View source for SgWiki:Citaro Classification (Poll/Discussion)

__NOTOC__
{| class="warning_red" style="margin:0 auto 10px;width:60%" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0
!width=70 height=50 bgcolor=#FEE rowspan=2|<div class="triangle">!</div>
!style="font-size:150%;"|<u>POLL ENDED</u>
!width=70 height=50 bgcolor=#FEE rowspan=2|<div class="triangle">!</div>
|-
|style="text-align:center"|<big>The poll had been closed.</big>
|}

To all existing active editor,

I had received feedback on classification on Citaro Batch on my user page. However, I would like to hear the opinion of the editor on how to amend the current classification to suit the actual situation.

The issues to the current classification is:
* Do the SBS Transit Citaro Batch 2 consist of the additional 24 Citaro registered in 2015 or should it be in Batch 3.
* As we are transiting to Bus Contracting Model (BCM), the future SMRT Citaro may be leased out. To simplify and standardise information, should we create a new Batch identification regardless of the interior of the Citaro?

Please share your honest opinion below so that all editors could conclude with a common definition of the batches.

=Result=
==Point 1==
The 24 Citaro that was registered in 2015 will now be considered as SBS Transit Batch 2 instead of SBS Transit Batch 3. This make the total order for Batch 2 to be '''474'''.

==Point 2==
With all user objected to classify it as one model regardless of operator(s) purchased despite now in BCM, with SMRT using SBS Transit spec buses and SBS Transit using SMRT spec buses, the following classification will be implemented.
* SMRT Demonstrator --> Demonstrator
* SMRT Batch 1 --> Batch SMRT
* SMRT Batch 2 --> Batch SMRT
* No changes to SBS Transit Batches.

The reason for merging of SMRT Batches 1 and 2 into 1 Batch as both batches have no major differences and the period of registration is close enough to merge into a single batch.

This is to prevent confusion should either the following conditions were met:
* If SMRT received SBS Transit Batch 1 or Batch 2 Citaro (leased) for BCM; or
* If SBS Transit received SMRT Batch 1 or Batch 2 Citaro (leased) for BCM.

This is to remove the duplicate of displaying multiple of the same batch in a given deployment row. The reason for not using 1A/1B/2A/2B in batch naming as it was difficult for non-editor to differentiate between the differences of A and B spec buses and to prevent another debates on which operators spec should be classified as A or B.

=Opinion=
==Opinion #1 - Thefoodie==
Hi,<br />
Although I am do not really know about buses, but i think that SMRT's & SBS's Citaros should be listed separately, as what it is now. Although they may be leased out in future, their interior specifications bear major differences. As for the on going BCM/GCM, LTA is tapping onto SBS's orders not SMRT's. If we list them as Batch 1/2/3/4 together, It may confuse editors in such a way that they may think that the buses have minor differences in interior/exterior specifications. However, I think that the pages should be renamed such as. SMRT's Citaro Batch 1, SBS Transit's Citaro Batch 1/2/3 to reduce any confusion
<br />Thanks & Regards.

==Opinion #2 - Wekelwrady==
Hi, <br>
Although I also do not know much about buses, here is another different opinion of mine. Since the SMB registered Citaros have a very low chance of being BCM buses, it may be pointless just to include them in the batches. LTA is using the SBST Citaros as BCM buses, in which some of them have gone to TTS and GA-Singapore, and currently SG plated Citaros are being imported under BCM to different companies, but the SMB Citaros remain in SMRT as of now. Since LTA is also using only SBST Citaros and SG plated Citaros for airport services, without the presence of SMB Citaros, it may be more obvious of LTA not using SMB Citaros as BCM. Put the SBST and SG plated Citaros in batch numbers, while the SMB Citaros be allocated the title of "SMB Batch". So here is an idea of my suggested content and titles.

The SMB Citaros should be allocated this page with new and more obvious identifications of the SMB Batch Citaros.

