Originally posted by SBS351M:Sorry there was a typo, I meant 2006 King Longs, which have reached the 10 year COE period. How many of them were extended for another 10 years allowed by their lifespan:
While I don't have an official list of how many King Longs registered 2006 and before, I do have a unofficial spotting list of all the King Longs I have spotted that were registered 2006 and before:
PA4318M King Long XMQ6778B King Long LKLR1CS953A000002 2003 15-Nov-03 PA6423D King Long XMQ6127C King Long LKLR1KSN96B602052 2006 29-Sep-06 PA4759Z Suzhou King Long KLQ6720B1 Higer LKLS1CS624A200635 2004 12-Jul-04 PA5302B Suzhou King Long KLQ6720B1 Higer LKLS1CS654A201990 2005 12-Apr-05 PA5388D Suzhou King Long KLQ6720B1 Higer LKLS1CS644A201995 2005 31-May-05 PA5493H Suzhou King Long KLQ6720B1 Higer LKLS1CS635A120665 2005 23-Jul-05 PA5800E Suzhou King Long KLQ6720B1 Higer LKLS1CS6X5A120923 2005 17-Dec-05 PA6029J Suzhou King Long KLQ6118Q Higer LKLR1HSJ65A200767 2005 13-Apr-06 PA6030D Suzhou King Long KLQ6118Q Higer LKLR1HSJ25A200765 2005 13-Apr-06 PA6348M Suzhou King Long KLQ6720B1 Higer LKLS1CS645A120979 2005 12-Sep-06 PA6376G Suzhou King Long KLQ6840 Higer LKLR1DSB86B002494 2006 19-Sep-06 PA6389U Suzhou King Long KLQ6840 Higer LKLR1DSBX6B002495 2006 29-Sep-06 PC1000M King Long XMQ6127C King Long LKLR1KSN26B602054 2006 29-Sep-06 PC5000L King Long XMQ6127C King Long LKLR1KSN96B602049 2006 29-Sep-06 PC5554E King Long XMQ6127C King Long LKLR1KSN56B602047 2006 29-Sep-06 PH1212S King Long XMQ6778B King Long LKLR1CS993A282001 2004 1-Jul-05
Note that PC5554E (former PA6418U) has been replaced by a newer Chinese bus made in 2014.
Of this list only 4 buses (PA6423D, PA6029J, PC1000M, PC5000L) remain in service, though out of these 4, only 6029 has its COE extended to 2021, the rest will have their COE expire at the end of this month and there is no way to tell whether they will be extended or not. I think it is quite fair to statistically extrapolate it to the actual number of buses, as these are random spottings that I have made over the past 7 years.
PA6423D's COE expiry date is 31 Aug 2021.
Originally posted by SMB1368T:Well I hope they dont make a mess-up situation here given that they occupy space
Now I know why people want to go up on 52 and those other DD services
They will only mess it up if they use the wrong buses on wrong type of routes. Though, the impact will be minimal with bendy buses being used instead of DDs (not the other way) as they will be gone from bus stops in double quick time. Just need longer lots at interchanges.
Originally posted by Gus.chong:PA6423D's COE expiry date is 31 Aug 2021.
Still doesn't change the fact that those chinese buses are largely gone. Won't be surprised if the COE gets transferred to another bus or just deregistered to get the COE rebate. In fact if I was not wrong, PA4318M had a COE expiry of 2017, and its gone now.
Originally posted by SBS351M:Still doesn't change the fact that those chinese buses are largely gone. Won't be surprised if the COE gets transferred to another bus or just deregistered to get the COE rebate. In fact if I was not wrong, PA4318M had a COE expiry of 2017, and its gone now.
It just keeps me thinking that they are retiring the King Longs much earlier as they come near to COE expiry...most of them don't even survive past 10 years.
Originally posted by Gus.chong:It just keeps me thinking that they are retiring the King Longs much earlier as they come near to COE expiry...most of them don't even survive past 10 years.
They are cheap, but thats it.
