SMRT MAN NG363F A24 discussions

last SG · 2014-12-04T22:41:51+00:00

but 904 is BSEP serv.It may not receive bendy

TIB868X SG

CAG has missed its chance for a centralized bus station with Jewel. Now we will all have to wait until T5.

TIB868X SG

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.

TIB429E SG

I think all 858 fleet should be upgraded to A22 Batch 2/3s, those with single seats..

Easy to park your luggage there

SMB128B SG

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.

SMB128B SG

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

TIB1234T SG

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...

TIB868X SG

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.

The result of 858 being made an amendment fodder, only made worse by calling at Punggol Road. More people are inconvenienced than benefitting.

TIB868X SG

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.

TIB1105H SG

8029B reversed into A22 at WDL int while at boarding berth. Slight damaged to rear bumper and rear itself.

SBS7557R SG

This is wonderful! I knew SMRTB will be able to do it, I've always trusted their performance in the bus industry.

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.

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.

SBS 9256 X SG

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.

SMB145B SG

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.

randomguy10 SG

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.

TIB868X SG

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.

TIB868X SG

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).

iveco SG

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.

SBS351M SG

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.

SBS351M SG

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.

randomguy10 SG

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.

SBS351M SG

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.

« Previous Page Next Page »