'''Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (SMB Batch)''' 

Demonstrator--- SMB136C 

SMB Batch A--- SMB139U - SMB148T

SMB Batch B--- SMB149R - SMB188C


While for the SBS/SG Citaros, there may be not much of a minor change. 

'''Mercedes Benz O530 Citaro (Batch 1)'''

Batch 1 - SBS6000L - SBS6168L, SBS6170D - SBS6176M, SBS6178H - SBS6235B, SBS6237X - SBS6240K, SBS6242E - SBS6244A, SBS6246U - SBS6249L, SBS6251D - SBS6254X, SBS6256R, SBS6270Z - SBS6272T, SBS6275K, SBS6276H, SBS6280U, SBS6281S, SBS6285G, SBS6300X - SBS6341C

'''Mercedes Benz O530 Citaro (Batch 2)'''

Batch 2 - SBS6342A - SBS6508P, SBS6530Z - SBS6549X, SBS6600E - SBS6818U, SBS6822G - SBS6865H

'''Mercedes Benz O530 Citaro (Batch 3)'''

Batch 3 - SBS2000M – SBS2004C, SBS6509L – SBS6529D, SBS6550R – SBS6599B, SBS6819S – SBS6821J, SBS6866E – SBS6893B, SG1000G – SG1071B, SG1080A – SG1245S, SG1691L – SG1699R


I am not sure about the 24 Citaro issue, but I think that there is a need to seperate the Batch 3 Citaros into two batches, as the range of registration is quite long and there are too many buses on the B3 page.
Thank you and regards.

SGT22:07, 28 Dec 2017

==Opinion #3 - SMB315C==
Hi all.

1. Do the SBS Transit Citaro Batch 2 consist of the additional 24 Citaro registered in 2015 or should it be in Batch 3?
:In my opinion, these 24 additional citaros '''should be part of the Batch 2 instead of Batch 3''', although the chassis numbers may be slightly different from both batches. Since 
:* SBS6819S - SBS6821J are registered in 7 Nov 2014,
:* SBS6509D - SBS6521A are registered in 1 Dec 2014 (together with SBS6501H - SBS6508P, which are under Batch 2),
:* SBS6522Y - SBS6525P, SBS6528G are registered in 2 Jan 2015 (together with SBS6822G - SBS6829M, which are under Batch 2),
:* SBS6526L, SBS6527J, SBS6529D are registered in 2 Feb 2015 (together with SBS6530Z - SBS6533R, SBS6838L - SBS6841B, which are under Batch 2),
:* SBS6846M - SBS6850A are registered in 9 Mar 2015 (which are under Batch 3).

:The registration gap (2 Feb 2015 & 9 Mar 2015) may also mean that they are under different batches. And the 24 Citaros are registered in a way that they are grouped together with the Batch 2 buses.

2. As we are transiting to Bus Contracting Model (BCM), the future SMRT Citaro may be leased out. To simplify and standardise information, should we create a new Batch identification regardless of the interior of the Citaro?
:If that's the case, it would be neater if we classify the SMRT-spec & SBST-spec in this way:
:{| class="toccolours" border="1" cellpadding="3" style="border-collapse:collapse"
|-
!Variant
!Registration no.
|-
|Demonstrator
|SMB136C
|-
|Batch 1A
|SMB139U - SMB148T
|-
|Batch 1B
|SBS6000L - SBS6168L, SBS6170D - SBS6176M, SBS6178H - SBS6235B, SBS6237X - SBS6240K, SBS6242E - SBS6244A, SBS6246U - SBS6249L, SBS6251D - SBS6254X, SBS6256R, SBS6270Z - SBS6272T, SBS6275K, SBS6276H, SBS6280U, SBS6281S, SBS6285G & SBS6300X - SBS6341C
|-
|Batch 2A
|SMB149R - SMB188C
|-
|Batch 2B
|SBS6342A - SBS6549X, SBS6600E - SBS6821J & SBS6822G - SBS6865H
|-
|rowspan="3"|Batch 3
|SBS2000M - SBS2004C, SBS6550R - SBS6599B & SBS6866E - SBS6893B
|-
|SG1000G – SG1071B, SG1080A – SG1245S & SG1691L – SG1699R
|}

==Opinion #4 - Razerboii==
Hi All,

* Q1) Do the SBS Transit Citaro Batch 2 consist of the additional 24 Citaro registered in 2015 or should it be in Batch 3?

