SMRT MAN NG363F A24 discussions
-
SMB8025L full load in the late afternoon at CGA today, bunched with SMB1304C which was half full... Almost all the pax that were waiting for the SBST svcs were stunned by the bendies...
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
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.
The result of 858 being made an amendment fodder, only made worse by calling at Punggol Road. More people are inconvenienced than benefitting.
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
Afaik there are no plans for the entire bus operation to shift to T5, and I dont think they will... Owing to T1-3
Well that's a real problem, how to serve most if not all terminals while calling at a centralized bus station. A centralized bus station could work if accessing it is convenient from most if not all terminals.
I am hoping the planners will do the right thing.
-
8029B reversed into A22 at WDL int while at boarding berth. Slight damaged to rear bumper and rear itself.
-
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.
No more bunching, really? How come I still see bunching today even with articulated buses deployed? To be fair, the deployment of any type of high capacity buses, be it double-deck or articulated buses, doesn't reduce bunching as long as the fleet size of the service, as well as traffic conditions, remain unchanged.
Easier? I wouldn't say it is easier. There is still quite a significant number of pax that have to stand from the airport all the way to Yishun even though the articulated buses have additional seats.
I thought someone here mentioned that bendies are not suitable for long distance routes as most commuters will not want to stand for such a long distance? I understand that 858 passes through areas with height restrictions, which leaves it with little choice but to use articulated buses, but it is after all still a long distance service, which means most commuters would prefer to have a seat. The bendies do not directly tackle that issue though.
-
Originally posted by SBS7557R:
No more bunching, really? How come I still see bunching today even with articulated buses deployed? To be fair, the deployment of any type of high capacity buses, be it double-deck or articulated buses, doesn't reduce bunching as long as the fleet size of the service, as well as traffic conditions, remain unchanged.
Easier? I wouldn't say it is easier. There is still quite a significant number of pax that have to stand from the airport all the way to Yishun even though the articulated buses have additional seats.
I thought someone here mentioned that bendies are not suitable for long distance routes as most commuters will not want to stand for such a long distance? I understand that 858 passes through areas with height restrictions, which leaves it with little choice but to use articulated buses, but it is after all still a long distance service, which means most commuters would prefer to have a seat. The bendies do not directly tackle that issue though.
Bunching - IMO, must look at how the service captain drives the bus.
1) Whether is it fast or slow (Depending on whether he is on schedule or behind schedule)
2) Traffic condition along the route.So I think it doesn't matter whether the bendies ease the load or not... It may be a machine advantage which can accomodate many passengers but in the end it is still the human factor that makes it happen.
-
The people here have suggested splitting 858, rebuilding the CGA basement, introduce new routes to CGA. What's next, North Shore or North Coast Line? Besides 858, 27 faces a much bigger problem.
-
You say as if rebuilding the basement is so easy like that. It will cause too much disruption and too much costs, which will make it not feasible. Think about it, no basement access while rebuilding, the terminal can't function. The way CAG plans Jewel and T3 and T4, it doesn't seem like they are planning on greater height clearance too. And the amount of time SMRT and LTA spent to modify and allow Bendys in, it's not a sign of height increase in near future.
Splitting the route of 858 is more feasible but not a good idea. Many people will lose their direct link to the airport for work and decide to spam MRT instead, in which case 858 will lose its ridership Anyway. People only take 858 due to its convenience as a direct link, it's not so much faster than MRT to the north but on the MRT you need to transfer 3X. If you split the route and people have to wait for bus 2X, they will not take that service and will defeat the purpose of 858.
Yes long route, people want a seat. I understand. But last time I can't even board the bus and now I can. I can be more assured to get to work on time. Its a very big improvement already you know. So be contended. Many workers will be. I used to work at CGA before. For those who want seats, let them wait lor. You put DD, these people will also hog lower deck what. Most viable cost, positive impact to the majority that's good enough.
SMRT has done its part. Let's hope SBST does something also.
-
Originally posted by SMB145B:
The people here have suggested splitting 858, rebuilding the CGA basement, introduce new routes to CGA. What's next, North Shore or North Coast Line? Besides 858, 27 faces a much bigger problem.
What's wrong with splitting 858? You don't think its inefficient? It serves too many groups of people. Splitting it up will not only allow PTOs to manage the service better but also allow commuters to have more comfortable journeys with optimized loads.
-
Originally posted by randomguy10:
You say as if rebuilding the basement is so easy like that. It will cause too much disruption and too much costs, which will make it not feasible. Think about it, no basement access while rebuilding, the terminal can't function. The way CAG plans Jewel and T3 and T4, it doesn't seem like they are planning on greater height clearance too. And the amount of time SMRT and LTA spent to modify and allow Bendys in, it's not a sign of height increase in near future.
