Capacity changes on bus services (Part 2)
-
Originally posted by SBS3004X:
103 is squeezed like sardines on many trips even before it reaches Sengkang. 117 only have ghost upper deck, with some exceptions.
So apparently 117 has failed to motivate people to transfer to MRT at Punggol instead of Serangoon...
If historically there was only 117 connecting to Punggol, and then 103 came in as a new service, it would probably be a different story.
-
Originally posted by array88:
So apparently 117 has failed to motivate people to transfer to MRT at Punggol instead of Serangoon...
If historically there was only 117 connecting to Punggol, and then 103 came in as a new service, it would probably be a different story.
Hi mr array88, super unlikely that people will go to Punggol to transfer. Serangoon is much more nearer to many other areas in Singapore. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by array88:
So apparently 117 has failed to motivate people to transfer to MRT at Punggol instead of Serangoon...
If historically there was only 117 connecting to Punggol, and then 103 came in as a new service, it would probably be a different story.
There aren't many people who take 103 from Serangoon to SAP. it is mostly people who live along YCK Road & Sengkang West who will take 103. 103 also gets more load from the Seletar Circus transfer stop, where many people from east/west will board.
Sv 117 may not get huge but has a decent 30-35 pax from Punggol MRT towards SAP in AM.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
sv 103 is now full fleet SD. Lost its only DD. I wonder why. Needs to be a strong enough reason, I guess because it should have at least decent loading between Jalan Kayu and Serangoon, if not within SAP.
sv 196 gets a SD fleet add. I guess this is to complement the DD loading towards CBD from both ends. Prefer weekday DDs on this service and weekends can be full fleet SD
Sv 103 lost its only DD for 1 simple reason - LTA told SBST that they didn't have the proper DD certification for DD use on Sv 103.
I know it was a good half-year or more since Sv 103 had DDs perm, but yeah, LTA's response to SBST was only in the recent 2 months. Why the massive lag in response from LTA, I don't know. But that was what happened. (this is from insiders)
Which was why SBST reluctantly pulled the DD perm out from Sv 103. Nothing to do with demand-wise or what not. Probably will see them trying to sort out the issue soon in the next few months.
-------------------------------------------------------
Sv 196 that one, they marked it for a DD fleet add initially. Then they downsized it by half to 8533C after a few weeks. It wasn't meant to be a SD fleet add all along. -
Originally posted by SinkTel:
SG5387P & SBS7618Z on 48 today. Both S shift from ARBP, both using desto today as EDS doesn't have 48 route details. According to BC from 5387, it is fleet add but not sure about the other slot.
Yeah just to update - Sv 48 now has 2 confirmed DD slots from ARBP.
SDs out - 1174M & 8489Y. DDs in TBC again - because they keep throwing random DDs from Sv 80 / 132 / SP fleet each day -
Originally posted by SBS 9631X:
Sv 103 lost its only DD for 1 simple reason - LTA told SBST that they didn't have the proper DD certification for DD use on Sv 103.
I know it was a good half-year or more since Sv 103 had DDs perm, but yeah, LTA's response to SBST was only in the recent 2 months. Why the massive lag in response from LTA, I don't know. But that was what happened. (this is from insiders)
Which was why SBST reluctantly pulled the DD perm out from Sv 103. Nothing to do with demand-wise or what not. Probably will see them trying to sort out the issue soon in the next few months.
-------------------------------------------------------
Sv 196 that one, they marked it for a DD fleet add initially. Then they downsized it by half to 8533C after a few weeks. It wasn't meant to be a SD fleet add all along.wasnt there DDs on test for 103 then?
-
Now everything must wait for LTA..If the BC insist on using a DD for SD slot,Then there is no DD allowance..
-
Ever since i drive SD during weekends for 43 & 62,Now there is 1 SD slot each for those svc during weekends pm shift
-
Originally posted by SBS 9631X:
Sv 103 lost its only DD for 1 simple reason - LTA told SBST that they didn't have the proper DD certification for DD use on Sv 103.
I know it was a good half-year or more since Sv 103 had DDs perm, but yeah, LTA's response to SBST was only in the recent 2 months. Why the massive lag in response from LTA, I don't know. But that was what happened. (this is from insiders)
Which was why SBST reluctantly pulled the DD perm out from Sv 103. Nothing to do with demand-wise or what not. Probably will see them trying to sort out the issue soon in the next few months.