Of course everyone wants cheap and good, preferably European makes at a cheap price, but thats not easy to find for private bus operators who can't buy the required amount for the prices to go down.
There is also Australian King Long and Yutong low floor SDs too..Seriously I don't mind if they use Cummins or Scania engine but not their own China engine.
Originally posted by carbikebus:There is also Australian King Long and Yutong low floor SDs too..Seriously I don't mind if they use Cummins or Scania engine but not their own China engine.
If charter rates are as high as Australian rates, then maybe that would help with the maintenance, furthermore those buses would already have to pass ADRs before being allowed to be registered. So yes they are cheaper than Australian bodied ones, but they are still more expensive than the Chinese buses here.
Most of the Chinese buses here use Cummins. I don't think there are any Weichai or Yuchai engined ones registered yet but I am hearing that a distributor is bringing in one of those on a Higer Midibus. However, the Cummins engine used on China made minibuses, the ISF, is made in China by Foton Cummins.
A 222 at Bedok Stn takes 2 minutes to only UNLOAD.
LOADING could ONLY take place AFTER unloading since the staircase effectively blocked off access to pretty much the entire bus. That took around 1 minute.
In total, three minutes wasted. Bendies wont take as long believe me.
Originally posted by SMB128B:A 222 at Bedok Stn takes 2 minutes to only UNLOAD.
LOADING could ONLY take place AFTER unloading since the staircase effectively blocked off access to pretty much the entire bus. That took around 1 minute.
In total, three minutes wasted. Bendies wont take as long believe me.
Originally posted by A Bus Observer:
yup n thats why u need 3 door dds with 2 staircase... the adl is better as there is a door at the back altho it is sligjtly longer. as flr the man, interestijg design n slightly shorter but wont encoirage ppl to move to v back because theres no door at the back.. if man can make a 3 door with door at back, pretty sure they will get the tender.
The ADL will take longer than the MAN concept bus to unload, as the rear stair coverage area (ie which pax at which seat will use which stairs) is poorer than the MAN concept as it is all the way to the rear. The ADL may clear lower deck pax faster, but whats the point when its the upper deck pax slowing down the unloading (ie upper deck flow is the critical flow, not lower deck). The MAN rear stair is nearer to the middle which means more pax will notice the stairs there and will use it due to it being closer.
That said, a commercially available product called the bendy bus is already here for decades to solve such issues. Easier to just buy and use a bendy.
12.8/13m some routes ain't suitable and if the BCs is not careful end up many sideswap or mount over kerb cases..Bus stops exiting also need extra careful.Why don't they try something like the 12.5m Bustech CDi?Rear big door place in centre..
Originally posted by SBS351M:The ADL will take longer than the MAN concept bus to unload, as the rear stair coverage area (ie which pax at which seat will use which stairs) is poorer than the MAN concept as it is all the way to the rear. The ADL may clear lower deck pax faster, but whats the point when its the upper deck pax slowing down the unloading (ie upper deck flow is the critical flow, not lower deck). The MAN rear stair is nearer to the middle which means more pax will notice the stairs there and will use it due to it being closer.
That said, a commercially available product called the bendy bus is already here for decades to solve such issues. Easier to just buy and use a bendy.
Originally posted by carbikebus:12.8/13m some routes ain't suitable and if the BCs is not careful end up many sideswap or mount over kerb cases..Bus stops exiting also need extra careful.Why don't they try something like the 12.5m Bustech CDi?Rear big door place in centre..
Originally posted by carbikebus:12.8/13m some routes ain't suitable and if the BCs is not careful end up many sideswap or mount over kerb cases..Bus stops exiting also need extra careful.Why don't they try something like the 12.5m Bustech CDi?Rear big door place in centre..
The Bustech has a lot of tyre wear and tear at the front, the only reason why there is a twin steer is to circumvent the weird axle limits in Australia, which allowed it to be the only new double decker in Australia until recently, when the A95 got approved. I suspect because the A95 is light enough to meet the existing Australian axle limits.
