User talk:Haram

Re:

Hi,

Regarding your claim, as I am in charge of the Rail section, you may need to ask the other administrator for their advices. As far as I can see, the image proof that you had shown to me was insufficient to justify a ban as

• (1) I can't see the registration plate on the instagram picture, anyone can post a random #hashtag to justify its claim

I had a fair share of mis-identifying the train car (and hence trainset) when glacing from afar, so I would not accept the picture proof.

Regards

Recent Edits

Hi refer to the SG6241U, the previous user is saying that SG6241U is sharebus duty with 51 and 161. SBS Transit has introduced a sharebus system.

DDs on 858

Hi just to clarify that that bus 858 DDs are cameo.

Regards,

Alphabetlorefan1

Important

Hi Haram, I know you are editing based on your observations but in fact you missed out the former deployments. It is very important to update these former deployments but you refuse to do that and thats why I had to keep reverting your edit. Please dont make me do it again when you are told to update former deployments. Also why are you giving me unfriendly offensive words when you undo my edit just now? Its not funny so dont do that again. One more unfriendly offensive words to me and I will report you to an admin. Please understand what I am saying.

Thanks, Alphabetlorefan1 (talk) 17 July 2024, 15:29

UPDEP 80 DDs

Hi Haram,

Thanks for reaching out to me last night with your explanations for your edits on UPDEP 80 DD deployments.

Admittedly, I was initially skeptical of your edits due to my observations not tallying up with deployments of buses on the roster, in line with your remarks about how real-life deployments may differ from rostered deployments. Thank you for kindly clearing the air with me on this.

I would like to also mention that I have made some edits to the 80 page partly based on your explanations. If you do not mind, I have removed SG5396M from the duties table below because you have mentioned that it is a standby DD for UPDEP side.

I have also edited the duties table for HGDEP 80 buses based on my observations. For example, I know you previously mentioned SBS3091T to be rostered as a split shift bus, but I have taken it several times consistently on an A/P block, which is why I have edited it as an A/P bus. I do hope my edits are mostly, if not fully, accurate and reflect the deployments happening on 80 currently. Do edit/revert if my edits are false or misguided.

Thank you once again, and I hope to continue being a faithful editor alongside you and other responsible editors on SgWiki.

Regards,
23ispolo

Singapore Bus Fleet

Hi Haram,

I see that you were on the first bus departing Boon Lay Int this morning. As SBS3288T is a Wright Batch 3, it’s considered a debut. Hence, could you help me fill in this page for what service it ran on? No reply needed. Thanks.

Regards, LTA Bus Irrationalisation

BYD buses

What you say is not correct. Ulu Pandan is a package. Thus buses are also assigned to this package /depot. So by right, all the buses under Ulu Pandan should be deployed on Ulu Pandan packages only. So those UPD buses parked in AMDEP/BNDEP should be amended under UPD as well.

Likewise for the BYD buses , these were assign to the serangoon package (I would think you mean HG-Sk packages) as per your advice. So these should be the same situation as those UPD buses.

And with AMDEP closures, AMDEP buses most likely will switch to SWDEP for the time being.

There are two new depots (kim chuan and lorong halus) which should be for HG-SK n serangoon/eunos package. So SWDEP most likely is for AMDEP

Buses Package Allocation vs Operator Allocation

Hi,

It comes to my attention that you had mention that buses model are splited into package allocation and operator allocation. As far as I know or observed, all buses model are now operate in package allocation, with operators holding multiple packages may request for swapping of bus model between their own packages or do it illegally.

Even for SMRT MAN NG363F, those in KJDEP are Choa Chu Kang-Bukit Panjang Package and those in WLDEP are in Woodlands Package. So SMB8022U will not even deploy on Woodlands Service and vice versa for SMB8039Y.

Similar for TTS, buses parked in Mandai Depot were Sembawang-Yishun allocated, and Bulim Depot are Bulim allocated, and fleet may not be operated by the other depot unless a swap occurred (except crossover trips, which operator now try to do it within its own package because of uncertainty when the tendered duration ended).

So by your claim, BYD bus are package allocated and it appear to be in Sengkang Hougang package. But unfortunately, the package itself it under negotiated contract, i.e. operator they themselves can deploy from any existing non-tendered depot without restriction, if I not wrong. If not why Service 86 belongs to AMDEP instead while the rest belongs to HGDEP?

I hope you can help me clarify this.

Thanks

Reply

Hi,

Thanks for your clarification. However, I beg to differ. Even you had claimed that those bus that I listed for SMRT and TTS are operator assigned, but it seems to me you get it mix-up. As far as I know, there are 2 different type of contracts running - 1 is Tendered Contracts which Bulim, Loyang, Seletar, Bukit Merah, Sembawang – Yishun, Jurong West falls under. The other are Negotiated Contracts which the rest of the package that falls under. Those contracts runs slightly different, but they remains the same.

What you had listed to me about SMRT deploying E500s cameos on Woodlands packages are mostly from Negotiated Contracts which E500s are leased to LTA instead. The same applied to HGDEP where it was leased to LTA from SBS Transit for the two package that you had mention, which means, SBS Transit still had the say on which service operated from which.

For tendered contracts, you would noticed that buses are now owned by LTA (for those existing SMB/SBS plated, they are sold to LTA at the start of tendered contracts for takeover), correct me if all buses had been sold, but I doubt so if not why SBS Transit open a tender for refurbishment of K230UB buses? This means it was now package-allocated.

That is the reason why even for TTS, you will never see a cameo from Bulim buses plying Sembawang-Yishun package (a bit rare, unless really shortage of buses) and vice-versa. To make matters worse, even TTS do repasted their Bulim buses with the Sembawang-Yishun operator stickers (so they are no longer white for Bulim and green for Sembawang-Yishun) like what they had claimed, I even do a check on it.