Splitting the route of 858 is more feasible but not a good idea. Many people will lose their direct link to the airport for work and decide to spam MRT instead, in which case 858 will lose its ridership Anyway. People only take 858 due to its convenience as a direct link, it's not so much faster than MRT to the north but on the MRT you need to transfer 3X. If you split the route and people have to wait for bus 2X, they will not take that service and will defeat the purpose of 858.
Yes long route, people want a seat. I understand. But last time I can't even board the bus and now I can. I can be more assured to get to work on time. Its a very big improvement already you know. So be contended. Many workers will be. I used to work at CGA before. For those who want seats, let them wait lor. You put DD, these people will also hog lower deck what. Most viable cost, positive impact to the majority that's good enough.
SMRT has done its part. Let's hope SBST does something also.
No one is suggesting rebuilding an entire basement to increase height clearance - it is simply not feasible nor possible. What is desirable though, is a centralized bus station within future airport infrastructure that can at least accept high capacity buses without any limits or the need for extraordinary effort.
You must be smoking if you think 858 won't be better off being split. It is far from 'direct', at least for residents of Woodlands and depending on liberal your definition of being direct is (winding through and picking up extra demand from sembawang and being interrupted by Punggol Road?). And no, don't tell me to MRT, 168>858 (try boarding at Jalan Kayu or Punggol Road in the morning).
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
Afaik there are no plans for the entire bus operation to shift to T5, and I dont think they will... Owing to T1-3
I'd rather have a centralised bus station that is served by the skytrain system. That way, the buses can terminate and the drivers can have some rest before starting the return leg of the journey.
-
Originally posted by iveco:
I'd rather have a centralised bus station that is served by the skytrain system. That way, the buses can terminate and the drivers can have some rest before starting the return leg of the journey.
There will be such a terminal at T5 according to the graphics by Straits Times (if I recall correctly). However, the location of T5 makes it impossible to move the entire airport bus network. Airport staff will still need to work at T1-3, and there has to be transport links retained in the current terminals. It is up to LTA to plan the bus routes such that it minimises the impact on commuters.
-
Originally posted by SMB145B:
The people here have suggested splitting 858, rebuilding the CGA basement, introduce new routes to CGA. What's next, North Shore or North Coast Line? Besides 858, 27 faces a much bigger problem.
27's problem has largely shifted to 858 ever since the TPE bus stops opened. The main crowd are now from Sengkang to Tampines and Tampines to airport.
53 is the one that has faced issues and I would rather they split the Pasir Ris portion away as a shorter route.
I do think 858 could be split, at least cutting the Sembawang portion away, but then again any split on routes where it affects individual housing estates will have the residents and MPs up in arms, so I think LTA would rather keep it as it is, which is a waste IMO as they could do more.
-
Yeah like I mentioned in earlier post, a centralised bus station is a good idea if it is easily and efficiently accessible from airport terminals, for eg. by skytrain. But if its going to be a bus route through all the terminals and then linking to a central terminal where all the other services call, its not going to be a good idea.
Yes Punggol Rd diversion was one that I will not support because it adds more load to the service. A load where a full SD fleet fought hard to support but still CMI. But removing that link will not provide a means to split the service. Another unneccessary diversion was the KTPH diversion that deviates from the main purpose of serving the airport. If they wanted KTPH to be accessible from woodlands and sembwang, they should have considered services like 859 and 965 which dont have overwhelming demands.
Other than that, I would say 858 provides a quick link to the airport from the parts of woodlands near Gambas Ave, sembawang, chong pang and yishun vicinity. If want to go to airport from Woodlands interchange, of course take 168 and transfer at seletar. I dont mean 858 as a direct link from WRI. But for areas in woodlands that have 858 and no 168, 858 is still a faster and direct means to airport as opposed to taking a feeder to woodlands and transferring to 168.
Even if split, theres no way a PTO will operate 2 services to CGA - one from Yishun and one from Woodlands/Sembawang to give a more direct access. It will not be cost-efficient and there will be high depreciation and mileage clocked on the buses plying the route. The split will probably be Woodlands to Yishun and Yishun to CGA and people lose their link.
But anw, since now there's MAN A24, crowd management should be better. I rode SMB8030X duting evening peak hours and bus was fully seated with about 15-20 standing passengers. Hopefully SMRT operates about 8-10 MAN A24s on this service and have them evenly distributed to have a greater impact. Today there was SMB8037C behind SMB8030X by just 6mins and it was kind of wasted capacity.
