User talk:Haram - Revision history

23ispolo at 18:41, 31 August 2025

2025-08-31T18:41:33Z

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 Thanks,
 [[User:Alphabetlorefan1|Alphabetlorefan1]] ([[User talk:Alphabetlorefan1|talk]]) 17 July 2024, 15:29
 == Singapore Bus Fleet ==

23ispolo: /* RE: Sengkang West Bus Depot redeployments */ new section

2025-08-31T18:40:50Z

RE: Sengkang West Bus Depot redeployments: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:40, 1 September 2025
Line 91:		Line 91:

	[[User:Supernutorcrazy\|Supernutorcrazy]] ([[User talk:Supernutorcrazy\|talk]]) 19:26, 12 August 2025 (+08)		[[User:Supernutorcrazy\|Supernutorcrazy]] ([[User talk:Supernutorcrazy\|talk]]) 19:26, 12 August 2025 (+08)

			== RE: Sengkang West Bus Depot redeployments ==

			Hi Haram,

			23ispolo here. Thank you for reaching out to me on 27 August 2025 regarding SWDEP bus deployments (particularly for MAN A95 and Volvo B9TL redeployments), and apologies for replying so late.

			I understand your point about how you suspect that the most recent redeployments involving SWDEP's A95s and B9TLs might be temporary redeployments that may not last after a month or two, let alone a week or two. I have observed SWDEP sometimes deploying a bus temporarily on another service for more than a week to replace a missing bus. For example, '''SG5515L (SWDEP 89)''' covered '''SBS3110Y''' on 80 sometime in June or July this year for around a week and a half as the latter bus ('''SBS3110Y''') had an overly vibrative and sooty engine that required fixing/overhauling.

			However, I am inclined to think that (at least most) the recent redeployments may be more permanent due to the large scale of redeployments, and the reshuffling of buses within services (e.g. 161) after being redeployed to new perm services. For example, '''SBS3217Z''' changed "perm" timings on 161 a week or two after its first consistent appearances on 161.

			That said, the large scale of the more recent SWDEP DD redeployments necessitates further close observations, as well as corroboration of information by different spotters. For example, while you have stated '''SBS3664R''' to '''SBS3666K''' as being redeployed to 89 perm based on roster, and '''SBS3921Z''' & '''SBS7702M''' being MIA from 161 recently, I still spotted '''SBS3665M''' & '''SBS7702M''' on 161 (at night) on the same blks several times over the past few weeks. However, it is possible that the buses were recently redeployed or reshuffled to different timings/blks on 161 sometime last week. I will see if I can observe 161's fleet regularly over the next few weeks to check if buses like '''SBS3665M''', '''SBS3921Z''' & '''SBS7702M''' are still on 161 (by any chance), as well as the fleets of other SWDEP services involved in the recent A95 and B9TL redeployments.

			In conclusion, I believe most of the most recent deployments are more likely to be intended as more permanent/extended redeployments that will likely last longer than a month or two, possibly for mileage purposes or the spreading out of A95s from 161 to other SWDEP services (e.g. 51 & 89). That said, I will take into account your comments on the possibly more temporary nature of SWDEP's current DD redeployments, especially since the redeployments involve buses being redeployed onto services outside their intended package (e.g. '''SBS3900J''' being likely redeployed to 161 despite being a Bedok package bus). Lastly, I shall emphasise the importance of continued observations for SWDEP's daily DD deployments in the midst of these redeployments, as well as the need to corroborate information across editors/spotters for a more complete and accurate picture of SWDEP's DD redeployments puzzle.

			Thank you for reading, and I hope my points make sense to you. Feel free to ask me more questions if needed. Thank you!

			Regards,<br>
			[[User:23ispolo\|23ispolo]] ([[User talk:23ispolo\|talk]])<br>
			02:40, 1 September 2025 (+08)

Supernutorcrazy: /* Ban Practice */

2025-08-12T11:26:48Z

Ban Practice

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:26, 12 August 2025
Line 82:		Line 82:
	As per discussion, it is aligned with the old sgWiki Buses rule - '''immediate ban for not syncing'''. There is no such thing as other editors will do it for you. This is the practice that was practiced since 2008s which majority voted for. The more forgiving ban practice was migrated, with the split of sgWiki Rail to Miraheze.		As per discussion, it is aligned with the old sgWiki Buses rule - '''immediate ban for not syncing'''. There is no such thing as other editors will do it for you. This is the practice that was practiced since 2008s which majority voted for. The more forgiving ban practice was migrated, with the split of sgWiki Rail to Miraheze.

