User talk:SBS3602U
| Welcome to my talk page. |
|---|
| Feel free to clarify anything regarding my edits here. I will try to respond ASAP (if there is a need to). Issues relating to format or wiki improvements, direct them to Apex-LW'21 or Supernutorcrazy. Please include a signature (with --~~~~) so I can respond to you easily.👍
|
| + Create a new topic |
| Archives |
|---|
| N/A |
May 2016
Is samtlk's information on SgForums accurate? You also revert my edit? SBS3107Htalk 19:36, 29 May 2016 (SGT)
- His information are with effect from 29 May 2016 or today. So yeah, I think you need to check the quantity of buses. SBS3107Htalk 21:43, 29 May 2016 (SGT)
..
Hi.
Do you know anything about SMB1367X? Someone said it got involved in an accident and being laid out, but I am not sure about this.
SMB1368T
SMB388S
Hi! SBS3602U I'm johnlyh77, I believe you believe SMB388S have the same power/torque with the production patch, i take both models bus before on highway at PIE to BKE. SMB388S could only reach 30km/h, production batch can reach 45kn/h. You ask the bus captain, they will say SMB388S no pick-up, production batch is much better. The original post is believed have wrong information. You may try find other website to got information. Thanksgiving, johnlyh77
TT edits
Good morning,
I believe Jason Lam's edits on the TT deployments by service pages are all fake. I believe 189 actually have some perm B9TLs. Same goes for 66. What do you think? --TIB965Z (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2016 (SGT)
- Hi. I personally work under Tower Transit and merely adding in correct information as of 20/06/2016. Please refrain from criticizing my edits. Cheers.
Parks Service 408 withdrawal
Good Evening,
I think the info of the upcoming Parks Service 408 withdrawal should still be reflected on the History of Parks Services page, as SBS Transit had officially announced that the service would be withdrawn on 1st August 2016 according to the press release.
--Apex-LW'21 (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2016 (SGT)
add link
Hi! SBS3602U I had a few friends and i often visit SMRT and SBS Transit (SgWiki), when press the link is link to Deployments and we have to scroll up to see the Specifications. This is not very practical. Most people outside perfer to see Specifications than Deployments, to understand different between each brand of buses. About the ( http://sgwiki.com/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_O530_Citaro )could add a Specifications would be better so that don't need to scroll down.
Example: If you open the SMRT Bus Deployments, and you see (SG5040P – SG5052E, SG5061D – SG5068K) is allowed to be press. When you want to see the Specifications, you need to scroll all the way up to see the specifications. Is very very far! Hope for your understanding.
Sincerely, Johnlyh77
SBS 6334Z
Hi! SBS3602U
There is something wrong at Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (Batch 1), is this bus with SBS transit or Go Ahead? Under deployment is still SBS but under Specification is put under Go Ahead?
Under total quality should we put total production batch or different companies total? Now the total quality is put into under different companies.
Sincerely, Johnlyh77
CITARO O530
Hi! SBS3602U
There is 2 type of Model in (SBS) Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (Batch 2). I checked this bus: SBS6444P is CITARO O530 6.4L AT TURBO ABS. Should we divide them?
--Johnlyh77 (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2016 (SGT)
Volvo B9TL (Wright Eclipse Gemini 2) (Batch 1)
Hi! SBS 3602U
- This website: (http://www.sgbuses.com/v/sbst/b9tl-wright/) said that Batch 1 is using 'ZF EcoLife 6AP 1403B Gearbox' not ZF EcoLife 6 AP 1410 B. I don't know which is correct? ZF EcoLife 6 AP 1410 B is replaced by ZF EcoLife 6AP 1403B am i right?
- About land transport guru (Batch 3): http://landtransportguru.net/volvo-b9tl/. I had make a comment about the Gearbox. But nobody reply, later they deleted my comment. Should we inform them about it? Thanks
--Johnlyh77 (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2016 (SGT)
With regards to removal of buses on official lay up.
Greetings.
As far as I have been here, there is somewhat an established rule that buses that have already been offcially laid up (not just officially de-registered) tend to be removed from the list in the main deployments page, and their details would be shifted to the non-revenue buses page. That is why I still retained 5026D and 5031M on the page.
However, I acknowledged I haven't been here for some time, so whether such a rule had been changed over the past few months I am not entirely sure. Regardless of whether it is true, I would follow your instructions and let the content stay there as it be.
Cheers.
--ASA1234 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2016 (SGT)
Just to add on, I did a comparison with the MAN deployment pages. The fact is that, SMB3520G, SMB5046X and SMB5082R are all officially laid up as of today in OM. So I would have to remove them from the deployment list as a result since it isn't a mere difference from SMB5026D and SMB5031M that is under unknown status.
--ASA1234 (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2016 (SGT)
Your Suggestion
Thank you for implementing the suggestion, and you can now start migrating the existing classification to classify in the bus packages.
Secondly, instead of having SBS Transit Bus Deployments, SMRT Bus Deployments pages, to make navigation better, this can be merged with "Bus Deployments" as per suggestion, and after all, bus services are going to be contested under the BCM.
"Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (SMB-plated)", I don't think its a good idea though, and hence I don't recommend starting it either.
The Bus Deployments by Package should be ok with me, since there will be long-term changes in the coming years since the 13 packages (including Bulim & Loyang depot packages) are officially announced by LTA. For that, I must say that the existing pages (as you mentioned) should be considered for deletion because after all it will no longer be necessary.
You may begin with the creation of the Bus Deployments page as you had suggested.
--Apex-LW'21 (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2016 (SGT)
Reply No.2
With regards to the Citaros, I think that the title naming should remain as such, like Batch 1, Batch 2, Batch 3 etc.
