大家支5支持香港巴士公司引入E300？

原帖由 FH9512 於 2010-3-18 20:19 發表


如果冇記錯
E200 Dart 同 E300 Dart 只係長度上既分別
E200 最長 11 米 (即 MTR果款 ) , 所以衍生 12 米版的 E300

如果上面冇記錯
而家市場上入 E300 可能應該唔會太大 , 同市場(中型單層)有幾間廠商 (VOLVO M ...

鐵巴入雙層仲好
基本上單層車得 K65 K75 用，12部 E200  都應付到
單層車係鐵巴的地位 愈來愈低

[ 本帖最後由 S3BL343@66 於 2010-3-19 21:10 編輯 ]

原帖由 aa2_dart 於 2010-3-19 06:00 發表
E300由SPD發展出黎 , 更拉長至12m-12.5m , 開始攻進多年Dennis冇優勢既prduct既Market , 就係full size(大型單層巴士)既Market

It's partly yes, and partly no. Yes the E300 was evolved from the Super Dart, but it's not quite the same class as the heavier MAN, Volvo and Scania. What Transbus did was opening up a new niche, known as the "supermidi". The idea is trading structure for light weight, and fit it with a smaller engine to, theoretically, delivering better fuel economy.  DAF/VDL of course went along the same route with the SB200 as well.

The only problem is, the lighter E300/SB200 did not actually threaten the proper, full size competitiors, because in the real world, the heavier Volvo/Scania/MAN/Mercedes are more durable and versatile. If it sounds strange, then you need to look deeper into the UK market - Buses of this size are featured prominently on interurban services between towns, which the heavier, but usually more powerful full size buses are more suitable for those operations, not to mention in real life, the lighter bus does not always deliver better economy (those who drives would understand why). For citybus operations, where buses spend much of their time doing stop and start, the advantage of fuel for the E300/SB200 practically disappear - it just doesn't matter what you have when you sit in traffic.

The reality is plain for all the see really, when you compare how many E300/SB200 were sold since they were conceived, and how many Volvo/Scania/MAN/Mercedes were shipped at the same period. Even Stagecoach, a prominent ADL customer, sources more MAN 18.220/240s than the E300s. That really tells you something.

原帖由 aa2_dart 於 2010-3-19 06:00 發表
英國佬同德國佬係巴士上既concept係唔同.....英國佬係鐘意將架9米既Dart仔拉到成11米咁長 , solo仔得8米係都要拉到10點幾米咁長咁癡線 , 原因就係慳油.........

Thing is, you can only scretch a bus so far. The Super Dart sold well at the beginning, but its sales tailed off sharply by 2003. The cream of the sale went into the 9-10m versions (and bought predominently by London operators). Likewise, the longest 10.5m version Solo hardly really sale at all, and the vast majority of its order went to the 7.8m-9.5m versions.

原帖由 aa2_dart 於 2010-3-19 06:00 發表
一部11.3m既E200 Dart副康偈ISBe4食6.7L油 , 一部Citaro/ NL323隨時食你成10L油咁滯....

I don't know how you came up with that logic, but fuel consumption is not directly proportionate to engine size. For instance, a Volvo Olympian, with a bigger D10A engine, uses less fuel than the B7TL and 2-axle Trident, both having a smaller engine.

原帖由 aa2_dart 於 2010-3-19 06:00 發表
人地一部11.3M既E200 Dart用副5.9L  190匹既ISBe都夠佢行hkitalk.net9 n5 ]/ H1 q9 L- i7 R4 A! K; E- R
MTR批11.3M E200 Dart係用225匹既ISBe , E400人地仲用緊ISBe , HK要用ISLe....

The 6-cyclinder version ISBe engine used on the E200Dart and E400 are 6.7L, not 5.9L in the old days of the 6BT.

As I said before, I think the E400(HK) as its stands have too much power. Even with the ISBe engine, at full load, it would have similar power-to-weight ratio as the E500. I think they can do with toning the engine down to 280bhp and get better fuel economy really.

原帖由 aa2_dart 於 2010-3-19 06:00 發表
德國佬做靚 , 細緻唔捱得既大型單層巴士就真係無敵.....英國佬做架冇咁靚 , 唔細緻但又好捱得既中型單層巴士就真係無敵.....

The Dart/E200Dart and those MAN/Mercedes you are trying to compare are completely different classes of buses, a fact which seems different for you to get across your mind. If the MANs Citybus look rattly on their bodywork to you, you then need to look at how Darts at similar age fare as well. Also, body rattle doesn't tell you the bus is unhealthy, it can just be shoddy repairs in depot. It is structurally where the heavier types have the advantage.

原帖由 aa2_dart 於 2010-3-19 06:00 發表
你睇下一架最普通既Dart , 講緊用緊6BT +Alison AT545 年代既Dart仔 , 個底盤簡單到你唔信.....配副6BT就行得走得 , 邊似D德國佬1 v' v, \) x& h) p1 z8 ?8 X
D Citaro , O405 , O405N , NL262 , NK263 , NL202個D講機械化 , 一體化, 電腦化咁煩.....