	The first ban was applied for failure to edit Former Deployments of SG5917K from SWDEP to SWDEP 161. You had edited on 17 July 2025 at approx 11.45pm, where the ban was applied only at 18 July 2025 6.35am. There is gap of time for you to update, which 23ispolo did it for you - Hence the indefinite ban was applied. After SMB315C clarify the removal of indefinite ban policy removal (~~for~~ 2020), no further ban was applied.		The first ban was applied for failure to edit Former Deployments of SG5917K from SWDEP to SWDEP 161. You had edited on 17 July 2025 at approx 11.45pm, where the ban was applied only at 18 July 2025 6.35am. There is gap of time for you to update, which 23ispolo did it for you - Hence the indefinite ban was applied. After SMB315C clarify the removal of indefinite ban policy removal (from 2020), no further ban was applied.

	The second ban was applied for failure to edit SBS3696Z for former deployment of changes for SBS3128Y and SBS3696Z from SWDEP to SWDEP 25 at 28 July 2025 at 8.35am. The ban was awarded only on 28 July 2025 at 1pm, where there is gap of time for you to update. Hence the 2nd strike applied with the instruction. As there is no indication that it was immediate perm from editing comment it was assumed that SP had to be declared, on otherwise specified.		The second ban was applied for failure to edit SBS3696Z for former deployment of changes for SBS3128Y and SBS3696Z from SWDEP to SWDEP 25 at 28 July 2025 at 8.35am. The ban was awarded only on 28 July 2025 at 1pm, where there is gap of time for you to update. Hence the 2nd strike applied with the instruction. As there is no indication that it was immediate perm from editing comment it was assumed that SP had to be declared, on otherwise specified.

Supernutorcrazy at 11:26, 12 August 2025

2025-08-12T11:26:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:26, 12 August 2025
Line 76:		Line 76:

	[[User:Supernutorcrazy\|Supernutorcrazy]] ([[User talk:Supernutorcrazy\|talk]]) 06:41, 28 July 2025 (+08)		[[User:Supernutorcrazy\|Supernutorcrazy]] ([[User talk:Supernutorcrazy\|talk]]) 06:41, 28 July 2025 (+08)

			==Ban Practice==
			Hi,

			As per discussion, it is aligned with the old sgWiki Buses rule - '''immediate ban for not syncing'''. There is no such thing as other editors will do it for you. This is the practice that was practiced since 2008s which majority voted for. The more forgiving ban practice was migrated, with the split of sgWiki Rail to Miraheze.

			The first ban was applied for failure to edit Former Deployments of SG5917K from SWDEP to SWDEP 161. You had edited on 17 July 2025 at approx 11.45pm, where the ban was applied only at 18 July 2025 6.35am. There is gap of time for you to update, which 23ispolo did it for you - Hence the indefinite ban was applied. After SMB315C clarify the removal of indefinite ban policy removal (for 2020), no further ban was applied.

			The second ban was applied for failure to edit SBS3696Z for former deployment of changes for SBS3128Y and SBS3696Z from SWDEP to SWDEP 25 at 28 July 2025 at 8.35am. The ban was awarded only on 28 July 2025 at 1pm, where there is gap of time for you to update. Hence the 2nd strike applied with the instruction. As there is no indication that it was immediate perm from editing comment it was assumed that SP had to be declared, on otherwise specified.

			If you feel this rules are unfair, you are free to head over to sgWiki Miraheze or leave. I was just merely applying the rule of the great old day of sgWiki Buses (which is NOT FORGIVING).