-
Originally posted by SBS7557R:
Easier? I wouldn't say it is easier. There is still quite a significant number of pax that have to stand from the airport all the way to Yishun even though the articulated buses have additional seats.
I thought someone here mentioned that bendies are not suitable for long distance routes as most commuters will not want to stand for such a long distance? I understand that 858 passes through areas with height restrictions, which leaves it with little choice but to use articulated buses, but it is after all still a long distance service, which means most commuters would prefer to have a seat. The bendies do not directly tackle that issue though.
I think there is a misconception that bendies are not suitable for long distance routes This is probably due to the notion that bendies are better than double deckers on feeder routes, and double deckers are better on long distance routes. This notion, while largely true, does not change the fact that the percentage of standees (around 60%) are largely the same when comparing bendy buses with normal 12m buses. Hence when comparing a bendy to a 12m, since more passengers can board a bendy, it is still a more suitable choice, regardless of the length of the route.
In a route like 858, where it is a long distance route with a distinct and significant section in housing estates, with frequent boarding and alighting activities, plus the higher potential of being delayed by on route conditions due to the length of the route, a bendy bus is right at home, drivers will appreciate the shorter dwell times (vis a vis DD buses, assuming they could be used, which they cannot be) at bus stops, especially the busier ones at TPE, Khatib and Yishun.
-
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.
IMO, all airport services are packed somewhere along its route. Although it may not be CGA, it still warrants high capacity buses.
27 and 53 I think everyone knows.
24: I have observed very high loading between Bedok, Tanah Merah and CGA. Yes, frequency is an issue, but having a few bendies would be more helpful than spamming rigids which results in bunching.
36: Very high loading between Marine Parade and Orchard / Suntec where people cannot board. And sadly LTA/SBST don't want to introduce 36M from Marine Parade to Orchard, which leaves HC buses as the only option.
34: Also super high loading in Tampines. Even from the airport you can have half the queue unable to board... Although fleet addition to improve frequency should be more useful for 34.
Anyway, these are just theoretical suggestions... Considering the infrastructure at CGA Basement, it does make sense to deploy bendies only on the most crucial services.
-
Originally posted by array88:
IMO, all airport services are packed somewhere along its route. Although it may not be CGA, it still warrants high capacity buses.
27 and 53 I think everyone knows.
24: I have observed very high loading between Bedok, Tanah Merah and CGA. Yes, frequency is an issue, but having a few bendies would be more helpful than spamming rigids which results in bunching.
36: Very high loading between Marine Parade and Orchard / Suntec where people cannot board. And sadly LTA/SBST don't want to introduce 36M from Marine Parade to Orchard, which leaves HC buses as the only option.
34: Also super high loading in Tampines. Even from the airport you can have half the queue unable to board... Although fleet addition to improve frequency should be more useful for 34.
Anyway, these are just theoretical suggestions... Considering the infrastructure at CGA Basement, it does make sense to deploy bendies only on the most crucial services.
Apparently, it is not a smooth ride for the bendies plying 858. BCs have to be extremely careful in the basement areas. Also does 3 bendies in a fleet of 29 buses really make a big difference? While it is a great start, I don't think SMRT has many WAB bendies to deploy on 858. Also remember, the more WAB bendies it deploys on 858, the more time it will take them to convert feeders/intra towns to WAB, which should be first priority as that is where you have most PIW passengers.
-
Originally posted by SBS7557R:
No more bunching, really? How come I still see bunching today even with articulated buses deployed? To be fair, the deployment of any type of high capacity buses, be it double-deck or articulated buses, doesn't reduce bunching as long as the fleet size of the service, as well as traffic conditions, remain unchanged.
Easier? I wouldn't say it is easier. There is still quite a significant number of pax that have to stand from the airport all the way to Yishun even though the articulated buses have additional seats.
I thought someone here mentioned that bendies are not suitable for long distance routes as most commuters will not want to stand for such a long distance? I understand that 858 passes through areas with height restrictions, which leaves it with little choice but to use articulated buses, but it is after all still a long distance service, which means most commuters would prefer to have a seat. The bendies do not directly tackle that issue though.
Clearly you have not taken 858 enough.
See, with more buses being thrown in, the ideal situation will be buses arriving more frequently to ease crowding. In reality, the winding of 858, as well as its looping nature and frequent jams along SLE and Punggol Rd, always meant buses ended up coming in twos and threes at a horrific freq of 10+ mins.
Essentially this makes no difference from deploying bendies at the same freq. But with bendies, you save an extra bus, hence saving an extra driver and a little extra fuel. For passengers like me, the stress of having to try to squeeze on the first rigid for fear the second will never come (given how erratic LTA's app is) is essentially diminished. I now do not have to choose which bus to board. And if you do notice carefully, two bunched rigids actually do travel slower on overall than one single HC bus.
