User talk:Wekelwrady

Just discuss below.

Reply

Noted on your Tampines Alternate Travel and 107/M.

(1) 107/107M. I had remove the "Revised Timing will be announced by operater" for Service 6, given that only GAS announced it only. SMRT also didn't announced the revised timing when 964 did not operates on Sundays either for New Year/CNY/Christmas.

(2) Alternative Travel

Looks ok. When I was doing Yishun Alternative Travel, I noticed most of it involve travelling to - Lentor/Springleaf/Pending for transfer to continue on to let's say JUR/ORC/MRB/CTH/RFP. This bring me the question - do we really need to keep those route when we can easily use Others - Lentor/Springleaf/Pending (Refer to Alternative Travel - Admiralty where I included Woodlands South).

For EWL, yesterday disruption show us the segment: Queenstown - Jurong East, Jurong East - Boon Lay, but given the bad luck where the track fault lies between Jurong East and Clementi (highly believe is UPDEP track fault), this result in Queenstown - Boon Lay facing disruption.

In the meantime, I was reorganising and arranging Yishun Station layout display, which I think I am going to revamp and include "Travel Time" in the route diagram so is easier to reference, and hopefully progressively rolled out to all stations. I had rolled out the partial new route diagram at Changi Airport & Nicoll Highway to follow more "TEL" like diagram, with interchange are clearly marked out now.

I look forward to your reply.

Supernutorcrazy (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2025 (+08)

Re: Point about G/W directional

Hi,

Noted on your reply regarding the appearance of 170X, 410G/W, 225G/W, 243G/W on the bus stop pole around Q3 2019 and the usage of "#" for 853/925/961.

The reason why I raised the issue up, is because there is no standardisation for Sundays/Holidays variant, in which the same route number was used. As for the bus stop information panels (the pole doesn't reflect "#" if I remember correctly), but the stops details panel reflect "#"), and if we are going to refer to LTA/official, is just without "#" and use "(Sunday/Holiday). I believe the "#" was used as a storage/electronic means to reflect alternate. So that is why I am asking should we based on official Renumber from (with/without #) for actual clarity.

Secondly, I noticed the issue regarding G/W plate (desto) era where the service are classified as single service i.e. 225 Direction 1 is 225G and Direction 2 is 225W, but was "renumbered" to 225G and 225W today without any news. Like you mention, it happened some times back in Q3 2019. Similarly for 170X was original 170 (Blue Plate), thanks for the info. The EDS uses * which I believe is SBS Transit way to denote alternate routing just as SMRT uses "#".

Some notes I wish to highlight:

• 12 August 2018 (or the next available operating day if the service didn't operate of 12 Aug):
  • Standardisation of Express service
    • E → e for all service with parent service (854E → 854e)
    • e/(empty) → E for all service without parent service (868 → 868E)
  • Standardisation of Terminating Trip Feeder service
    • E → T for SMRT Intra-Town/SBS Transit Townlink (811E → 811T)
    • T plate → T suffix for SBS Transit Townlink (293 → 293T)
    • No change for Go-Ahead Townlink (358T) due to them using this method since takeover
  • Rebranding of Express Service
    • Fast Forward → Express
  • Rebranding of Feeder Service
    • Townlink/Intra-Town → Feeder

• 5 April 2021 (or the next available operating day if the service didn't operate of 5 Apr):
  • Standardisation of Late Night SWT/Terminating Trip
    • Classification as mid-route ending service as "new SWT" for last bus (63 → 63A)
    • Usage of "T" suffix for mid-route ending service at interchange/terminal for last bus (73 → 73T)

And if we look at how the previous standardisation occurs:

• 8 September 2019 (or the next available operating day if the service didn't operate of 8 Sep):
  • Clarity of Bus Service for Weekend/Holiday variants or those with "multiple directions" (853 (Sunday/Holiday) → 853M)

Based on this, would it be plausible that the renumbering for 170 (Blue plate) → 170X, 225 D1 → 225G, 225 D2 → 225W etc was done together with the renumbering of 853# → 853M?

Supernutorcrazy (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2025 (+08)

Re:

Noted on your point.

