User talk:Arthurjie

Clarifications

About Service 961, TIB1051D has explained where "481C is still perm 961-10 as classed under driver duty roster. Respective split shift buses and crossovers pending confirmation." So why you undo it even though he justified his edit and you didn't placed any reasons on edit summary?

Two regarding Service 985, from SGF user SMB42P, "This i cant really confirm. It (SMB129Z) seem to be always on 143G slot (ap10) whenever i see it. while 143G seem to be missing." So with reference to that, how come SMB129Z perms Service 985? Which, where and what sources did you get from?

Answer these questions, thank you. SBS3107H (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2013 (SGT)

So you are saying TIB1051D is talking rubbish? ... SBS3107H (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2013 (SGT)

With that, I will rest the matter for now. SBS3107H (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2013 (SGT)

Clarifications - SV 961

Hi, just to provide some clarifications about the current deployments of this service.

I don't see a point of arguing over deployments. For there is always a clear line of difference between what is planned to be done (rostered / scheduled permanent buses), versus the actual situation (actual deployment of buses). These 2 are controlled by two different parties, one side being the scheduler, and the other being the starter of the depot or ONP venue.

I have been aware of SMB1343P's consistency on SV 961, I'm seeing it regularly. However, what goes inside the scheduled list in the roster is TIB481C, which as of today, is still valid.

I have my reason for editing SMB1343P out of the list, and TIB481C back into the list. Unless it can be verified on paper that SMB1343P is indeed in SV 961, through roster, through waybill or whatever means which is in black and white, otherwise it will not hold valid.

Please feel free to pose me questions onboard SgForums (ID: TIB1051D) or onboard Facebook (Christopher Thian). Thank you!