The reason you see bunching is simple. Tell me, how many days has it been since the first bendies were deployed on 858? See, these drivers need time to adapt and familiarise with the turns and curves of the bendies in CGA. If you go watch the videos, the drivers were taking some extra caution while turning out of the berths, as well as after security checks. Trust me, after a while this situation will be greatly improved as drivers turn round the bends with acccumulated skill. It is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE for two bendies to bunch too.
Yes, with bendies I may not get a seat, but I do not get a seat with two rigids coming at the same time too! But what do I prefer? Going home earlier and more consistent freq, freq that I can at least trust more.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Apparently, it is not a smooth ride for the bendies plying 858. BCs have to be extremely careful in the basement areas. Also does 3 bendies in a fleet of 29 buses really make a big difference? While it is a great start, I don't think SMRT has many WAB bendies to deploy on 858. Also remember, the more WAB bendies it deploys on 858, the more time it will take them to convert feeders/intra towns to WAB, which should be first priority as that is where you have most PIW passengers.
The solution is simple.
Its either LTA
1. Buy more bendies, or
2. Deploy some from other depots (WL has a pathetic 9 buses while the other two has 15 each)
HC buses are eventually the more sustainable option. In fact I see the 5 buses thrown in as a stop-gap measure to facilitate the testing of bendies on 858.
-
Originally posted by SBS351M:
There will be such a terminal at T5 according to the graphics by Straits Times (if I recall correctly). However, the location of T5 makes it impossible to move the entire airport bus network. Airport staff will still need to work at T1-3, and there has to be transport links retained in the current terminals. It is up to LTA to plan the bus routes such that it minimises the impact on commuters.
Are you sure the terminal at T5 is centralised?
See, with these bunch of myopic people not addressing the problem during the planning of the Jewel, I have lost all faith in them alr. Having a centralised bus station is ridiculous in T5. What about those in T1-3? The Jewel was such a strategic location. Located right in the heart of T1-3. Buses could depart from the Jewel, pass thru T5, and hit the expy.
-
Originally posted by SBS351M:
27's problem has largely shifted to 858 ever since the TPE bus stops opened. The main crowd are now from Sengkang to Tampines and Tampines to airport.
53 is the one that has faced issues and I would rather they split the Pasir Ris portion away as a shorter route.
I do think 858 could be split, at least cutting the Sembawang portion away, but then again any split on routes where it affects individual housing estates will have the residents and MPs up in arms, so I think LTA would rather keep it as it is, which is a waste IMO as they could do more.
there is 962, 856 between Woodlands and Sembawang. and 859 doing Yishun and Sembawang. Wa Khaw! 858 is covering for these as well?
27's Tampines to Airport is also covered by 34. 858>34>27 for pax heading to CGA.
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
The solution is simple.
Its either LTA
1. Buy more bendies, or
2. Deploy some from other depots (WL has a pathetic 9 buses while the other two has 15 each)
HC buses are eventually the more sustainable option. In fact I see the 5 buses thrown in as a stop-gap measure to facilitate the testing of bendies on 858.
buying more bendies is out. Bus Contracts currently only had 12m Rigids and 12m DDs.
Eventually most of the 41 bendies would be on 858. Since Airport do not facilitate DDs, the best option left are these 18m Bendies.
-
Originally posted by SBS351M:
27's problem has largely shifted to 858 ever since the TPE bus stops opened. The main crowd are now from Sengkang to Tampines and Tampines to airport.
53 is the one that has faced issues and I would rather they split the Pasir Ris portion away as a shorter route.
I do think 858 could be split, at least cutting the Sembawang portion away, but then again any split on routes where it affects individual housing estates will have the residents and MPs up in arms, so I think LTA would rather keep it as it is, which is a waste IMO as they could do more.
858 is currently the only bus passing by Sembawang that goes to TPE/northeast, that part on complaints is understood and is probably why LTA plans to introduce 117 to ease some of its load.
-
For now they can still order another 40-50 units out of their own account.858 can safely deployed 7 A24s(5 AP/2 S1).
-
Originally posted by SMB145B:
there is 962, 856 between Woodlands and Sembawang. and 859 doing Yishun and Sembawang. Wa Khaw! 858 is covering for these as well?
27's Tampines to Airport is also covered by 34. 858>34>27 for pax heading to CGA.
27 and 34 serves different crowds of people... 34 is more for those in Tampines East, while 27 for Tampines Central and Tampines West (Ave 9 area).