SgWiki:Renaming of Bus Models (Poll/Discussion)/1

!	VOTING INSTRUCTIONS					!
	Please enter your opinion below the heading Your Opinion Below For your vote to be qualified, please insert your vote (option text or number) beside or after your name in clear implication. The list of voting options are: 1 - Renaming of MAN ND323F/MAN NL323F with Euro Emissions (SG2017C Demonstrator) 2 - Renaming of MAN ND323F/MAN NL323F with Euro Emissions (SG2017C Not a Demonstrator) 3 - Renaming of Scania K230UB without Euro Emissions 4 - No Change 5 - Abstain / To be discuss at a later date. Do note that you may cast your vote for more than 1 option.

Starter Post

Renaming of MAN ND323F

May I suggest labelling the A95 Batches by emissions, in a way like the K230UBs?

ie. Euro V Batch 1 (currently Batch 1): SMB5888H (Euro V Demonstrator); SMB5889E - SMB5904U

Euro V Batch 2 (currently Batch 2): SG5740C - SG5799J

Euro V Batch 3 (currently Batch 3): SG5800M - SG5920A

Euro VI Batch 1 (currently Batch 4): SG2017C (Euro VI Demonstrator) SG5921Y - SG6171M

Euro VI Batch 2 (currently Batch 5): SG6172K onwards

Such labelling allows to easily differentiate: - Specifications (SMRT for Euro V; LTA for Euro VI) - Euro VI buses being purchased in different orders from Euro V counterparts

Other changes include: - SG2017C labelled as Euro VI Demonstrator, carrying identical chassis specifications to newer Euro VI units and hence labeled under "Euro VI Batch 1" instead.

I hope this suggestion can open an discussion, within administrators as well as users to open up comments on personal viewpoints, thanks.

--Litlah

Renaming of Scania K230UB/MAN NL323F/MAN ND323F

In the event that this renaming exercise does not take place, I would like to instead recommend that the Scania K230UBs be renamed to the same format as the current format for the MAN ND323F instead. This is because it has to be standardised either ways, just depending on which one gives in to the other. Meaning, either classify by all bus models by emissions first or do not classify the emissions at all.

~ Themystery

Your Opinion Below

Opinion 1

Hi all,

My small input would be to remain the pages as they are now. Mainly because (imo) it does not make much sense to change the existing naming of KUB pages, just to accomodate the A95s.

Because when the KUBs were purchased previously, the jump in Euro IV to Euro V standards on the KUBs were also accompanied with obvious bodywork changes (such as the slats in the radiator panels, EDS, Aircon pods, angular shape of the rear quarter panel, dashboards, granny seats/side facing seats at the front etc)

Whereas for the A95s, we're talking about changes in emissions standards, without clear & consistent distinct differences in bodywork / any other details that are consistent with the jump in emissions (thanks to LTA).

So if you want to rename the MAN bus pages, then you should rename only the MAN pages. Leave the KUB pages as they are now. Simplifying the KUBs in the same format as the A95s disregards the obvious changes between the Euro 4 & Euro 5 KUBs.

Cheers, SBS9631X (4 - No Change)

Opinion 2

Not necessary, it would remain the same.

SG2017C was ordered as part of the batch (SG5800M - SG5920A) but with a different set of internal specifications.

GoAheadAmbassador

Opinion 3

Option 1 will be the most appropriate choice in my opinion. If Scania KUB can be classified by emissions, why not do the same for MAN A95 now that MAN A95 has more batches than KUB? SG2017C is technically the Euro 6 demonstrator although it has the same specifications as the Euro 5 Batch 3 A95s so it will be more appropriate to put SG2017C on the Euro 6 Batch 1 page but as a demonstrator rather than on the Euro 5 Batch 3 page (since it isn't Euro 5 anyway and it will be awkward to have a Euro 6 bus listed in a Euro 5 page which will lead to confusion).

Peace & Harmony

Opinion 4

I support this change as it can be an opportunity to be standardised in a similar way as SBS Transit's Scania K230UBs, which are classified in the same manner.

The only doubt I have is about the classification of SG2017C as the Euro VI MAN ND323F demonstrator as it is not really considered a demonstrator. I am not sure what other people may think, but it sounds weird to classify that as a demonstrator. Nonetheless, I fully support this renaming exercise for the MAN ND323Fs.

I feel that there should be some form of standardising on the format, so not just MAN ND323Fs and Scania K230UBs, but across all public bus models in Singapore. I suggest that all models should adhere to the same format as much as possible so that readers can understand the page and site as a whole better.

As the label "Variant" implies, it is to differentiate different batches of bus models. Currently, they are already differentiated by bodywork. I do not see why these bus models cannot be fully differentiated by emission. After all, it is also a way of differentiating different batches better.

Overall, I support Option 2 or Option 3. As I feel that this is an important issue, I also support Option 5 on deferring the changes should there be any need to do so. However, the deferment should not take too long as this issue should still be rectified sooner or later.

~ Themystery

Opinion 5

Option 4.

Indicating SG2017C as a Euro 6 demonstrator will only create confusion as

• It is ordered under the third batch of A95 consisting of 122 buses
• Carries same bodywork & interior specifications as the later batch 3 units

Makes no sense to rename the KUBs.

~ SMB315C