After reviewing the bus guide for 170X, it was clear that despite in 2014 when K230UB do cross-border, it was marked with a small "*" or "x". But the gallery guide still reflect it as 170 (Blue Plate) and after in 2018 with the 7th gen bus guide it was then mark with "170X". Also seen a photo at Woodlands CIQ, where it was indicated with "170x" (smaller case x instead of upper case) which was recently place in 2022/2023.

Like you mention, there is no clear indication on when such changes are mention. I had been searching through archives, for 410G/W, back in the days before 2010 (or so) it uses the route diagram to denote G/W. For 243G/W, at Boon Lay Temp Int, it uses the white/green signage plate with the W/G suffix in 2006. For 225G/225W at old Bedok Int (before moving to Bedok Temp Int), it once uses 225 (Green), 225 (White) before shifting over to 225G/225W in tandem with the WAB.

But sadly, there is no record of it appearing on physical bus guide (6th gen or earlier), so it's hard to determine, and it true that these service are gradually replaced by the current notation we are used now.

Regarding merging of the pages, there is a concern here - 859A/859B. It acts the same as 84G/84W, and all the feeders G/W. Then 859A/B is marked as SWT by SMRT, and Variant by LTA. And if we are to merge all these G/W plate, and proceed with A/B for 859, then it will bring the problem above like 853/925/961 - 859 is Sembawang ↺ Yishun, or Sembawang ↺ Admiralty Link? Luckily, Tower Transit remains using 859A and 859B and not lump them into a single service.

Supernutorcrazy (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2025 (+08)

Reply: 135 & 42

I'm leaving the description for 135 & 42 another day, you may go ahead and amend them. Also done with the B/S template upgrading for 42... In case you haven't seen the recent changes page

Re: Travel Timing

Actually the travel timing didn't change. As I was porting over to Yishun page at the route diagram, I notice a miscalculation where I add dwell time to the boarding station. This means most station will see up to 2 minutes reductions (depending on rounding) where most will be a minute or no deduction.

Secondly, I am planning to discontinue my centralised travel time page due to readability issue, hard to track and spot error for loop services (come next year with CCL6). Thus moving it to route diagrams at MRT/LRT stations.

Regarding merging of G/W page, I had shifted 243G/243W to reflect the correct G/W plate. Bi-directional is not "renumbered".

Supernutorcrazy (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2025 (+08)

Reply

Hi, thanks for the word of encouragement. I would also like to say to you that all your photos you taken are also been a huge improvment. Keep it up!

Alphabetlorefan1 (talk) 10 May 2025, 13:17

I have 2 questions to say to you

1. Regarding bus stops with no POI, why is there a need to unhide? HDB blocks also? Your help is appreciated
2. User CastJared is writing strange messages to my talk page. He said something to me about an edit war in which I did not do that. I was just being honest. Can you give a talk to him? Your help is appreciated too

MRT Station Exits & Layout

Hi,

Regarding the Schematic Route Diagram at City Hall, Raffles Place, and Jurong East: I am contemplating whether should we seperate the lines, especially come 2029 when JRL at Jurong East, by using such combined graphic it will get messy, and how to proceed for Bayfront/Promenade, where the two lines are running parallel, but only Bayfront has cross-platform.

Additionally at Jurong East, the schematic diagram for North South Line where the line appears to be have a crossover where in fact it was just over/under pass (the diagonal pass between Bukit Batok and Jurong East) which is confusing. For City Hall and Raffles Place, the crisscross is just an "X" which can be inferred as crisscross rather than crossover since there is no = border, but it was just ambiguous.

For the NSL underground segment, I will need to ride often and watch carefully, especially the schematic layout which use double crossover instead of scissor (X)-crossover. All older lines uses the double crossover whereas the newer CCL/DTL era uses the x-crossover instead. (Exception: Changi Airport X-crossover)

Regarding the cross-line, there is rumour, but not too sure if accurate:

• NEL-CCL via CCL6 HarbourFront overrun
• CRL-TEL via Bright Hill
• EWL-TEL-DTL via East Coast Integrated Depot

But so far this is confirmed:

• NSL-EWL via Jurong East and Raffles Place
• CCL-DTL via Kim Chuan Depot and Bayfront
• EWL-TEL (under construction) via Changi Airport

For the stairs and exit icon, lets us standardised.