New buses like the BYD are definately package allocated, which means the ownership lies fully on LTA and they are packaged based. But Sengkang-Hougang package are negotiated contracts meaning even if those buses are parked at HGDEP, it was still technically "controlled" by AMDEP on 86 as part of negotiated contact, so there is no breach of contracts. Unless those buses plying routes that does not belong to Sengkang-Hougang then that is a serious problem.

Therefore, like why alot of editors had mention, it is correct to say, BYD for 86 is AMDEP 86 instead of HGDEP 86 because the main depot is still AMDEP under negotiated contract (SBS Transit had the final say). If not why LTA decided to extend those negotiated contracts due date for SBS Transit and SMRT when LTA wants something from them (like MRT NRFF), because those operators have the power due to ownership.

HGDEP is technically not under LTA, but is under SBS Transit ownership. SLDEP is now under LTA (that is the reason why SBS Transit had to shift its control center out of SLBP) due to Jurong West now falls under Tender Contract.

But nevertheless, even those negotiated contracts, operators are now trying to restricts it deployment within the same package for ease of takeover, but even for SBS Transit and SMRT they still have the final decision says.

So to clarify, even the B9TL, Citaro, and E500s for Bulim and Sembawang-Yishun are also package-allocated instead (tendered contracts) due to the ownership of those buses. If not why TTS doesn't deploy A24 on Bulim services? Not even a single cameo even appeared if what you had claimed as operator-assigned.

Regards

New Deployment Format

Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could take some time to review the proposed table format for Bus Service 168's fleet.

Your genuine feedback is highly valued, particularly regarding whether this new format effectively addresses concerns related to the "counting" of buses for users with dyslexia, compared to the existing table structure. Your input will help ensure accessibility and clarity for all users.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

- Supernutorcrazy

Reply

Hi,

Thank you for your feedback regarding the number of buses to include in the table.

I would like to point out that I purposely omitted such information to maintain synchronisation with other pages featuring the flexi-deployment fleet and missing/extra buses.

In the event of missing or extra buses, editors would update the total count, but it might not add up correctly to the total number of single-decker, upper-decker, or articulated buses, as well as the overall fleet size. A footnote will then be included which warns of such inaccuracy. In my opinion, this is ok. But the problem now lies in services with flexi-deployment.

In services with flexi-deployment, the new format doesn't use the term "Any Single-decker buses" or whatsoever phrases. Instead, it will lists the model that will ply on such services. The model count will then be a confusing aspect to editors, which I hope that you could find a way and trial such count on services with both flexi-deployment and perm buses.

- Supernutorcrazy

Reverting Edits

Hi,

I had revert your edits for Service 675 to 677. Like I had explained earlier, the new pages no longer usrs the term "Any xxx buses". Instead, it will be replace by the model of the bus that will ply. Meaning stating BYD/Scania K230UB will implied any buses, and uses the notes table, "2 buses from Service 159 will perform xxxx crossover instead."

Opinion

Hi,

I would like to seek your opinion on the following proposed changes:

1. Launch of sgWiki Bus Spotting Page A new page will be created daily and automatically deleted a month later. For example, "Bus Spotting/1 February 2025" would be removed on 1 March 2025. This page is intended to allow editors to document bus registration numbers without the typical edit limitations, enabling infinite edits.

The primary objective is to encourage collaboration among editors and to improve the accuracy of bus deployment data in relation to their permanent services. Many users have noted that the deployment page contains inaccurate and outdated information. By using these pages, we aim to track bus operations more effectively and allocate the correct permanent services, without requiring editors to board the buses to verify duty schedules.

2. Use of Subpages for Bus Model Deployment I have received considerable feedback, mostly criticism, regarding the separation and consolidation of bus advertisements across models. Most complaints focus on advertisement changes rather than deployment accuracy, which contributes to the aforementioned inaccuracies. As such, I propose reorganising the Bus Model deployment using subpages as follows:

Example: Volvo B9TL (WEG Batch 2) will be divided into four subpages:

1. Volvo B9TL (Wright Eclipse Gemini 2) (Batch 2)/Page 1 – (Low Entry, SBS7700T – SBS7729L)
2. Volvo B9TL (Wright Eclipse Gemini 2) (Batch 2)/Page 2 – (Low Floor, SBS3000G – SBS3099Y)
3. Volvo B9TL (Wright Eclipse Gemini 2) (Batch 2)/Page 3 – (Low Floor, SBS3100B – SBS3199S)
4. Volvo B9TL (Wright Eclipse Gemini 2) (Batch 2)/Page 4 – (Low Floor, SBS3200X – SBS3238M & SBS3269Z)

A navigation bar will be added at the top and bottom of each page, linking the respective subpages. Each page will feature a single table listing up to 100 buses, organised in the following format:

Registration No/Livery | Operator/Current Deployment | Advertisement | Former Deployment

This approach seeks to balance different perspectives, and to be more mobile friendly, as I am uncertain why some users are strongly opposed to these changes.

Alternative Table Layouts:

1. Registration No/Livery | Operator/Current Deployment | Former Deployment (Maintain status quo)
2. Batch | Registration No/Livery | Operator/Current Deployment | Former Deployment (Merging of Batches, numerical order, maintain status quo)
3. Batch | Registration No/Livery | Operator/Current Deployment | Advertisement | Former Deployment (Merging of Batches, numerical order)

Please let me know your thoughts on these proposals. Thank you for your time and feedback.

Regards, Supernutorcrazy