比較有興趣想知...
城記部E500H下層座位改過d咩野？？
7月頭去睇，下層尾排門位的對頭位(1前1後)應該系冇左嫁:o :o
PS.下層門位後第一排位應該系高地台，晤知最終有冇得改番做低地台呢:D
原帖由 PE3529 於 2014-9-1 20:47 發表 http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif
http://www.kmb.hk/tc/news/press/archives/news201409012070.html
唔好漏左九巴
on dot cc 剛在21:14 補番九巴的相關報導:L
http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20140901/bkn-20140901211445385-0901_00822_001.html
原帖由 HN577 於 2014-9-1 14:32 發表 http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif
比較有興趣想知...
城記部E500H下層座位改過d咩野？？
7月頭去睇，下層尾排門位的對頭位(1前1後)應該系冇左嫁:o :o
PS.下層門位後第一排位應該系高地台，晤知最終有冇得改番做低地台呢:D ...
Much of the space are likely to be taken up by batteries, as the air-cond unit takes up the space where the battery pack normal goes on the E40H. Also, I expect the E50H has more batteries as well, in order to cater the heavy power duty.
其實混能不嬲都係最實際既環保車，慳油得黎又唔好似電池車咁有舊電既問題。唯一問題係購車成本高。還掂政府都貼錢，不如再買多啲減下營運成本
原帖由 GK3258 於 2014-9-2 09:06 發表 http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif
其實混能不嬲都係最實際既環保車，慳油得黎又唔好似電池車咁有舊電既問題。唯一問題係購車成本高。還掂政府都貼錢，不如再買多啲減下營運成本
其實都有電池的問題，只係少 d 咁解....
如果 n 年後電巴電池體積可以細到同油箱差唔多，柴油巴士消失都好難避免....
原帖由 Aeon802 於 2014-9-1 04:27 發表 http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif
49+31+36=116,比11.3米還少,好彩有80個位
個新色,我都覺得OK好睇,城巴隻黃色,同綠色都幾MATCH,不過前面牌箱多左兩條草,好怪 同Ｅ５０Ｄ相比，減少左既只係上層座位及下層企位，下層座位數目不變，再加上相片助証
估計Ｅ５０Ｈ只係佔用左上層最後大半隻窗既位置，而由於下層座位數目不變，估計下層企位數目減少只係因為車重上限問題而非站立位置減少有關
而由相片角度黎睇，上層尾排還在尾窗之內，但居然估去上層十個座位，估計上層座位間距必定比Ｅ５０Ｄ闊
所以如果Ｅ５０Ｈ用Ｅ５０Ｄ標準去排列座位及不考慮超重問題，Ｅ５０Ｈ既載客量極可能可以去到１３０人
當然以上只係我無知同根據表面資料推算，如果有車箱相會更好推斷
犠牲２１個載客量對巴士公司黎講確實難以吸引，但如果真如我所算只犠牲７個甚至更少，我相信無人會反對為環保付出更多
原帖由 AV385 於 2014-9-2 11:36 發表 http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif
同Ｅ５０Ｄ相比，減少左既只係上層座位及下層企位，下層座位數目不變，再加上相片助証
估計Ｅ５０Ｈ只係佔用左上層最後大半隻窗既位置，而由於下層座位數目不變，估計下層企位數目減少只係因為車重上限問題而非站立位置減少有關
而由相片角度黎 ...
上層座位距離拉闊可能同樣因為車重問題, 加上新組件在上層車尾, 標準排法會有機會上層過重過唔到傾側測試
其實80個座位只等同返回直梯年代
如果慳得多油(錢), 唔會經常頂閘嘅線 仍然用得著
車價問題不大, 架車日日行十幾廿粒鐘, 營運開支先最重要
仲唔洗中段補油
好快抵銷車價成本
問題係慳得幾多油, 同維修/可靠度/耐用問題
[ 本帖最後由 ccchhhuuunnn 於 2014-9-2 12:00 編輯 ]
原帖由 da54 於 2014-9-2 11:22 發表 http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif
其實都有電池的問題，只係少 d 咁解....
如果 n 年後電巴電池體積可以細到同油箱差唔多，柴油巴士消失都好難避免....
今時今日電池價格已經落左好多~~不過解決唔到既就係電池損耗快的問題, 其實咁樣攪法..遲早成堆電池去堆填...是好是壞, 真係由看官自行定斷~
原帖由 hkbw 於 2014-9-2 11:58 發表 http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif
今時今日電池價格已經落左好多~~不過解決唔到既就係電池損耗快的問題, 其實咁樣攪法..遲早成堆電池去堆填...是好是壞, 真係由看官自行定斷~
又唔係直接堆填嘅
官方都應該會回收, 用較環保方式處置
同hybrid car一樣
原帖由 da54 於 2014-9-2 03:22 發表 http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/images/common/back.gif
其實都有電池的問題，只係少 d 咁解....
如果 n 年後電巴電池體積可以細到同油箱差唔多，柴油巴士消失都好難避免....
There are other options. One is recharge hybrids, for which about 13 E40Hs will be on trial in London imminently and the system shall be similar to the one in Milton Keynes. Volvo also trial a very similar system in Gothenberg with pretty good success as well. However, by far the biggest issue is infrastructure costs, and I can't see HK operators picking up the bill sadly.
The other, IMO a much more viable option for HK in short term is flywheel hybrid. This system does not give as much benefit as battery/recharge hybrids, but is much cheaper, and have negligible weight and space penalty. Both ADL and Wrightbus have been offering them onto their single decker products and this can well be a better solution in short term.