回復 19# 的帖子
九巴32B,38A,39A,66,73,82K,94,99......適合嗎？ 原帖由 小角色 於 2009-11-26 20:07 發表 http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif我睇過佢地既用途...佢地用黎試滿客時架車既性能同埋用黎試傾斜...
仲有補充少少..架E400係全車碟剎...ZF動力擔~~~
E400 一向都係用 ZF o既尾擔，反而頭擔都用 ZF 應該就係一個比較新鮮o既配搭。 1. 英國廠家同香港巴士公司合作多年，相信佢地都深知香港炎熱潮濕斜路多的特點，
我會對E400適應到香港的環境，投下信心一票 =]
2. 坦白說，各花入各眼，外觀及內櫳設計喜惡因人而異...
小弟深愛前門位保留「孤線」的特色，但載客量只有八十多人，是否太少？
p.s ADS 載客量為117人
3. 320匹馬力加上不太重的載客量，理應沒多大問題，
另兩軸比三軸更「咬地」，操控理應更易~
唯一膽心的是 E400首次裝上空調的問題和巴士公司點set架車的問題...
4. 未知之數，小弟樂觀點，覺得有90%可以通過測試
5. 也是未知之數，同樣也覺得有90%可以過關
--------------------------------------------
E400來港確實令人期望，作為本港首批低地台雙軸冷氣車，
相信代替城記就到期的短蘭，服務南區的任務是屬於「她」了 =]
但闊車身會否是她將來服務的缺點？拭目以待！ 睇落車轆的大小同Trident / E500差不多. 照計E400同其他低地台車一樣都要0係前軸上加油壓等機械.
唔同ge係E400整到導航位, 但Trident / E500甚至其他車廠出的低地台車都整唔到導航位. 究竟係乜原因呢? 原帖由 卡達哥 於 2009-11-27 00:51 發表 http://hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif
- G( t- o2 j* H; E' B2. 坦白說，各花入各眼，外觀及內櫳設計喜惡因人而異...9 \4 Y! d* s& b. u* E9 P3 B
小弟深愛前門位保留「孤線」的特色，但載客量只有八十多人，是否太少？
. e) X- Y' W, ^4 L; D1 zhkitalk.netp.s ADS 載客量為117人
我都覺得太少, 如果可行的話, 95人左右會好少少
因為2+2的ADS都係100多少少, 如果少20個的話, 行疏車線就會影響好大…
其實雖然話佢地載客能力同架asc差不多, 不過始終行長途的話, 細雙層點都會比大單層好…
ASC得36個座位, E400淨係個上層都已經唔止呢個數, 而且企位係唔係真係企得足咁多人, 都係一個問題。
所以在靈活性方面, E400點都有生存價值, (呢批車長遠仲有可能要替短金, 第一代ATS已經過左壽命的一半, 長遠都要搵定後繼車)
仲有多一點, 城巴的問題會更大, 因為城巴批短蘭短龍載客量下下都110…而家呢批E400載唔載到90都唔知的話, 少了都有大約20%, 係唔係應該入更多數量的車來彌補… 原帖由 s3n370 於 2009-11-26 17:52 發表 http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif
睇落車轆的大小同Trident / E500差不多. 照計E400同其他低地台車一樣都要0係前軸上加油壓等機械.
唔同ge係E400整到導航位, 但Trident / E500甚至其他車廠出的低地台車都整唔到導航位. 究竟係乜原因呢? ...
It did the trick by extending the front overhang, and more the front door a bit forward to creat enough space for a seat on the front axis. That is not specific to the 2-axle Trident chassis, and the E400-bodied B9TL and (I believe) N230UD also have those seats.
HB00610: It has nothing to do with how much seats or space it can carry - it is the weight that drives the capacity. Being heavier and, with only 2-axle, having a lower legal weight limit (as I said, I would struggle to see it will be granted to a max gross weight beyond 18,000kg). Take the UK ones as an example, without the air-cond and associated ductings, they are lighter, but they are certified to carry up to 90 passengers. Even assuming the average weight per person is lower in HK, I don't think it will make up the 2,300kg weight penalty carried on these two E400s. I don't think anyone should be surprised if they ended up with a capacity of 80 people or less, I can see that happen.
[ 本帖最後由 NV58 於 2009-11-26 20:14 編輯 ] 原帖由 NV58 於 2009-11-26 11:59 發表 http://hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif
I don't think anyone should be surprised if they ended up with a capacity of 80 people or less, I can see that happen.
If that's the case these 2-axle double deckers would be better suited for longer distance routes in which the passengers are less willing to stand for the whole journey. A 11.0~11.1m E400 Trident/B9TL with spiral staircase should have more or less the same seating capacity as ATE (U51+L25+3 seats above the front wheels+1 more seat for the existing 「自閉位」on the 40xx = 80 seats).
For the replacement of short 3-axle double decker buses, I strongly recommend an "evolved" version of 33xx. I believe this can be acheived by improving the design of Trident 3 instead of trying to shorten the existing E500 chassis. 原帖由 HB00610 於 2009-11-27 01:52 發表 http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif
其實雖然話佢地載客能力同架asc差不多, 不過始終行長途的話, 細雙層點都會比大單層好…2 q, T/ G* v! K# C3 u) |- H" V+ _
) gX6 ^, G" e# f
ASC得36個座位, E400淨係個上層都已經唔止呢個數, 而且企位係唔係真係企得足咁多人, 都係一個問題。
S0 b1 M5 N3 N
所以在靈活性方面, E400點都有生存價值, (呢批車長遠仲有可能要替短金, 第一代ATS已經過左壽命的一半, 長遠都要搵定後繼車)
Q, Q1 s2 ~
& p. \6 d6 m' b: P
仲有多一點, 城巴的問題會更大, 因為城巴批短蘭短龍載客量下下都110…而家呢批E400載唔載到90都唔知的話, 少了都有大約20%, 係唔係應該入更多數量的車來彌補…
我亦認同這一點,在九巴方面
較短既ASB載客量有限,好多客量偏低既路線ASB都唔夠載
而載客量較多既ASC雖然能夠載更多人,但因長度所限,
有部份路窄彎多既路線都不能行走
而且大量的企位,及較高位置既坐位都對行動不便既乘客造成不便
E400正好在此處補充不足...
城巴黎講,個人估計E400會投放在赤柱線
而赤柱線客量較高,E400真係未必夠... 據男友論壇一版友稱城巴內部出左紙,指示左派去赤柱線 原帖由 HB00610 於 2009-11-27 01:52 發表 http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif
我都覺得太少, 如果可行的話, 95人左右會好少少
因為2+2的ADS都係100多少少, 如果少20個的話, 行疏車線就會影響好大…
其實雖然話佢地載客能力同架asc差不多, 不過始終行長途的話, 細雙層點都會比大單層好…
AS ...
九巴方面, 小弟唔認為少佐20個位會有好大影響.
現今行短車ge多數係客量較低的路線. 少20個位又未至於話載唔哂.
80個位都載唔哂ge, 又只有三幾條線係非用短車不可.