-------------------------------------------------------
Sv 196 that one, they marked it for a DD fleet add initially. Then they downsized it by half to 8533C after a few weeks. It wasn't meant to be a SD fleet add all along.Ok that seems like a more reasonable explanation. Thanks for it. Hope SBS resolves it soon and gets DD on board.
103 has other DD services all along its route from Serangoon to SAP (86 on Jalan Kayu, 117 in SAP).
It seems that the non-authorized part of DD route for 103 is Yishun Ave 11?
-
Originally posted by SBS 9631X:
Sv 196 that one, they marked it for a DD fleet add initially. Then they downsized it by half to 8533C after a few weeks. It wasn't meant to be a SD fleet add all along.
What does downsize by half mean?
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
What does downsize by half mean?
Hmm basically when I mean downsized by half for Sv 196, that was based on the fact that they wanted to throw a DD as fleet add onto Sv 196 initially.
Which they then swapped out a few weeks later for 8533C in the end. So effectively a SD's capacity is somewhat 1/2 of a DD? So yeah, that was I meant by 'downsized by half" because I was replying with respect to how they wanted a DD fleet add initially, but ended up settling for a SD in the end
-
Originally posted by SMB145B:
wasnt there DDs on test for 103 then?
They even had DDs perm haha. Which was why LTA's response only recently about Sv 103 & the DD certification issue, caught me / those who were aware of it by surprise? It was like they (LTA) suddenly wanted to dig back the old records for something they missed out and then boom, they found one
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Ok that seems like a more reasonable explanation. Thanks for it. Hope SBS resolves it soon and gets DD on board.
103 has other DD services all along its route from Serangoon to SAP (86 on Jalan Kayu, 117 in SAP).
It seems that the non-authorized part of DD route for 103 is Yishun Ave 11?
No probs for that, haha. I just kind of realised not many people knew about the DD certification issue for Sv 103, so I wanted to point that out. Because like you said, it doesn't really have anything much to do with demand issues.
And tbh, I myself don't really know which part / roads is the issue as well. I only know LTA repeatedly warned HG & SBST (apparently) about the DD certification issue for Sv 103, until they (LTA) kind of set an ultimatum (last warning) recently.. which then SBST die-die had to pull the DD out till further notice.
But if you look at the physical roads wise / the trees, I don't really think any sectors pose an issue as well.. (I mean, Sv 103 had the DD for months alr & no DD ended up stuck along the route to begin with..) -
Originally posted by SBS 9631X:
No probs for that, haha. I just kind of realised not many people knew about the DD certification issue for Sv 103, so I wanted to point that out. Because like you said, it doesn't really have anything much to do with demand issues.
And tbh, I myself don't really know which part / roads is the issue as well. I only know LTA repeatedly warned HG & SBST (apparently) about the DD certification issue for Sv 103, until they (LTA) kind of set an ultimatum (last warning) recently.. which then SBST die-die had to pull the DD out till further notice.
But if you look at the physical roads wise / the trees, I don't really think any sectors pose an issue as well.. (I mean, Sv 103 had the DD for months alr & no DD ended up stuck along the route to begin with..)no la... its LTA die die don't want deploy DD on 103 then use this type of rubbish excuses... im the one who told u that lmao
In other words, the route is 100% clear but LTA refuses to give DD clearance, so that 103 will not have DDs, and on a greater scale, to force people to take 117.
Anyway, that DD slot that was downsized legit needs DDs, nowadays everyday fly stop from YCK Rd all the way to Seletar
-
Originally posted by SBS 9631X:
Hmm basically when I mean downsized by half for Sv 196, that was based on the fact that they wanted to throw a DD as fleet add onto Sv 196 initially.
Which they then swapped out a few weeks later for 8533C in the end. So effectively a SD's capacity is somewhat 1/2 of a DD? So yeah, that was I meant by 'downsized by half" because I was replying with respect to how they wanted a DD fleet add initially, but ended up settling for a SD in the end
Ok got it. Weird that they put SDs on 196 when it really has bi-directional heavy load. Sundays okay with deploying more SDs, but week days it is an important CBD connector as well as between Bukit Merah-Commonwealth and BNV-Dover.
-
Originally posted by hgdep103:
no la... its LTA die die don't want deploy DD on 103 then use this type of rubbish excuses... im the one who told u that lmao
In other words, the route is 100% clear but LTA refuses to give DD clearance, so that 103 will not have DDs, and on a greater scale, to force people to take 117.
