Yishun I don't think can deploy DDs though.
WLDEP-wise if you take a closer look I think should not be a
problem.
I thought LTA has already banned SMRT to get more bendies?
Woodlands depot, Yishun can use DD as well as Bukit Batok and
Bukit Panjang interchange..
Well, that depends and we'll see in 2 to 3 years time.
As amdep's land lease is ending in about 2 years time, we'll
have to see if SLA decides to renew it and the conditions set on
the renewal. They might require better use of land so instead of
single story parking, they might have to move into a multi story
enviroment. That might prompt smrt to build facilities with cater
for dd.
Of course there's always a chance that they just renew without
any conditions.
Other than SMRT is willingly to make minor modifications in
some areas, Woodlands depot generally can park double deckers, if
you observe closely at the height.
Yishun Central is going for redevelopment in a few years
time, so most likely a DD friendly bus interchange will be
built then. Other than that, all other bus interchanges can
support double decker heights.
As for the new depot replacing Ang Mo Kio's one, regardless
where it is, I do hope that SMRT will build or modify one that can
cater for DDs. But more likely they might build a new one, since
the current ones cannot cater the parking needs.
Actually, its pretty true because most of the maintaience wont
be on the body, but still it probably wont give a good impression
on the pax and then it will lead to some other complain. Just like
if the bus u are taking is slow, u will find some other complains
about it and so on so forth. Thats what i feel. 
But still the bodywork designs do still make a slight impact on
efficiency, for eg. placement of doors, chairs, grab poles,
staircases and different door designs(plug, sliding, leaf, etc)
will still impact on some degree to the turn around of pax at bus
stops. This is probably why sbst opted to get wright to redesign
the lower decks to make the B9's lower deck stand more pax compared
to the orignal designs used by kmb, dublinbus, etc.
However i still do hope that bus fares dont get raised due to
better vehicles, its their responsiblity to serve the public while
still keep having improvements and accessiblity to users. kmb could
do it, hope they can manage to do it too.
Last of all, lifespan, usages, cost of returns are important as
per what u have said, but there stands a more important factor,
which is fuel consumption. As fuel prices continue going north, it
will probably cause a impact to fares sooner or later when the fuel
reserves runs out and a steep fare raise will then be immenent.
Bodyworks do have the impact, this I do agree. But to a
commoner, as long as the bus is comfortable, have more seats, does
not leak water and exhaust fumes into the cabin (since buses are
all air conditioned), working aircon, they won't care what is
Gemilang, Wright or Alexander. Opting for European designs is a
plus for commuters as they are more ergonomically and aesthetically
designed for commuters and operators. But seems Gemilang gives a
lot of problems to operators instead.
But then no choice since Singapore resides near Malaysia instead
of within Europe. Transportation costs is also a factor as well.
Getting bus bodies from nearby countries or even locally is more
cost effective than transporting them from one continent to
another. If Singapore is within Europe, maybe we can get the 1st
generation Citaro from 1997 onwards instead of only till 2011, and
even have Volvo 7700, MAN Lion City, Iris Ceteris, etc in the SBS
fleet back then. If we can get bus bodies from Alexander, Wright,
DM, Hispano, etc, we are already counting ourselves very lucky
already.
I wonder how KMB did it too, admist of buying expensive buses
like the Enviro 500 and Centroliners and yet can achieve
profitability.
Yep, fuel consumption is one of the major components of
operational costs. Thus it makes no sense to buy buses that are too
powerful where the bus operations here are highly start and stop
environment. Not only it might burn more fuel but it also translate
into more operational costs.
SMRT would not buy DD as their depot and interchange structure
are not ready to suit DDs. LTA will increase the limit of bendies
of the demand is there. A Capacity might be possible. Routes like
190 need them.
Then continue your self denial. Fact is they are already
limiting the numbers for each bus operator that it can buy. Initial
plan is to ban the purchase of bendies but SMRT insist on buying to
continue to serve the future demand, especially for feeder
services and so LTA sets a limit instead.