			Regards

			[[User:Supernutorcrazy\|Supernutorcrazy]] ([[User talk:Supernutorcrazy\|talk]]) 19:26, 12 August 2025 (+08)

Supernutorcrazy at 22:41, 27 July 2025

2025-07-27T22:41:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:41, 28 July 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~=== Re: ===~~

	~~Hi,~~

	Regarding your claim, as I am in charge of the Rail section, you may need to ask the other administrator for their advices. As far as I can see, the image proof that you had shown to me was insufficient to justify a ban as
	* (1) I can't see the registration plate on the instagram picture, anyone can post a random #hashtag to justify its claim

	~~I had a fair share of mis-identifying the train car (and hence trainset) when glacing from afar, so I would not accept the picture proof.~~

	~~Regards~~

	== Recent Edits ==		== Recent Edits ==

Line 65:		Line 54:
	There are two new depots (kim chuan and lorong halus) which should be for HG-SK n serangoon/eunos package. So SWDEP most likely is for AMDEP		There are two new depots (kim chuan and lorong halus) which should be for HG-SK n serangoon/eunos package. So SWDEP most likely is for AMDEP

	==~~Buses Package Allocation vs Operator Allocation~~==		==Re: Old Page Naming==
	Hi,		Hi,

	~~It comes~~ to my attention that you had mention that buses model are splited into package allocation and operator allocation. As far as I know or observed, all buses model are now operate in package allocation, with operators holding multiple packages may request for ~~swapping of bus model between their own packages or do it illegally.~~		With regards to the purposed renaming for:
			*[[MAN NL323F (Euro VI)]] → [[MAN NL323F (Batch 4)]]
	~~Even for SMRT~~ MAN ~~NG363F, those in KJDEP are Choa Chu Kang-Bukit Panjang Package and those in WLDEP are in Woodlands Package. So SMB8022U will not even deploy on Woodlands Service and vice versa for SMB8039Y.~~		*[[Scania K230UB (Euro IV) (Batch 1)]] → [[Scania K230UB (Batch 1)]]
			*[[Scania K230UB (Euro IV) (Batch 2)]] → [[Scania K230UB (Batch 2)]]
	~~Similar for TTS, buses parked in Mandai Depot were Sembawang-Yishun allocated, and Bulim Depot are Bulim allocated, and fleet may not be operated by the other depot unless a swap occurred~~ (~~except crossover trips, which operator now try to do it within its own package because of uncertainty when the tendered duration ended~~).		*[[Scania K230UB (Euro V) (Batch 1)]] → [[Scania K230UB (Batch 3)]]
			*[[Scania K230UB (Euro V) (Batch 2)]] → [[Scania K230UB (Batch 4)]]
	So by your claim, BYD bus are package allocated and it appear to be in Sengkang Hougang package. But unfortunately, the package itself it under negotiated contract, i.e. operator they themselves can deploy from any existing non-tendered depot without restriction, if I not wrong. If not why Service 86 belongs to AMDEP instead while the rest belongs to HGDEP?		*[[MAN ND323F (Euro V) (Batch 1)]] → [[MAN ND323F (Batch 1)]]
			*[[MAN ND323F (Euro V) (Batch 2)]] → [[MAN ND323F (Batch 2)]]
			*[[MAN ND323F (Euro V) (Batch 3)]] → [[MAN ND323F (Batch 3)]]
			*[[MAN ND323F (Euro VI) (Batch 1)]] → [[MAN ND323F (Batch 4)]]
			*[[MAN ND323F (Euro VI) (Batch 2)]] → [[MAN ND323F (Batch 5)]]

	I ~~hope you~~ can ~~help me clarify this~~.		The old format does not used what you had proposed. It had long be in this title format. I can't remember the old Scania model page uses "(Euro IV Batch 1)" or "(Euro IV) (Batch 1)" for the old format. But even so, it is still minor.

	~~Thanks~~		The reason why MAN ND323F renamed to the new format is to "standardised" with Scania K230UB naming convention in 2020/2021.

	~~===Reply===~~
	~~Hi,~~

	Thanks for your clarification. However, I beg to differ. Even you had claimed that those bus that I listed for SMRT and TTS are operator assigned, but it seems to me you get it mix-up. As far as I know, there are 2 different type of contracts running - 1 is Tendered Contracts which Bulim, Loyang, Seletar, Bukit Merah, Sembawang – Yishun, Jurong West falls under. The ~~other are Negotiated Contracts which the rest of the package that falls under. Those contracts runs slightly different, but they remains the same.~~

	What you had listed to me about SMRT deploying E500s cameos on Woodlands packages are mostly from Negotiated Contracts which E500s are leased to LTA instead. The same applied to HGDEP where it was leased to LTA from SBS Transit for the two package that you had mention, which means, SBS Transit still had the say on which service operated from which.