Whereas, the bendy buses, especially the A24, has proven to be as good as 12m single deckers at turning, otherwise they wouldn't be deployed on 858. The Citaro G and O.405Gs however, have a longer front section, which makes it a bit more difficult to turn in the same circumstances. Not sure about other brands.
Agreed. In fact, not all services with DDs take long to unload/load at certain stops when there are more people boarding than alighting. Even before the bus stops the alighting passengers are already on the stairs
Originally posted by SMB1368T:Agreed. In fact, not all services with DDs take long to unload/load at certain stops when there are more people boarding and alighting. Even before the bus stops the alighting passengers are already on the stairs
Originally posted by A Bus Observer:
for adl front stair boarding only. middle door is alighting for lower deck last stair alighting, pax can choose to go to lower deck or exit. forthe last door, a slighlty larger single door can alrdy sinc doubke take more space. alighting, can merge pax alighting from lower deck and upper deck to one single door. for the starting of course some will try to alight from front stair, but after a while thry will kno to wlight from back stair... take the dl05 as an eg bendy for the rear, got quite a bit of space, usually when i spot. only maybe 20% get to see a fully squeesy one.
That is the ideal situation, which will never happen in real life, people will still alight from the front stairs. Furthermore, asking passengers from the front of the upper deck to use the rear stairs of the ADL makes unloading even longer, as the passenger will need to walk the whole length of the bus (bearing in mind the bus is longer) to reach the stairs. It will be worse than the current 12m DDs at time taken to clear the load.
Not all are like that, especially the expressway services
Originally posted by SMB1368T:Agreed. In fact, not all services with DDs take long to unload/load at certain stops when there are more people boarding than alighting. Even before the bus stops the alighting passengers are already on the stairs
At busy stops, it typically takes at least 2 mins for a packed DD to just unload passengers. Thats the same amount of time taken for a bendy to load and unload their pax, actually, bendy buses sometimes does it faster at as fast as 1 min 20 secs. This is just assuming normal unloading and loading at busy stops.
Full load unloading and loading (ie fresh load of passengers) eg at Clementi MRT/NP/SIM, DDs can take more than 5 mins, partly because they sit at the bus stop for so long that more pax stream in to try and (often unsuccessfully) board the bus. In those situations, 2 to 3 mins for a bendy bus max.
This is also a reason why most BRTs around the world opt for bendy or even bi-articulated buses, they are an efficient people mover that is the bus product closest to a metro train in terms of efficiency.
Originally posted by SMB1368T:Not all are like that, especially the expressway services
Again, I refer you to one of my earlier posts, which I said:
"As for 168, if you noticed my posts, unlike the double deck purists who say that bendies should be all gone, I have never said that double deckers are unsuitable for all routes, what is needed are suitable buses for different routes."
Originally posted by SBS351M:Sorry there was a typo, I meant 2006 King Longs, which have reached the 10 year COE period. How many of them were extended for another 10 years allowed by their lifespan:
While I don't have an official list of how many King Longs registered 2006 and before, I do have a unofficial spotting list of all the King Longs I have spotted that were registered 2006 and before:
PA4318M King Long XMQ6778B King Long LKLR1CS953A000002 2003 15-Nov-03 PA6423D King Long XMQ6127C King Long LKLR1KSN96B602052 2006 29-Sep-06 PA4759Z Suzhou King Long KLQ6720B1 Higer LKLS1CS624A200635 2004 12-Jul-04 PA5302B Suzhou King Long KLQ6720B1 Higer LKLS1CS654A201990 2005 12-Apr-05 PA5388D Suzhou King Long KLQ6720B1 Higer LKLS1CS644A201995 2005 31-May-05 PA5493H Suzhou King Long KLQ6720B1 Higer LKLS1CS635A120665 2005 23-Jul-05 PA5800E Suzhou King Long KLQ6720B1 Higer LKLS1CS6X5A120923 2005 17-Dec-05 PA6029J Suzhou King Long KLQ6118Q Higer LKLR1HSJ65A200767 2005 13-Apr-06 PA6030D Suzhou King Long KLQ6118Q Higer LKLR1HSJ25A200765 2005 13-Apr-06 PA6348M Suzhou King Long KLQ6720B1 Higer LKLS1CS645A120979 2005 12-Sep-06 PA6376G Suzhou King Long KLQ6840 Higer LKLR1DSB86B002494 2006 19-Sep-06 PA6389U Suzhou King Long KLQ6840 Higer LKLR1DSBX6B002495 2006 29-Sep-06 PC1000M King Long XMQ6127C King Long LKLR1KSN26B602054 2006 29-Sep-06 PC5000L King Long XMQ6127C King Long LKLR1KSN96B602049 2006 29-Sep-06 PC5554E King Long XMQ6127C King Long LKLR1KSN56B602047 2006 29-Sep-06 PH1212S King Long XMQ6778B King Long LKLR1CS993A282001 2004 1-Jul-05
Note that PC5554E (former PA6418U) has been replaced by a newer Chinese bus made in 2014.