Anyway, that DD slot that was downsized legit needs DDs, nowadays everyday fly stop from YCK Rd all the way to Seletar
No la. I know you told me that la. but on closer thought, I think abit weird right? Like what for they suddenly back-track & come up with some excuse say cannot use DDs after they deployed for donkey months alr.
I hope it's genuine some paperwork issues though. otherwise it's really pretty retarded haha. -
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Ok got it. Weird that they put SDs on 196 when it really has bi-directional heavy load. Sundays okay with deploying more SDs, but week days it is an important CBD connector as well as between Bukit Merah-Commonwealth and BNV-Dover.
Or maybe it's because they wanted to put an ad (which 8533C has the Cruises ad) or Sv 196, but putting it on 5405X would be weird if it's full-body & not 2/3 ver? Idk actually.
Might as well just dump 8533C to begin with haha, then don't have to put 5405X initially -
117?Hahah Am peak upper deck also around 5-8 ppl only..Other than that hmmm..No wonder many SDs cameo on this svc.Wait for another year maybe got improvement..Sorry to say this but its mostly SD loadings.
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
117?Hahah Am peak upper deck also around 5-8 ppl only..Other than that hmmm..No wonder many SDs cameo on this svc.Wait for another year maybe got improvement..Sorry to say this but its mostly SD loadings.
Most route loading grow as time goes by...
That's coz most of LTA's routes are planned in anticipation of surrounding developments (this most alr know)
Even the much-criticised 120 is doing q well now... Half bus standing in the afternoon on Sundays
-
116?
-
Originally posted by TIB 585L:
116?
If u care to read my post, the keyword is "most".
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
Most route loading grow as time goes by...
That's coz most of LTA's routes are planned in anticipation of surrounding developments (this most alr know)
Even the much-criticised 120 is doing q well now... Half bus standing in the afternoon on Sundays
I won't say 120 is doing well. Loading has improved, but most buses still run empty. Main loading is Alexandra road to connect to Redhill MRT.
122 loading also hasn't picked up inspite of the Maragaret/Dawson HDBs. 116 is a similar situation like 120, a minority part of its route is doing well for certain trips.
46 still running empty. 150 running empty on 90% trips. 76 was a disaster. 47 could have been better planned instead of introducing so many parallel services in Marine Parade.
41 could have been better planned. 49 extension to Jurong East has DDs running empty most times. 117 introduced way before its time, same with 883. 117 and 46 should have been intro as full fleet SD.
141 loading still low but okay because route is quite unique.
-
120 still below average,On on certain few timings you quite packed.I wouldn't expect it to be above average all the times but my observation stand.Even a certain timings you see 382W fully seated but again most of the times an average of 7-9 pax per trip,Wakakaka.
-
Originally posted by TIB 585L:
116?
Ok la,BC need at least 5 trips to cover his day salary and fuel cost..Still slightly improved.53M peak hour loadings is good i shall say.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I won't say 120 is doing well. Loading has improved, but most buses still run empty. Main loading is Alexandra road to connect to Redhill MRT.
122 loading also hasn't picked up inspite of the Maragaret/Dawson HDBs. 116 is a similar situation like 120, a minority part of its route is doing well for certain trips.
46 still running empty. 150 running empty on 90% trips. 76 was a disaster. 47 could have been better planned instead of introducing so many parallel services in Marine Parade.
41 could have been better planned. 49 extension to Jurong East has DDs running empty most times. 117 introduced way before its time, same with 883. 117 and 46 should have been intro as full fleet SD.
141 loading still low but okay because route is quite unique.
You need to understand that you MUST not assume that a svc will always have max loading throughout the route. That's not how it works. There will always be grey areas the route will experience as it transits from one area to another.
Given so, 120 experiences so from NBR Ter to Redhill MRT. That's the grey area that 120 has to inevitably pass due to terminal constraints. You know that yourself either. Don't underestimate the utility of 120 at that sector. Being an extremely long route 33 is fully vulnerable to delays and 120 is the solution to that. Maybe your definition of "empty buses" has got to be a real peculiar one as contrary to your statement most of 120's buses are fully seated even on non-peak times such as weekends.
I'm not sure where did poor planning for 47 come from. Where would you have suggested it to go? IMHO I feel that the route was well-planned to boost connectivity between Bedok South and MP. Yes, people actl do take it between these sectors.