	For tendered contracts, you would noticed that buses are now owned by LTA (for those existing SMB/SBS plated, they are sold to LTA at the start of tendered contracts for takeover), correct me if all buses had been sold, but I doubt so if not why SBS Transit open a tender for refurbishment of K230UB buses? This means it was now package-allocated.

	~~That is the~~ reason why even for TTS, you will never see a cameo from Bulim buses plying Sembawang-Yishun package (a bit rare, unless really shortage of buses) and vice-versa. To make matters worse, even TTS do repasted their Bulim buses with the Sembawang-Yishun operator stickers (so they are no longer white for Bulim and green for Sembawang-Yishun) like what they had claimed, I even do a check on it.

	New buses like the BYD are definately package allocated, which means the ownership lies fully on LTA and they are packaged based. But Sengkang-Hougang package are negotiated contracts meaning even if those buses are parked at HGDEP, it was still technically "controlled" by AMDEP on 86 as part of negotiated contact, so there is no breach of contracts. Unless those buses plying routes that does not belong to Sengkang-Hougang then that is a serious problem.

	~~Therefore, like why alot of editors had mention, it is correct~~ to ~~say, BYD for 86 is AMDEP 86 instead of HGDEP 86 because~~ the ~~main depot~~ is ~~still AMDEP under negotiated contract (SBS Transit had the final say). If not why LTA decided~~ to ~~extend those negotiated contracts due date for SBS Transit and SMRT when LTA wants something from them (like MRT NRFF), because those operators have the power due to ownership.~~

	HGDEP is technically not under LTA, but is under SBS Transit ownership. SLDEP is now under LTA (that is the reason why SBS Transit had to shift its control center out of SLBP) due to Jurong West now falls under Tender Contract.

	But nevertheless, even those negotiated contracts, operators are now trying to restricts it deployment within the same package for ease of takeover, but even for SBS Transit and SMRT they still have the final decision says.

	So to clarify, even the B9TL, Citaro, and E500s for Bulim and Sembawang-Yishun are also package-allocated instead (tendered contracts) due to the ownership of those buses. If not why TTS doesn't deploy A24 on Bulim services? Not even a single cameo even appeared if what you had claimed as operator-assigned.

	Regards		Regards

	~~== Reverting Edits==~~		[[User:Supernutorcrazy\|Supernutorcrazy]] ([[User talk:Supernutorcrazy\|talk]]) 06:41, 28 July 2025 (+08)
	Hi,

	I had revert your edits for Service 675 to 677. Like I had explained earlier, the new pages no longer usrs the term "Any xxx buses". Instead, it will be replace by the model of the bus that will ply. Meaning stating BYD/Scania K230UB will implied any buses, and uses the notes table, "2 buses from Service 159 will perform xxxx crossover instead."

Supernutorcrazy at 22:37, 17 July 2025

2025-07-17T22:37:53Z

@@ Line 102: / Line 102: @@
 Regards
 == Reverting Edits==
@@ Line 131: / Line 107: @@
 I had revert your edits for Service 675 to 677. Like I had explained earlier, the new pages no longer usrs the term "Any xxx buses". Instead, it will be replace by the model of the bus that will ply. Meaning stating BYD/Scania K230UB will implied any buses, and uses the notes table, "2 buses from Service 159 will perform xxxx crossover instead."

Supernutorcrazy at 01:49, 17 April 2025

2025-04-17T01:49:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:49, 17 April 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{Warning Point\|26 December 2024\|Excessive editing (10+ edits) on a single page within 3 hours. Please consolidate your edits first and edit it in a single shot rather than keep updating on the go.}}~~

	=== Re: ===		=== Re: ===

Supernutorcrazy at 08:00, 18 January 2025

2025-01-18T08:00:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:00, 18 January 2025
Line 133:		Line 133:

	I had revert your edits for Service 675 to 677. Like I had explained earlier, the new pages no longer usrs the term "Any xxx buses". Instead, it will be replace by the model of the bus that will ply. Meaning stating BYD/Scania K230UB will implied any buses, and uses the notes table, "2 buses from Service 159 will perform xxxx crossover instead."		I had revert your edits for Service 675 to 677. Like I had explained earlier, the new pages no longer usrs the term "Any xxx buses". Instead, it will be replace by the model of the bus that will ply. Meaning stating BYD/Scania K230UB will implied any buses, and uses the notes table, "2 buses from Service 159 will perform xxxx crossover instead."