Of this list only 4 buses (PA6423D, PA6029J, PC1000M, PC5000L) remain in service, though out of these 4, only 6029 has its COE extended to 2021, the rest will have their COE expire at the end of this month and there is no way to tell whether they will be extended or not. I think it is quite fair to statistically extrapolate it to the actual number of buses, as these are random spottings that I have made over the past 7 years.
this does not mean that there are issue with the buses... there is the LTA ETS scheme as well which allow CAT C vehicles to deregister early to replace with new Euro 5 vehicles with rebate in COE....the take up rate is very high and maybe these buses are under the ETS...
further, with rising COE price (as compare to the cheaper China buses price), it will be better for the bus operators to get new MIC buses instead of renewing COE (esp with rising road tax and insurance cost for older buses).
further, do u see these buses being replaced with new MAN/MB/Scania/Volvo or other european buses?
stats from one motoring on no of china buses.
2005
FOTON - zero
GOLDEN DRAGON - zero
HIGER -zero
JOYLONG -zero
KING LONG -23 buses
SUNLONG- zero
YUTONG -zero
ZHONG TONG-zero
2015
FOTON - 61
GOLDEN DRAGON - 403
HIGER -182
JOYLONG -88
KING LONG - 524
SUNLONG- 75
YUTONG -265
ZHONG TONG- 68.
Toyota have the greatest number increase in buses fleet in singapore over 10 year, but guess mostly are mini buses...
Originally posted by SBS351M:At busy stops, it typically takes at least 2 mins for a packed DD to just unload passengers. Thats the same amount of time taken for a bendy to load and unload their pax, actually, bendy buses sometimes does it faster at as fast as 1 min 20 secs. This is just assuming normal unloading and loading at busy stops.
Full load unloading and loading (ie fresh load of passengers) eg at Clementi MRT/NP/SIM, DDs can take more than 5 mins, partly because they sit at the bus stop for so long that more pax stream in to try and (often unsuccessfully) board the bus. In those situations, 2 to 3 mins for a bendy bus max.
This is also a reason why most BRTs around the world opt for bendy or even bi-articulated buses, they are an efficient people mover that is the bus product closest to a metro train in terms of efficiency.
Originally posted by SBS351M:2 bendies vs 3 DDs can alight assuming the same space, and this brings us to the following example I have posted before:
Based on the absolute space taken, the DDs win, but a stationary bus is a sitting duck. When you take into account of the flow, you will realise more pax can be cleared with a bendy.
Based on observations, bendies take less than half the time of DDs dwelling at busy bus stops, having similar and significant boarding and alighting activities. Using simple, easy to calculate numbers, the calculation is as follows:
In a given 6 minutes time frame, and 36 m space. As you have said 3 DDs OR 2 bendies can fit into the space. But lets simply assume a bendy takes half the time (in fact, in reality, more often than not it takes less than half) of a DD. And for simplicity sake, lets assume a double deck takes 3 mins (at stops like NP and SIM, 5 mins is not unheard of), and a bendy takes 1.5 mins. Ie each DD space can be used by 2 DDs in 6 mins and each bendy space can be used by 4 bendies in 6 mins.
