User talk:Apex-LW'21

Welcome to my talk page!

Please post on my user talk page (not my user page) if you want me to delete any outdated / unrelated articles or any unused images existed in sgWiki. Also, please provide the links to the uploaded images (if any) when requesting to delete the articles.

I will review the pages first before I will delete, but however, should any of the pages that requires cleanup or is sufficiently related, it will not be deleted, unless there is a reason to believe that the article is the above-mentioned. Pages (including its talk page of a current page) which are blanked out, unanswered or remained for a certain prolonged period will be deleted in the event of any routine house-keeping or cleanup in sgWiki.

If your account is mistakenly banned due to posting of false or unrelated information, etc, please ask the administrator who had originally banned you by writing on the user's talk page to appeal, unless if you are mistakenly banned by me. If an information is mistakenly marked as false statement, you had to clarify with the administrator and provide justification that the information is true and accurate. However, the decision will be made by the administrator and the decision of the appeal is final, after the investigation is complete.

Do note that the successful appeal of the ban (only for those accounts banned by me) can only be done once. Once the ban appeal is successful, you are to comply with the sgWiki Guidelines. Appeals for repeated bans will not be considered.

The appeal procedures will also apply to the warning points imposed to the account.

If any articles or uploaded photos are deleted by mistake, please use my talk page to appeal. Please note that any deleted articles/photos will be subjected to further review and decision. This appeal only applies to articles/photos that were previously deleted by me. If you wish to appeal on any articles/photos that were previously existed in sgWiki that were deleted by any other administrators, please write on the respective talk pages.

Any accounts that are in severe violation of the rules as stated on the sgWiki Guidebook will not be unbanned. Please ensure that all edits and articles are complied with the sgWiki Guidelines.

If your account is being affected by any Autoblock function caused by the user being blocked for spam advertising, etc, please use my talk page so that I can remove the Autoblock.

For any Captcha issues, please refer to the administrator 'Jason' by writing on his talk page.

For bus-related pages, if you find any mistakes in any pages (only those edited by me), please use my talk page to point out the mistakes and clarify with me. I will make the necessary corrections as soon as possible.

---

Re: Additional sections for Citaros and Wrights

I would advise against it as the while the buses are ordered by LTA as an additional order over the SBS orders, they are still produced at the same time as the SBS ones, and to the exact specs. Furthermore, the range for Citaros quoted by ASA1234 does not seem to tally with the number of buses around, don't forget there is still the SG169x batch of Citaros (which were originally supposed to be 1011-1019), plus the fact that SG1000G was registered together with Citaros of the SBS order, which means that 1000 was most likely a SBS ordered bus rather than an LTA ordered bus. In short, the range and number of the Citaro cannot be easily determined, although I have a hunch that there may be 80 buses, SG1001-1071+1691-1699, but that is just a guess.

--Scania 01:05, 5 October 2016 (SGT)

Additional tidbit that could be up for consideration

Hi all, I am sure we are used to seeing the Citaro Batch 1, 2 and 3 with its current rego ranges.

However, after looking through the VINs, I have realised that they are not so straightforward for Batch 2 and 3 Citaros. Some batch 3 Citaros were actually delivered earlier than some batch 2 Citaros.

The following is the range of regos: Batch 2: SBS6600E-SBS6818U, SBS6822G-SBS6865H, SBS6342A-SBS6508P, SBS6530Z-SBS6549X. There are a total of 450 buses here which matches the press release stating so: [1] VIN ranges: 124550-126634 (last 6 digits)

Consequently, This would mean that SBS6819S-SBS6821J and SBS6509L-SBS6529D are actually batch 3 Citaros. The VINs for these buses start from 127655 onwards.

You may wish to take note of this and if you think this warrants a change of the rego ranges for the different pages, a change could be made.

--Scania 16:18, 8 October 2016 (SGT)

Reply

For that case, the Citaro/Wrights batches in terms of its VIN number can be re-structured. Feel free to give your opinions / suggestions on how to improve the Citaro/Wrights deployment pages, because I guess the different interior configurations/specifications could have been classified as in Batch 1, 2, 3 Wright/Citaro, etc.
--Apex-LW'21 (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2016 (SGT)

Re:Citaro and Wright Batch issue

I would classify them by basic mechanical spec first before body number (if available, as per buslistsontheweb.co.uk), before VINs. This is because the chassis of 3449 3450 were produced together with the later batch 3s (in fact 3449 is the chassis right after 3956), however for this case, the specs and body numbers indicate that the two buses are batch 4 Wrights, and in quite a clear and obvious manner.

The Citaros however isn't as clear, but the because the VIN series is quite distinct (ie there is a sizeable gap between the batch ending with 126xxx and the batch starting with 127xxx), and that the numbers for the batch ending with 126xxx tally with the press release of 450, I think it is safe to say that the batches are as mentioned in the earlier post.

I also recognize ASA1234 has a suggestion that the LTA ordered Wrights and Citaros can be separated. After giving some thought about it, I think that can be done, but right now, only the Wrights look more clear cut as there is a screenshot of some publication by lemon1974 on sgforums stating the size of the order. For the Citaros, I would suggest we wait until the buses are delivered and no new buses are registered or spotted at C&C. Though I am open to other views.

--Scania 02:21, 9 October 2016 (SGT)

Reply

Good Evening,

I have 2 other options in the revamping of History of Bus Services article pages.

Option 1: Put all history of bus information by Service order, example, like Services 1 - 20, Services 21 - 40, etc. With this, we can create a timeline for each bus services, from the previous operators to the current operator, rather than a clustered service grouping exclusively for one operator etc.

Option 2: Classify the current and the withdrawn services into one group. Although it might not be feasible to proceed on to Option 2, then I would suggest that we proceed with Option 1.
--Apex-LW'21 (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2016 (SGT)

I agree that Option 1 is better. For Feeders/Townlinks/Intra-towns, should we continue to group them as such (by area), or merge them together with the trunk services (by order of Service numbers)? For standardisation, we could sort them all by numbers.

--SBS3602U (talk)