Trunk services will need lesser bendies in future due to the
upcoming of Bukit Timah MRT. Currently many of SMRT services are
already switching to more single deckers with better frequncies,
like 61, 67, 188, 851, 854, 856, 859, 962, 969, ever since the
influx of the OC500s. And when the Bukit Timah line is up, some
services may cut down in number of buses. 190 will definately
get the cut, and probably even withdrawn by LTA to force people to
take MRT or take 700 if they prefer to take buses. And the current
problem of 190 is a temporary one, LTA will not let this
overcrowding and long bus queues problems of 190 along Orchard Road
stay on forever.
Capacity is out of question since LTA is limiting bendy bus
numbers because of obvious reasons. In the mid 1990s when SBS
brought in the 19m Volvo B10M artic, SBS had already expressed
interest to bring in the longer 24m Volvo bi-articulated bus, but
in the end the plan was axed, probably by LTA then. So why will LTA
allow the almost 20m bus which takes up more than the length of an
average bus bay in Singapore, where it is specifically designed to
stop at least 2 buses instead and currently even a 14.5m bendy is
already a problem?
And the currrent frequncies and demand for each frequncies
do not warrant the use of the Capacity as well. Even in very high
demand routes, a double decker and a bendy bus is good enough to
cater the demand. I don't think SMRT will be so dumb to spend so
much money to buy such expensive buses and in the end cannot fully
utilized them all the time. The money can better off allow them to
buy more single deckers instead for more cost efficiencies and more
flexibilities.
Re: fuel costs; go for diesel-electric buses? If possible, convert
some existing newer buses to diesel-electric ones to save fuel?
Conversion is highly impossible as it involves a lot of costs and
probably maintenance and other costs of implications after the
modifications.
diesel-electric, what i feel is that the current technology is
not really mature yet to reap much savings/performance from it
because of the much higher upfront amount paid for the buses
itself. Even the sunlongs cost 100k more than kubs, but there needs
to be some consideration to how long to achieve this amount of
saving.
Assuming a generous 3km/liter of diesel, and $0.81 per liter as
per reference fuel price set by PTC , thats about 3.7km per dollar.
At 10% and 20% fuel savings, it would take 370 000 km and 185 000
km respectively to recover the cost of the sunlong, not exactly
very cost effective also because the battery and drivetrain also
needs to undergo overhaul too. To add, the performance of hybrids
are still generally lacking compared to their diesel
counterparts.
Something surprising which i came across while digging smrt's
annual report for figures is that the citaro is 1 ton lighter
(thats about 15 adults) and therefore saves 7% more fuel.
Yes, diesel electric hybrid engines for buses and trucks are still
at the infant stages. Even smaller hybrid engines for cars are
still evolving now, even they are beginning to raise awareness and
increasing sales worldwide. Although they may be more powerful (e.g
Toyota Supra sports car hybrid), cost is still a factor today to
build such technologies. There is still a long way before bus/truck
manufacturers can build hybrid engines that provide optimum
performances and as cheap as their petrol/diesel conuterparts.
But fossil fuels like petrol and diesel will run out one day,
thus it is still the need to explore into other kinds of fuels
before the oil well globally runs dry one day.
Hydrogen is still at its very infant stage and costly and only
receives minimal success from car manufacturers like BMW.
Other companies also looking into pressurised air to move
pistons but the technology is only at explorary stages and is very
weak in power and very costly.
Better candidates might be the hybrid diesel but costs need to
be reduced further before bus operators worldwide will mass
purchase them.
CNG is possible, but due to the explosion case of the MIC CNG
bus last year, other than the 12 SBST Volvo B10BLE CNG buses, I
doubt LTA will consider mass operating such buses in future.
Another good and cheaper option might be bio fuels, which comes
from plants and is easily obtainable from our neighbours, Malaysia
and Indonesia due to their abundence of oil palm plantations. Bio
fuels is also less polluting and supplies are typically unlimited,
since oil palms can bear the fruits again and again.