You could fit 3 DDs x 2 buses per space OR 2 bendies x 4 buses per space.
So in a given 6 minutes time frame, you could fit 6 DDs OR 8 bendies.
The above calculation was deliberately made simple, but it can be extrapolated to fit different dwelling times.
The above assumes a DD takes just 3 mins while a bendy takes 2 mins. In reality, DDs can take 5 mins or more to complete boarding and alighting (see 74, 154 at NP/SIM or Clementi MRT). And also note that typically, a bendy can take in a few more people than a DD in terms of total capacity.
How about DDs where people don't move upstairs? Like DDs on 222, 291, 983 where it takes some effort for the drivers to get them upstairs, or in the case of 291, the DD is delayed such that the next bus (usually a Scania) is at waiting behind to enter the berth. Do you know that before the introduction of 983, there wasn't a need to place any staff at CCK Ave 5 (the former 300 u-turn part) to force people to move to the rear of the 300 bendy but a few days after 983's DDs were introduced, during the morning peak, staff have to be deployed to force people to go upstairs? Waste of resources as the staff could be used for other things like controlling buses at the interchange.
How sure are you that passengers can't hear a bus driver shouting on a bendy when usually you will be able to hear the commotion even when sitting at the last row of a bendy, maybe you don't sit there often so you won't know.
last time already ask u how many bus stops will have such significant boarding/alighting activities but u cant answer.
you have mention SIM/NP/Clementi Mrt bus stops.. what about other bus stops whereby the whole bus load of paxes will alight and another whole bus load will board? cant find much also, except for some MRT station bus stops (but mostly it is either alighting or boarding, seldom will have whole bus load alighting then another bus load board)
For clementi mrt bus stops, not all bus services have significant boarding /alighting activities also, (maybe 154 some trips/some timing, 184 some trips/some timing)... pls do not tell me that every single trips of 184 bendy will have 100 paxes alighing at the bus stop...
for NP/Sim, if during am peak, mostly will be alighting only. while for afternoon trips, mostly will be boarding (alighting still have, but not the entire bus load).. so basically, the dwelling time should be the same for alighting during AM (or lesser for DDs).. (assuming u have 3 DDs unloading 300 ppl together compare with 2 bendies unloading 200), or if compare boarding activities during PM, 3 DDs will have less dwell time for boarding compare to 2 Bendies...
we still haven compare those bus stops for which 2 DDs can do boarding/alighting, but only one bendy can do boarding/alighting.. (esp for boarding situation only). 2 DDs can board together (assume no alighting) and carry 200 paxes in 3 mins? while one bendy can only carry 100paxes in 3 mins (since only one door for boarding)..
in your example above, you have assume that DDs have double alighting time as compare to Bendies... but in reality, is it really double the time whereby paxes can also alight using front entrance (so 2 exit for DD compare to 3 exit for bendies).
Bendies have its own usefulness, but in Singapore, space is an issue..
to park 300 bendies in a depot, need 50% more space than to park 300 DDs...same go for interchange...
LTA should throw some DDs on those intratown/SMRT feeders to see whether paxes will go upper deck or not since SMRT is now using their MAN A24 on long haul route instead of feeder/intratown...
Originally posted by SBS351M:More people do indeed go to the back of a bendy bus than to the upper deck of a double deck, especially for shorter journeys. It is also easier to get drivers to ask passengers move to the rear on bendy buses than to the upper deck of a double deck. That is the general observation, you don't believe then go and make another observation.
Common sense will also tell you that people will prefer to move in on a bendy where they don't have to climb any stairs than a double deck where they have to climb a narrow set of stairs. Also because of this set of stairs on the DD, things get slowed down, even with a second set of stairs and 3rd set of doors on the DD, it will still be slower than a bendy as the stairs are narrow such that people can only form one file to leave the upper deck, plus the fact that people have to watch their steps when going down stairs, its all slower than on a bendy, where people just walk direct to the door to exit.