Meanwhile, much of the world doesn't agree with you apparently, considering the Citaro, O405, Lion Cities, B10Ms etc. have been the best selling types of their time. Globally.

I'll say it again. For all your hypes on the Dart, the heavier types still exist and sell like hotcakes. Even in the UK, the heavier Scania/Volvo/Mercedes sales are being outsold by large midibuses like the E200Dart, Versa, Tempo, E300 and SB200. That tells you something. Writing off these buses because the Darts were a success in its own right is just like writing off the Boeing 747 because the 737 exists - Irrelevant and pointless.

原帖由 aa2_dart 於 2010-3-19 06:00 發表
但德國佬 D MAN , Benz好多細緻位 , 英國佬D乜鬼Dennis , VDL , Optare拍馬都追唔上....www.hkitalk.net5 c% U4 U# k) T5 p
www.hkitalk.net6 |2 Q( c# V# r/ y- e, s/ X#

Hum... VDL - formerly known as DAF - is a Dutch company.

What the German, and particularly Mercedes, excel is not on technology - Current E400 and E200Dart, believe it or not, have just about as much electronics and computer anyway. What they excel is the attention of design and build quality. Although the hype of a certain Mercedes cheerleader here was a but annoying, but I will hold my hand up and say that the Citaro is, hand on heart, a class on its own. I remember when the Citaro Gs started coming into London, the MD of Stagecoach London was once quoted to have said they were the best built bus they ever had.

The british of course have the capacity to do the same. They have Wrightbus, which excels on quality, attention to detail and being innovative, and, if on a lesser degree on quality, Optare. Dennis/Transbus/ADL are more than capable to do the same - they proved that on the original E200, 2/3-axle Trident and the original Dart, but I don't think, these day, they have been as bold anymore.

原帖由 aa2_dart 於 2010-3-19 06:00 發表
我好記得有個版友講拎架E200俾個德國佬睇 , 德國佬實笑死你班英國佬....

I won't. The original E200 was, in my opinion, the best design ever pulled out by Dennis/Transbus/ADL. I just wish it went into production...

Ok, you mean the E200Dart. But then would the Germans care anyway, the only contemporary type they have now are the Citaro K and 14.240, both of which sit at the upper end of the E200Dart range. The 14.240 in particular is rather similar to the E200Dart actually. Any smaller, they just don't seem to bother these days - Except Mercedes' short-life Cito of course.

There is nothing to laugh at. They just have different markets, and hence different design philosophies.

原帖由 MetroLine 於 2010-3-17 16:41 發表
其實買多啲單層有好多好處：
改善班次：由於單層載客量少了，故極適宜應用於客量不俗，但班次疏落的巴士路線，有助加強班次及服務水平。hkitalk.net/ G( f# s# H4 z7 E5 a/ p" P) B- }
2. 流水線：由於大部份乘客均很快下車，不願上上層，用單層巴士正好避免有關問題。若果該路線客量很高的話，大可以改用掛接巴士例如 Volvo B12BLEA (2001) 或者 Scania K310UA (2112) 等。
安全：曾經有多位議員在 AP 跌落山事件後提出禁止雙層巴士行走高速公路。事實上，由於高速公路車速高，用雙層巴士行走加大了其反車的機率，非常危險。轉用單層巴士行走正好減少反車風險，保障乘客安全。+ }- i2 e. d% l0 G6 _/ c

香港方面，其實 MTR 對 Volvo B10M 都差唔多夠鐘啦，或者如果轉用 Enviro 300 殼的 Volvo B12BLE 或者 Mercedes Benz OH1830LE 會更加適合。
l& T6 C' {7 x
不過如果頭兩張相的車係最新款的 Enviro 300 的話，就不如裝 Volgren CR228L 殼好過，起碼好看啲。! q6 z  {  b- j
果該路 ...

第一點:如果巴士公司肯加密班次既話，我都同意既，但建議閣下不況睇下葵青區RDP，251M,263M及264M既建議先...
第二點:客量高而用單層既流水線，要睇下點高法，273呢類真係短到無得再短就當然無問題，但K76呢類轉用單層，只會另兩邊巴士總站都交通擠塞，到時盞賠了夫人又折兵，若果係因安全而另到全部屯門公路線都轉用單層巴士的話，本人保證欖隧通車前既擠塞狀況必定重現，而長途線更會另到其它路段因埋站問題而交通擠塞...
3.有無兩者既載客量資料？

原帖由 S3BL343@66 於 2010-3-19 21:08 發表


鐵巴入雙層仲好
基本上單層車得 K65 K75 用，12部 E200  都應付到
單層車係鐵巴的地位 愈來愈低

反而我覺得末能善用呢批車, 例如下繁k51特車,開雙層車行十分鐘,上樓都冇謂啦。
k65其實比e400可能行到 (因為當年兩軸MCW也可),否則也要再入短e200