Rd, TPE, Tampines Retail Park, Tampines MRT Stn, Tampines Ave 5)
Towards Hougang: Airport, Tampines Ave 5, Tampines MRT Stn, Opp Tampines Retail Park, Punggol Rd)Svc 53: Bishan - Changi Airport
Towards Airport: Serangoon Ctrl, Lor Ah Soo, Pasir Ris Dr 12/1, Loyang Ave
Towards Bishan: Airport, Loyang Ave, Pasir RIs Dr 1/12, Lor Ah Soo, Serangoon CtrlSvc 24 - Maybe have a better frequency and add more buses from current fleet.
Svc 34 & Svc 36: Maybe when new company takes over then shall see the loading.
-
Originally posted by SBS 9256 X:
Not all services. Common services that are very packed always are these services:
Svc 27: Hougang Central - Changi Airport
Towards Airport: Hougang Central (Depends), Buangkok MRT Stn, Compassvale Rd, Punggol Rd, TPE, Tampines Retail Park, Tampines MRT Stn, Tampines Ave 5)
Towards Hougang: Airport, Tampines Ave 5, Tampines MRT Stn, Opp Tampines Retail Park, Punggol Rd)Svc 53: Bishan - Changi Airport
Towards Airport: Serangoon Ctrl, Lor Ah Soo, Pasir Ris Dr 12/1, Loyang Ave
Towards Bishan: Airport, Loyang Ave, Pasir RIs Dr 1/12, Lor Ah Soo, Serangoon CtrlSvc 24 - Maybe have a better frequency and add more buses from current fleet.
Svc 34 & Svc 36: Maybe when new company takes over then shall see the loading.
Two days ago, two service 27 buses bunched at Terminal 3 at around 7pm (one K230UB, one Citaro); the K230UB was full but the Citaro (which I boarded in favour of service 858) only had fewer than ten passengers.
If I would compare the total load of svcs 27 and 858 at that timing, it seems like two or three partially filled NL323Fs bunching is insufficient to clear all the passengers at the queue (the queue nearly reached the second berth behind, note that 858 has yet to change its berth then), as compared to two svc 27 buses bunching there. To me, I feel that the first svc 858 bus that came did not pick as much passengers...
-
Wow! SMRT finally did it! Congrats!
Yeah, if the bendy bus deployments prove to be successful on 858, SBST shld get them for services 27 and 53 atleast. If not maybe they shld hand these 2 services over to SMRT for bendy deployments. As for 34 and 36, hopefully lta will consider bendy for that package to go-ahead if 858 proves itself positively with the Bendys.
But anw only A24s can manoeuvre the turn eh? O405Gs cannot right?
-
Congrats SMRTB,My colleague who rely on 858 was so delighted.
-
Originally posted by randomguy10:
Wow! SMRT finally did it! Congrats!
Yeah, if the bendy bus deployments prove to be successful on 858, SBST shld get them for services 27 and 53 atleast. If not maybe they shld hand these 2 services over to SMRT for bendy deployments. As for 34 and 36, hopefully lta will consider bendy for that package to go-ahead if 858 proves itself positively with the Bendys.
But anw only A24s can manoeuvre the turn eh? O405Gs cannot right?
As much as i am elated to see bendies on 858, i am also worried at CGA. I will not agree nor support for SBST CGA buses to have bendies due to space constraint.
-
Christmas came early for 858 commuters
-
I think among all airport svc, 858 got the most jalat frequency..the most supported by BSEP but still, got problem...the demand also there..regardless of time.
Hopefully the bendy bus would improve the frequency in some ways...
-
Originally posted by randomguy10:
Wow! SMRT finally did it! Congrats!
Yeah, if the bendy bus deployments prove to be successful on 858, SBST shld get them for services 27 and 53 atleast. If not maybe they shld hand these 2 services over to SMRT for bendy deployments. As for 34 and 36, hopefully lta will consider bendy for that package to go-ahead if 858 proves itself positively with the Bendys.
But anw only A24s can manoeuvre the turn eh? O405Gs cannot right?
Go-Ahead, LTA and CAG will be feeling the heat from the lobbyists soon.
I really wonder what CAG is going to do with their existing infrastructure.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Go-Ahead, LTA and CAG will be feeling the heat from the lobbyists soon.
I really wonder what CAG is going to do with their existing infrastructure.
they need a proper bus station built near the main car park that is DD friendly. The skytrain line can be extended over to the bus station.
-
Originally posted by randomguy10:
Wow! SMRT finally did it! Congrats!
Yeah, if the bendy bus deployments prove to be successful on 858, SBST shld get them for services 27 and 53 atleast. If not maybe they shld hand these 2 services over to SMRT for bendy deployments. As for 34 and 36, hopefully lta will consider bendy for that package to go-ahead if 858 proves itself positively with the Bendys.
But anw only A24s can manoeuvre the turn eh? O405Gs cannot right?
for 27 & 53 to be run by SMB, the Hougang and Bishan route groups (ie majority HGDEP and AMDEP respective control) have to be in SMB hands.
this means 27, 51, 89, 102, 107/107X, 112, 113, 115, 116, 132, 151, 153, 161, 165, 324 & 325 (for HGN) and 50, 52-56, 58, 59 & 410 (BSH) must be SMB.
