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

From SgWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The poll had been closed.


Majority of the editors disagreed with the renaming exercise due to the following reason:

  • Scania K230UB had different exterior parts therefore warrant a differentiation in emission.
  • MAN ND323F had the same exterior layout, therefore the naming does not include emission.

With that in mind, it is puzzling to see that why editors have multiple definition of "variants". MAN NL323F (A22) had two distinct bodywork, MAN Lion City Hybrid bodywork for Euro V and MAN Lion City bodywork for Euro VI, under the majority definition, it should be rename with the emission standard. However, editors voted against such a naming convention.

If we going to rename MAN NL323F which follows Scania K230UB syntax, editors may voice a second debate that why MAN ND323F don't follow suit in the name of standardisation.

If we going to rename both MAN NL323F (A22) and MAN ND323F (A95) or rename Scania K230UB, than is a problem. Decision was made based on the minority and that not the norm. Citing the previous citaro debate, the decision to rename SMRT Production Batch 1 & Batch 2 into a common Batch SMRT takes into account about preventing mix-up in 'A'/'B' notation for different operators' spec where the majority prefer for Batch 1A/1B. But the action to not take the majority view does not justify itself in this context.

Given such a situation, the final result will be announced after defining the meaning of variant at the next debate - definition of bus variant.

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.


  • 1 - Renaming of MAN ND323F/MAN NL323F with Euro Emissions (SG2017C Demonstrator)

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

  • Voted at Opinion 4

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.


  • 4 - No Change

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

  • 1 - Renaming of MAN ND323F/MAN NL323F with Euro Emissions (SG2017C Demonstrator)

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

  • 2 - Renaming of MAN ND323F/MAN NL323F with Euro Emissions (SG2017C Not a Demonstrator)
  • 3 - Renaming of Scania K230UB without Euro Emissions
  • 5 - Abstain / To be discuss at a later date.

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

  • 4 - No Change

Opinion 6

I'll go with option 3. It will create more confusion in indicating the Euro emissions to rookies and new editors. To safeguard the interests of sgwiki,I suggest to retain the same format as the MAN ND323F / MAN NL323F.

Thanks and would like to hear from you soon regarding this.

Best regards,


  • 3 - Renaming of Scania K230UB without Euro Emissions

Opinion 7

I'll pick option 3 as it will be better to standardize everything. Without standardization will lead to confusion.


  • 3 - Renaming of Scania K230UB without Euro Emissions

Opinion 8

will prefer to remain as it is.


  • 4 - No change

Opinion 9

Prefer to keep it as it is to prevent confusion


  • 4 - No change

Opinion 10

The batches of Scania K230UBs are highly distinguished by their registration dates, reg numbers and interior specifications, whereas the Euro emissions, EDS model, Aircon model are linked characteristics that add on to the distinct differences between Euro IV and Euro V variants of the K230UBs. Thus the current "Scania K230UB (Euro __ Batch __)" is still a reasonable format and does not require any change.

As for the MAN ND323Fs and NL323Fs, I would not support the renaming according to the Euro emissions, as SG2017C is the sole and main reason for having the same bodywork and interior specifications as the Batch 3 A95s, which are largely Euro V. If there were no SG2017C, I would have agreed for standardisation to Euro emissions, however, since 2017 till present day, this isn't the case.


  • 4 - No Change

Opinion 11

Leave all as it is


  • 4 - No change

Before Vote Voided / Kept discussion

Discussion 1

Not necessary, even though 2017C is somewhat a demonstrator to me, I feel that the current classification should remain as it was procured under Batch 3 (SG5800M - SG5920A). Appearance-wise, it is no different in both exterior and interior too like its Euro V mates.

~ Razerboii

Discussion 2

I think that we should just leave the page as it is as SG2017C isn’t really a demo given the fact that the bus shares many similar traits as its Batch 3 counterparts and renaming it will cause more confusion.


Discussion 3

leave both the scania and man A95 the way they currently are

~ SBS8478D