For the case of the classification of an example of a Citaro with SBST specification Batch 1, this can be applied to the respective "Specifications" table of the bus deployment list. This can distinguish the specifications on the table itself rather than placing it as a title of a bus deployment page list.
--Apex-LW'21 (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2016 (SGT)
Reply No. 3
For the case of that scenario as highlighted, may I suggest that the bus deployment pages of the respective Citaros be distinguished in terms of the specifications that every SBST/SMRT Citaros has it.
Which means for instance "Batch 1 (SBST spec)" for Citaros with Batch 1 SBS Transit specifications can be used as such.
--Apex-LW'21 (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2016 (SGT)
Reply No. 4
Looking at your suggestions with regards to the Citaros, I can say that the first batch of Citaros, which is SMB139U to SMB148T should be labelled as Batch 1 and so on...
If that's the case, then you can proceed with that suggestions as pointed out by you (SBS3602U) and Supernutorcrazy.
Other than that, perhaps I can put this as the following as my titled suggestion, however, it may or may not confuse others despite the Citaros have 2 different seating configurations for SBST and SMRT, so long as the users are satisfied with the naming conventions:
"Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (SMRT - Batch 1 & 2)" - SMB139U - SMB188C, in 2 batches
"Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (SBST - Batch 3)" - SBS6000L - SBS6285G (some regos are skipped)
"Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (SBST - Batch 4)" - SBS6600E onwards.
Do note that for BSEP batch Citaros, they are under the Batch 3, 4 & 5 Citaros.
--Apex-LW'21 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2016 (SGT)
Reply No. 5
I agree with the comments with the 2 suggestions pertaining with the Citaro buses.
Since for now, there has not been a finalised category of Citaro buses in terms of specifications, maybe we should discuss with the other users so that we can come up with a proper category for the Citaros.
--Apex-LW'21 (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2016 (SGT)
Provision for Go Ahead
As the handover for the Loyang is approaching, please do not remove the provisions inside pages for Go Ahead, it was placed there to prepare for the handover.
--Scania 19:05, 18 August 2016 (SGT)
Re: Provsions The provisions were placed there for the batches already expected to be transferred. The same was done before the Tower handover and has aided a lot during the Tower handover by speeding up the editing process. The only speculation left are the exact buses to be transferred.
--Scania 19:05, 18 August 2016 (SGT)
Wrights batch 4 for GA
Hi,
Since the buses are now owned by LTA, and are transferred to GA now, the type of purchase does not matter now. Indeed, it is already the case for the SBS SG plate buses for the Wrights and Citaro pages, where the BSEP range is consolidated together with the non BSEP range (BSEP 51xx, 55xx, Non BSEP, 53xx, 54xx), for these two pages, due to the large amount of tables, it is good if we are consistent in following the SBS style of tables (SBS plate one table, SG plate one table), what I suggest is that, if the numbers are small enough after the handover, we could combine the SBS regos into one table.
Moving forward, because of the GCM, the type of purchase doesn't really matter anymore if the buses are owned by LTA, although for older buses (eg Batch 1-3 Wrights) owned by SBS/SMRT, we should keep those models' pages as it is.
This message will be copied to Apex LW21's page for general discussion
--Scania 17:10, 22 August 2016 (SGT)
In Preparation for 01092016
Hi,
I would like to suggest that for Feeder/Intra-town/Townlink service to be group according to the area (eg: Tampines, Woodlands, Boon Lay) as per usual, instead of conventional "Trunk" Service format so as to not bring a massive change.
Thanks & Regards
-Supernutorcrazy
Replies
Noted. In my opinion, the ex PPSS will be classified under Short Working Trip of parent service i.e.: PPSS 307P --> SWT 307A, PPSS 268P --> SWT 268B/268C. In fact, I found that LTA stated SWT as a unique "Service" instead, like the new SWT 53A and 962C which was stated as Short Working Service or in short "Service".
But there is still consistent in their SWT naming: A/B/C/D -> SWT, G/W -> Green/White, E -> Express, M -> Supplement Service. So, in fact, 2 new feeder will be "created" i.e. 240M and 912M, which deserved to have its own Service under Boon Lay Feeders and Woodlands Intra-towns respectively. But 268B/C etc doesn't deserved its own Service listing as it was considered SWT.
Thanks & Regards
-Supernutorcrazy
Reply from my talk page [1]
Greetings.
First of all, I would like to mention that it has been a trend for years that hyphens have been used when indicating ranges of bus registration numbers; especially during the time when I have been working on the Bus Lifespan Expiry Date and De-registration of Buses pages since 2012 (these two pages were actually not completely updated, even if the rule of using en dashes exist). Therefore, at the time of editing, I was rather dismayed as it appears to give me a strange feeling; I had the assumption that the user who edited all the deployment pages to use such the en dashes may have encountered some keyboard errors and I was supposed to rectify it. In fact, even if en dashes were to be used on purpose with the spaces, the outlook doesn't appear to be correct. I was unknown about the reasoning behind it until SMB315C provided the evidence, which somehow justified my actions in a way.
It occurred to me that clumping a range of bus registration numbers using en dashes in the correct manner may somehow be confusing and disturbing for some other reasons, especially if multiple ranges are used together. I would raise an example for discussion purposes: SG5040P–SG5052E, SG5061D–SG5068K, SG5085K–SG5089A, SG5121P–SG5134C. While in general communication this can be accepted, but the official display somewhat shows otherwise. Try changing all the ranges with en dashes and no spaces in the abovementioned two pages and I would say that it appears to be strange. In my view, there is a need for the spaces to be there such that there would be no issues of confusion. Perhaps this is the reason why we have been using hyphens for all these years even back in 2015 and even as of early this month. I do not see why the rule has to be changed given the discomfort over the change.