These are my views on the registration
<br/>
* Batch 2 remains at '''450''' buses<br>
- Normal: SBS6600E - SBS6818U, SBS6822G - SBS6865H<br>
- BSEP: SBS6342A - SBS6508P, SBS6530Z - SBS6549X<br>
<br/>
* Batch 3 final tally is '''354''' buses<br>
[SBS registered]<br>
- Normal: SBS6819S - SBS6821J, SBS6866E - SBS6893B°°<br>
- BSEP: SBS2000M - SBS2004C, SBS6509L - SBS6529D, SBS6550R - SBS6599B°°<br>
<br/>
[SG registered]<br/>
- Inherited: SG1000G, SG1147S - SG1245S**<br/>
- BSEP: SG1080A - SG1146U<br/>
- LTA separate order: SG1001D - SG1071B, SG1691L - SG1699R<br/>

Initially 330 (250 SBST ordered + 80 LTA ordered), but to me there was an unannounced 24 additional buses procured by either SBST or LTA for novated BSEP batch 3.

°°''As per the press release in Xmas 2015.''<br/>
^^''SBS6509L - SBS6529D, SBS6819S - SBS6821J are part of Batch 3 by looking at the VINs as per what user Scania said last year.''

* Q2) As we are transiting to Bus Contracting Model (BCM), the future SMRT Citaro may be leased out. To simplify and standardise information, should we create a new Batch identification regardless of the interior of the Citaro?

On my views regarding this, its best to keep them separate, as they have a vast different in interior but similsr specifications anyway even though future bus companies will get them second hand in the future.

I would suggest the following allocations

'''Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (SMRT spec)''' 

Demonstrator--- SMB136C 

SMRT batch 1--- SMB139U - SMB148T

SMRT batch 2 --- SMB149R - SMB188C

'''Mercedes Benz O530 Citaro (SBST spec Batch 1)'''

Batch 1 - SBS6000L - SBS6168L, SBS6170D - SBS6176M, SBS6178H - SBS6235B, SBS6237X - SBS6240K, SBS6242E - SBS6244A, SBS6246U - SBS6249L, SBS6251D - SBS6254X, SBS6256R, SBS6270Z - SBS6272T, SBS6275K, SBS6276H, SBS6280U, SBS6281S, SBS6285G, SBS6300X - SBS6341C

'''Mercedes Benz O530 Citaro (SBST spec Batch 2)'''

Batch 2 - SBS6342A - SBS6508P, SBS6530Z - SBS6549X, SBS6600E - SBS6818U, SBS6822G - SBS6865H

'''Mercedes Benz O530 Citaro (SBST spec Batch 3)'''

Batch 3 - SBS2000M – SBS2004C, SBS6509L – SBS6529D, SBS6550R – SBS6599B, SBS6819S – SBS6821J, SBS6866E – SBS6893B, SG1000G – SG1071B, SG1080A – SG1245S, SG1691L – SG1699R

==Applicant's Skeletal Arguments (ASA1234)==

As I am the applicant with regards to the matter of re-classifying 24 Citaros as under Batch 2 instead of under Batch 3, I will put forward my written submissions in support of my position on this issue. I should state at the outset that I agree with the respondent in "Opinion 2" that the 51 Citaros purchased by SMRT should be listed in a single page as "SMB Batch". The 51 Citaros are all under the same order as established since 2011.

As a preliminary point, there is another sub-issue arising from the outcome of reclassification. I would first state that if the 24 Citaros are under Batch 3, I disagree that SBS6509L to SBS6529D and SBS6819S to SBS6821J should be the ones classified under Batch 3. I will elaborate on this sub-issue later.