• Stairs only → Stairs Icon
• 1 Escalator + 1 Stairs → Escalator + Stairs Icons
• 2 Escalator + 1 Stairs → Escalator Icon
• Escalator only → Escalator Icon

Yes, I agree stairs icons are still important as the 1 escalator + 1 stairs may have its escalator direction swap. I think with this will help to keep it clean where commuters would take escalator than stairs.

Regarding for Exit Alphabet/Number/Wayout it would be great to have. I noticed the older station uses the converge concourse method like this:

Platform
	style='Template:Border-fall;border-width:2px;border-style:solid none' width=50|	Concourse	style='Template:Border-rise;border-width:2px;border-style:solid none' width=50|

In this case I don't think we need to label Wayout/Exit number/Alphabet as all of it leads to exits. However, a Wayout is necessary for stacked platform like City Hall/Raffles Place, to denote to go to which floor or other platforms.

However, the newer station use the diverge concourses method like this:

Concourse 1	Midpoint			Concourse 2
	style='Template:Border-fall;border-width:2px;border-style:solid none' width=50|	Platform	style='Template:Border-rise;border-width:2px;border-style:solid none' width=50|

For this case, I believe the exit number/alphabet works better because it diverge and commuters would wish to know which escalator to take.

The concourse can be simplified where there is no ticket machine and faregate (it's given) and have street level removed (street level is more like Exit section). There is no dynamic icon height sadly, but we can set the icon to 28px (min). For each row, the icon on the left highlight the main function (PSC as concourse, MRT/LRT for platforms etc).

Regarding on the single train/double train platform ideas, my main concern comes in late to mid 2030s at Tanah Merah:

Template:StnLayout/PlatformTemplate:StnLayout/PlatformTemplate:StnLayout/PlatformTemplate:StnLayout/Platform

???

4 box

???

Or maybe in 2030 at Jurong East:

Template:StnLayout/PlatformTemplate:StnLayout/PlatformTemplate:StnLayout/PlatformTemplate:StnLayout/PlatformTemplate:StnLayout/Platform

6 box

6 box

6 box

???

Here the trial would this be better?

L2	icon NSL Platform Template:StnLayout/PlatformTemplate:StnLayout/Platform icon (Template:Code/S) icon icon icon icon
L1	icon NSL Concourse SimplyGo Ticketing Office Template:Exit
	icon Woodlands Temporary Interchange (WTBI)
	Transfer Linkway between NSL Platform and TEL Concourse
B1	icon TEL Concourse Template:Exit
	Woodlands Interchange (WBI)
B2	Service Level (No entry)
B3	icon TEL Platform Template:StnLayout/PlatformTemplate:StnLayout/Platform icon Template:Code/S) icon Template:Exit icon icon Template:Exit
	Transfer Linkway between TEL Concourse & WBI

Reply

I look forward your trial for schematic track diagram. I had a hard time doing the = border for route diagram replacement.

Regarding the platform and train layout for CCK, JUR and TNM, I had not much of news on how the alignment will be and we shall know in 2028. How the parallel alignment to the front or back or middle of the platform is still a mystery. But nevertheless, we shall plan ahead for such planning if not we may need another overhaul coming 2028...

I had put the trial on Marsiling station for the layout.

Regards

Supernutorcrazy (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2025 (+08)

Reply

Sorry for the late reply, as I was trying and testing out your suggestion.

Regarding the circle with arrow, you meant it like this right? Template:StnLayout/Platform

If this is the case, I think is doable and could further clearly show the loop nature for CCL6, and the LRT, if it was a circular route diagram.

Regarding the train formation, using the various sizes box is great, but I will still need some time to think on how to align the box and the layout, as this would involve lots of colspan and rowspan or equivilant in coming out with the proper sizing. I am not too concern for TEL to NSEWL conversion, because I could easier use your method to pad left or right, but the JRL to NSEWL conversion would be a key concern. A 3 car JRL train would only be about 2.5 car NSEWL tain length in average.

Regards Supernutorcrazy (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2025 (+08)

Remark

I think I have one more question. Is there a way this can be made as wide as the current arrangement?