-
Originally posted by iveco:
for 27 & 53 to be run by SMB, the Hougang and Bishan route groups (ie majority HGDEP and AMDEP respective control) have to be in SMB hands.
this means 27, 51, 89, 102, 107/107X, 112, 113, 115, 116, 132, 151, 153, 161, 165, 324 & 325 (for HGN) and 50, 52-56, 58, 59 & 410 (BSH) must be SMB.
Meaning Hougang/Bishan have to exchange for Yishun/Sembawang
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
Meaning Hougang/Bishan have to exchange for Yishun/Sembawang
sounds fair. But better for 856 to stay with SMB while 169 can change contractor. Maybe also possible to let ARBP full control 132 so it stays with SBS.
-
Originally posted by iveco:
sounds fair. But better for 856 to stay with SMB while 169 can change contractor.
Add SBS Transit to the list then.
I have a feeling this development may reignite the notorious bendy buses debate.
-
Of course DD-friendly terminal is best but With the current infrastructure of the airport, it is going to be quite hard to get DD-friendly infrastructure unless they build a common airport bus terminal out of the complex. And even if they do so, first there is an issue of space and secondly there is an issue of accessibility and convenience to commuters? If they need to take a bus from PTB 1/2/3 out to that common terminal, it will probably deter commuters due to additional travel time and reduce the convenience the current infrastructure offers. If they consider sky train route between a terminal and the airport complex, it is going to be pretty costly as well.
besides I think airport vehicle height limit is 4.0m? So 4.5m DD might still have problem.
simpler option would be to use Bendys for airport services that really need higher capacity buses. I would say CAG will leave the issue to the PTOs to settle. Well if congestion is going to be a problem due to space, PTOs can refrain from deploying Bendys on back to back slot. Besides, currently PTOs are operating the services at such a high frequency where 2 buses bunch together to handle the crowds. 1 bendy bus holds 30 passengers less than 2 SD buses but occupies 6m lesser in space. So I dun think space will be so much of an issue. If bendy is used, the number of buses in the service should be reduced
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Add SBS Transit to the list then.
I have a feeling this development may reignite the notorious bendy buses debate.
the game is on. In fact it just gave me an inspiration for my future ATDB user name.
-
liddat of all the airport svcs only 858 got hc bus
-
This is wonderful! I knew SMRTB will be able to do it, I've always trusted their performance in the bus industry.
Really, with their desire and drive to constantly excel and innovate solutions for the comfort of passengers, it is really hard to blame them nowadays. These few years SMRTB has been exceptionally hardworking, patching up their mistakes and flaws, and using the BSEP resources optimally.
Really glad that my weekly commute on 858 will be much easier from now on, without the nonsense of bunching and hence, long waiting times.
It is all about letting go of conservative mindsets and opening new paths on treachous grounds. Risk taking will always pay off in the long run. This is something SMRTB has done exceptionally well, something unfortunately absent in its fellow counterpart in the public bus industry.
-
CAG has missed its chance for a centralized bus station with Jewel. Now we will all have to wait until T5.
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
This is wonderful! I knew SMRTB will be able to do it, I've always trusted their performance in the bus industry.
Really, with their desire and drive to constantly excel and innovate solutions for the comfort of passengers, it is really hard to blame them nowadays. These few years SMRTB has been exceptionally hardworking, patching up their mistakes and flaws, and using the BSEP resources optimally.
Really glad that my weekly commute on 858 will be much easier from now on, without the nonsense of bunching and hence, long waiting times.
It is all about letting go of conservative mindsets and opening new paths on treachous grounds. Risk taking will always pay off in the long run. This is something SMRTB has done exceptionally well, something unfortunately absent in its fellow counterpart in the public bus industry.
You're talking as if half of 858's fleet has turned into A24s, that the mass bunching and unstable frequencies will cease. I can only wish for that, becuase with more A24s on 858 (that we don't know if they're ordered or not), it will allow SMRT to further optimize 858's fleet by cutting out some A22s, much like what they did with 966.
-
I think all 858 fleet should be upgraded to A22 Batch 2/3s, those with single seats..
Easy to park your luggage there
-
Originally posted by TIB868X:
You're talking as if half of 858's fleet has turned into A24s, that the mass bunching and unstable frequencies will cease. I can only wish for that, becuase with more A24s on 858 (that we don't know if they're ordered or not), it will allow SMRT to further optimize 858's fleet by cutting out some A22s, much like what they did with 966.
With it spanning 50+km I dont think unstable freq will cease. However it is certain that it will DECREASE and will be at least more stable than any of SBST's CGA svc looping at CGA.
With 858's distinct route nature mass spamming of buses is clearly both unfeasible and unsustainable. More drivers and buses needed, yet no improvement for commuters. I agree that these extra A22s could be better used on other svcs eg. 307.
-
Originally posted by TIB868X:
CAG has missed its chance for a centralized bus station with Jewel. Now we will all have to wait until T5.
Afaik there are no plans for the entire bus operation to shift to T5, and I dont think they will... Owing to T1-3