The reason why the bus transport hasn't improved significantly despite pumping so many buses is because there are too many double decks around, and alot of them are doing roles that are not suited for them. Bendy buses will speed up things and improve reliability and both passenger and traffic flows around busy bus stops. Singapore is just too dense a city for us to have double deckers choking up the roads. The general consensus around the world supports my view that bendy buses are more efficient people movers than double deckers.
* Drifting from bendy/DD topic to SD/DD topic *
A crowded SD often gets more delayed than a DD bus. Observe this very frequently on SBS feeders/intratowns that have mix of both.
Reason is simple:
If SD has around 70 pax on it and packed to door, people will find it very difficult to find their way to exit. Also until people alight and BC asks people to move in, people cannot board.
This is different when a DD say is carrying 90 pax. People can easily alight while others can board from front door.
For trunk services, this gets even worse due to distance. Hence, we always complain that how DD follow SD. It is because the SD slowed down drastically during peak hours loading/unloading and then the DD behind catches up.
Originally posted by SBS351M:2 bendies vs 3 DDs can alight assuming the same space, and this brings us to the following example I have posted before:
Based on the absolute space taken, the DDs win, but a stationary bus is a sitting duck. When you take into account of the flow, you will realise more pax can be cleared with a bendy.
Based on observations, bendies take less than half the time of DDs dwelling at busy bus stops, having similar and significant boarding and alighting activities. Using simple, easy to calculate numbers, the calculation is as follows:
In a given 6 minutes time frame, and 36 m space. As you have said 3 DDs OR 2 bendies can fit into the space. But lets simply assume a bendy takes half the time (in fact, in reality, more often than not it takes less than half) of a DD. And for simplicity sake, lets assume a double deck takes 3 mins (at stops like NP and SIM, 5 mins is not unheard of), and a bendy takes 1.5 mins. Ie each DD space can be used by 2 DDs in 6 mins and each bendy space can be used by 4 bendies in 6 mins.
You could fit 3 DDs x 2 buses per space OR 2 bendies x 4 buses per space.
So in a given 6 minutes time frame, you could fit 6 DDs OR 8 bendies.
The above calculation was deliberately made simple, but it can be extrapolated to fit different dwelling times.
The above assumes a DD takes just 3 mins while a bendy takes 2 mins. In reality, DDs can take 5 mins or more to complete boarding and alighting (see 74, 154 at NP/SIM or Clementi MRT). And also note that typically, a bendy can take in a few more people than a DD in terms of total capacity.
How about DDs where people don't move upstairs? Like DDs on 222, 291, 983 where it takes some effort for the drivers to get them upstairs, or in the case of 291, the DD is delayed such that the next bus (usually a Scania) is at waiting behind to enter the berth. Do you know that before the introduction of 983, there wasn't a need to place any staff at CCK Ave 5 (the former 300 u-turn part) to force people to move to the rear of the 300 bendy but a few days after 983's DDs were introduced, during the morning peak, staff have to be deployed to force people to go upstairs? Waste of resources as the staff could be used for other things like controlling buses at the interchange.
How sure are you that passengers can't hear a bus driver shouting on a bendy when usually you will be able to hear the commotion even when sitting at the last row of a bendy, maybe you don't sit there often so you won't know.
I absolutely disagree. DDs on 222 and 291 have a lot of people on upper deck. In fact, 222 DDs from Chai Chee are almost full upper deck. Same for 291 DDs during peak hours. Those taking bus at st 32/33 or st 8183 end up going upper deck.
For that matter, look at one of shortest routes 225G and 225W. They have pax going upper deck. I had posted upper deck full pics of both the services as well. It is just a mindset change in SMRT area, which slowly will improve.
Also, why do you think 13A has DDs deployed even though it is only 2-3 stops from Bishan St 22 to Bishan MRT. It is because people go upper deck and 13A DDs can take in 80-90 pax easily during peak hours.