For starters, this is the second time there is a debate on the issue of classification; the first was back in November 2015 [http://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:ASA1234&direction=prev&oldid=332043#Mercedes-Benz_O530_Citaro_Batch_3]. There, I initially disagreed with the argument that Batch 2 have 24 extra buses on some (possibly overlapping) grounds that:

*The initial total number of buses for Batch 2 is 450 [http://www.sbstransit.com.sg/press/2012-07-09-01.aspx], and the quota had been reached ''exactly'', unlike the precedent of MAN NL323F (Batch 2) buses which the learned administrator cited as an example. I would add that, even the Batch 3 Volvo B9TL Wrights also reached the initial total of 550 at one point [https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Volvo_B9TL_(Wright_Eclipse_Gemini_2)_(Batch_3)] (there are 119 BSEP Wrights from Batch 3 back in 2015), but there are unfilled gaps at that time. This is unlike the case when the quota for Batch 2 hits exactly 450 where there are no gaps in registration numbers.
*In an earlier debate back in May 2015 [https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Apex-LW%2721&direction=next&oldid=305377#Mercedes-Benz_O530_Citaro_new_batches], there was an issue as to whether some of the current Batch 3 Citaros can be classified as under Batch 3 since they were registered in April and May 2015, when the official press release from SBS Transit stated that they would only be delivered from mid-2015 [http://www.sbstransit.com.sg/press/2014-07-01-02.aspx]. Based on the outcome of the debate (and what is being reflected on the deployment pages), it seems to be accepted by most parties that deliveries of buses can actually begin much ahead of schedule, for practical reasons (which I will say no more). I relied on this argument to try to argue (what I viewed this argument currently as) that there is no rational justification in drawing a distinction between the 24 extra buses and those SBS-regoed Batch 3 Citaros. This argument does not seem to have much effect as it is not being addressed. However, the link to the May 2015 debate has a crucial bearing on the sub-issue which I highlighted in my 2nd paragraph above.
*I also relied on the argument about jumping chassis numbers between batches, which is also raised in the May 2015 issue, though I did not cite very persuasive figures and examples and hence the argument failed.

In the end, we decided to adjourn the matter and bring it up again once the Euro V Citaros completed their registration in 2016/2017 (and as you all know, they have all been registered before 1st January 2018 because of the new Euro VI requirement for vehicles). Having come to this stage, I shall now put forward my arguments on why I am taking a different position from that in November 2015:

*I agree with the learned administrator on the suggestion that SBS Transit exercised its option to include 24 extra Citaros. [http://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:ASA1234&direction=prev&oldid=332043#Mercedes-Benz_O530_Citaro_Batch_3] This is largely in similar terms to the case of Volvo B9TL Wrights where there is an extra 15 buses for Batch 3, though that has been reported by both SBS Transit [http://www.sbstransit.com.sg/press/2015-05-20-01.aspx], Volvo and Wrightbus unlike the present case of Citaros. This argument is probably bolstered by some of my following arguments.
*It has been reported from reliable sources that LTA had procured 80 Citaros for the purposes of BCM, as well as 176 Wrights, even long before the registrations are complete. When this is viewed in light of the fact that the total number of Citaros for Batch 3 (minus the disputed 24 buses), there would be exactly 330 Citaros (250 being part of the July 2014 order by SBS Transit and 80 Citaros, as mentioned earlier, were bought by LTA).
*I note that in the press release for Volvo B9TL Wrights, there may be some suggestions that the 15 extra buses are for Batch 4 instead of Batch 3, but nothing turns on that as the registration frequency and rego series proved otherwise. To me, it seems that I should likewise give the benefit of the doubt in respect of these 24 buses to Batch 2 (given how SBS Transit ordered an extra 15 Wrights between 2012 and 2014 before they announced the July 2014 order).

I now come to the sub-issue: '''assuming Batch 2 does indeed have only 450 buses, is the claim that SBS6509L to SBS6529D and SBS6819S to SBS6821J belongs to Batch 3 correct in principle and logic?''' I would argue that this is wrong, which is reinforced by my perusal of the past debates.