			==Opinion==
			Hi,

			I would like to seek your opinion on the following proposed changes:

			1. Launch of sgWiki Bus Spotting Page
			A new page will be created daily and automatically deleted a month later. For example, "Bus Spotting/1 February 2025" would be removed on 1 March 2025. This page is intended to allow editors to document bus registration numbers without the typical edit limitations, enabling infinite edits.

			The primary objective is to encourage collaboration among editors and to improve the accuracy of bus deployment data in relation to their permanent services. Many users have noted that the deployment page contains inaccurate and outdated information. By using these pages, we aim to track bus operations more effectively and allocate the correct permanent services, without requiring editors to board the buses to verify duty schedules.

			2. Use of Subpages for Bus Model Deployment
			I have received considerable feedback, mostly criticism, regarding the separation and consolidation of bus advertisements across models. Most complaints focus on advertisement changes rather than deployment accuracy, which contributes to the aforementioned inaccuracies. As such, I propose reorganising the Bus Model deployment using subpages as follows:

			Example: Volvo B9TL (WEG Batch 2) will be divided into four subpages:
			# Volvo B9TL (Wright Eclipse Gemini 2) (Batch 2)/Page 1 – (Low Entry, SBS7700T – SBS7729L)
			# Volvo B9TL (Wright Eclipse Gemini 2) (Batch 2)/Page 2 – (Low Floor, SBS3000G – SBS3099Y)
			# Volvo B9TL (Wright Eclipse Gemini 2) (Batch 2)/Page 3 – (Low Floor, SBS3100B – SBS3199S)
			# Volvo B9TL (Wright Eclipse Gemini 2) (Batch 2)/Page 4 – (Low Floor, SBS3200X – SBS3238M & SBS3269Z)

			A navigation bar will be added at the top and bottom of each page, linking the respective subpages. Each page will feature a single table listing up to 100 buses, organised in the following format:

			Registration No/Livery \| Operator/Current Deployment \| Advertisement \| Former Deployment

			This approach seeks to balance different perspectives, and to be more mobile friendly, as I am uncertain why some users are strongly opposed to these changes.

			Alternative Table Layouts:
			# Registration No/Livery \| Operator/Current Deployment \| Former Deployment (Maintain status quo)
			# Batch \| Registration No/Livery \| Operator/Current Deployment \| Former Deployment (Merging of Batches, numerical order, maintain status quo)
			# Batch \| Registration No/Livery \| Operator/Current Deployment \| Advertisement \| Former Deployment (Merging of Batches, numerical order)

			Please let me know your thoughts on these proposals. Thank you for your time and feedback.

			Regards, Supernutorcrazy

Supernutorcrazy: /* New Deployment Format */

2025-01-10T23:50:40Z

New Deployment Format

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:50, 11 January 2025
Line 128:		Line 128:

	- Supernutorcrazy		- Supernutorcrazy

			== Reverting Edits==
			Hi,

			I had revert your edits for Service 675 to 677. Like I had explained earlier, the new pages no longer usrs the term "Any xxx buses". Instead, it will be replace by the model of the bus that will ply. Meaning stating BYD/Scania K230UB will implied any buses, and uses the notes table, "2 buses from Service 159 will perform xxxx crossover instead."

Supernutorcrazy at 00:26, 9 January 2025

2025-01-09T00:26:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:26, 9 January 2025
Line 113:		Line 113:

	Thank you for your time and consideration.		Thank you for your time and consideration.

			- Supernutorcrazy

			=== Reply ===
			Hi,

			Thank you for your feedback regarding the number of buses to include in the table.

			I would like to point out that I purposely omitted such information to maintain synchronisation with other pages featuring the flexi-deployment fleet and missing/extra buses.

			In the event of missing or extra buses, editors would update the total count, but it might not add up correctly to the total number of single-decker, upper-decker, or articulated buses, as well as the overall fleet size. A footnote will then be included which warns of such inaccuracy. In my opinion, this is ok. But the problem now lies in services with flexi-deployment.

			In services with flexi-deployment, the new format doesn't use the term "Any Single-decker buses" or whatsoever phrases. Instead, it will lists the model that will ply on such services. The model count will then be a confusing aspect to editors, which I hope that you could find a way and trial such count on services with both flexi-deployment and perm buses.

	- Supernutorcrazy		- Supernutorcrazy