*The reliance on the chassis numbers is effectively a red herring. For starters, it has never been an established rule that batches of buses are being classified according to chassis numbers. Reliance on chassis numbers to classify batches may in fact cause regos to jump here and there, which can be even more complicated given now the buses are being distributed across companies who would be operating the bus packages. Furthermore, having applied this principle on the Citaros, the editor should have similarly applied the principle to the Volvo B9TL Wrights (although I acknowledge that this would require a substantial amount of manpower resources). But I do not see any suggestion or any issue about the Volvo B9TL Wrights's chassis numbers being examined for the past year. The application of this principle seems to me as a biased scenario just to fill in the gaps. 
*Some of the regos from the abovementioned ranges are effectively the same examples which were raised in the May 2015 debate. While the sub-issue has been first raised only in August 2016 and I do not know how it would suddenly come across to the topic starter that this is the case, but having regard to the issue about biased application of principle in my previous paragraph, I would still somewhat be drawn to the inference that it was merely selected just to fill in the gaps.
*I had also done a check with regards to the registration dates of the abovementioned Citaros. Among them, what is significant is that SBS6509L to SBS6521A is in fact registered with SBS6501H to SBS6508P on the same day. I had searched across precedents for the past 10 years and never have I encountered a case where buses of a similar model from two different batches would be registered in a consecutive manner on the same day. It is really a case of incongruity even if I were to take the chassis numbers into account, not to mention the strange scenario of several regos being taken out of their consecutive ranges.

I would therefore submit that, Batch 2 most likely have 474 buses, but more importantly, I would urge that SBS6509L to SBS6529D and SBS6819S to SBS6821J should be classified as Batch 2 for the reasons stated above.

Post-script: I am in the midst of preparing my written submissions before Opinions 3 and 4 come out. I would agree with Opinion 3 with regards to the issue of 24 buses for Batch 2 since our reasons are largely similar.

==Opinion #5 - SBS9631X==

My main issue with the suggested classification is the classification of the SMB-regged Citaros. 

It makes no sense to me to - classify those SMB-regged Citaros as Batch 1, while the "existing Batch 1 Citaros" (the SBS6000L bunch) becomes classified as Batch 2. 

Because simply put while it's true that the first few SMB-regged Citaros are registered first compared to the SBST ones, 

To both companies, their own respective Citaros are counted as the Batch 1 Citaros they brought in. (ie. SMRT would classify their SMB139U - SMB148T as their Batch 1s, while SBST would classify their own SBS6000L - SBS6285G bunch as their own Batch 1s as well)

So if you want to lump the SMB139U bunch together with the SBS6000L bunch, then you should do so with the Batch 1A / 1B naming. 

Or, just state them as Batch 1 (SBST spec) & Batch 1 (SMRT spec). 

Just don't re-classify the current SBST Batch 1 Citaros as Batch 2s, because that would affect every single batch naming that comes after that.

Add on - looking at the replies above mine, the closest I can find is what 'SMB315C' suggested. His classification in the boxes is exactly what I'm suggesting

==Opinion #6 - TIB965Z==

I feel that the SMRT and SBST speced Citaros should be classified separately. The current classification is good enough, and since SMRT and SBST had "different choices" of purchasing them, I feel that it is best to leave it as they are. While for the SBST classification of the 24 citaros, shall leave it to the rest.

==Opinion #7 - LEMON1974==

Hope i am not too late... as per stated in one of my reply in Sgforum, there is a almost 1000 unit gap between the 24 units (6819-6821, 6509-6529) VIN(chassis number) , as compare to batch 2 and batch 3, unlike someone who said that the Vin for these 24 units are close to the batch 3 units.

Batch 2 Vin end at ***6634
these 24 units start at ***7655 and end at ***7678
Batch 3 Vin start at ****8566

further the engine number of these 24 units are within the range of the batch 2...  so this 24 units should be under Batch 2 (additional orders).

as for the 2nd point, best is to split the batch between SMB/SBST citaros...