九巴新訂單

原帖由 93A_S3_6:30am 於 2010-6-20 12:11 發表
岩岩計左條數

KMB Non SLF 單層以全盛時計,
AM共184部,AA non-SLF共48部,AN共24部
Total=256

KMB SLF 單層新車,
AA SLF共22部,ASB共20部,ASC/ASCU共30部,AVC共訂100部,E200共訂30部,
Total=202 only

九巴近了轉左 ...

咩AVC有訂左100部咁多咩!?唔係整係得70部架咩..............

原帖由 petcity 於 2010-6-20 10:51 發表


For me, I won't surprise that 10.4m E200Dart will be choose as it can provide much higher
capacity but also in terms of a better flexibility for the route deploying.

如果10.4m Dart做到高載客量之餘,又乜線都行到
點解ASB又做唔到?
而且ASB似乎可以上到ASU隻偈,上到大帽山之餘重可以落慳油mode添

不過,若果係車價問題,至買E200,咁小弟無野講....

原帖由 FD5410 於 2010-6-20 11:41 發表


M81-88 無早退,只係換返吉拿
再改裝批較舊既M仔上山...
(有錯請指)

其實而家批AA亦唔見有早退...
但係批低地台Dart既表現不敢恭維
E200亦未必能應付211既客量... ...

小弟的意思係呢幾部M仔的服役年期較同款的都要短得多。

原帖由 GA6072 於 2010-6-20 16:14 發表


如果10.4m Dart做到高載客量之餘,又乜線都行到
點解ASB又做唔到?
而且ASB似乎可以上到ASU隻偈,上到大帽山之餘重可以落慳油mode添

不過,若果係車價問題,至買E200,咁小弟無野講.... ...

E200 (Dart)唔用得慳油波箱?

原帖由 NC8285 於 2010-6-20 12:35 發表


咩AVC有訂左100部咁多咩!?唔係整係得70部架咩..............

如果雙轉單計劃受阻，真係可能連70部都已經一早唔存在(個人猜測未能證實)，
意思即係而家交左40部，而跟住果30部張單係option。

[ 本帖最後由 on11358 於 2010-6-20 18:28 編輯 ]

原帖由 petcity 於 2010-6-20 02:51 發表


Before I can get the answer of the length of thhis batch of E200Dart, but I much sure
that KMB will choose a dul-doors design as now you can see it can be a standard for
single decker and actually t ...

Still go back to the point though, for a bus about 9m long, is there really a need for another door? Don't really think so.

I see the point of the 10.4m E200Dart - but only if they hadn't committed to the ASBs in the first place. GA6072 reiterated my point, they are the same size of vehicle and ended up doing the same up, so why not standardise on a single type anyway. I still maintain the E200Dart would be a better choice for this size because it is lighter and hence will be cheaper to run than the ASBs. Arguably, the same goes for the 12m single decker too - KMB should take either the AVC or ASC, not both. The key of my point is, for both classes of buses I'm talking about, the fleet size are too small in both cases to make dual-sourcing unnecessary. I simply do not believe they have thought it through when they order the buses in the first place.

I still think where they are now, as they are buying the E200Dart, they should take the opportunity to get the smaller version to simplify their fleet does the line. In a few years time they will have to think about replacing the AMs anyway, why not taking the opportunity now?

[ 本帖最後由 NV58 於 2010-6-20 12:14 編輯 ]

原帖由 HV7025 於 2010-6-19 11:19 發表

211 竹園道穎竹街口都有落10米以下路牌
但掛牌車只有一部係10米, 其餘既都係十米七
有permission就無問題
而且每日仲有大量長過10米既旅遊巴行

51 條路係窄, 但至少闊過大潭道, 赤柱峽道
荃錦未至於話窄到10米以上 ...

The most important is 荃錦 really dangerous if you passing the central / double white line

(If you have driving experience on that road, you will sure understand what I'm talking about)

原帖由 HV7025 於 2010-6-19 11:19 發表

211 竹園道穎竹街口都有落10米以下路牌
但掛牌車只有一部係10米, 其餘既都係十米七
有permission就無問題
而且每日仲有大量長過10米既旅遊巴行

51 條路係窄, 但至少闊過大潭道, 赤柱峽道
荃錦未至於話窄到10米以上 ...

BTW , 每日仲有大量長過10米既旅遊巴行 not equal to they're appropriate to do so

If there's a police asking for why , you'll have to pay the bills .

原帖由 NV58 於 2010-6-20 20:13 發表


Still go back to the point though, for a bus about 9m long, is there really a need for another door? Don't really think so.

I see the point of the 10.4m E200Dart - but only if they hadn't committed ...

However, is there really a need for KMB to purchase a fleet of 9m single deckers with single door?
Not sure how the situation of 51 would be, as someone in this thread claimed that the 10.4m E200 would be assigned to 51.
Apart from 51, I just can't think of any other route which cannot run a bus with app. 10m long.
53 / 276? MTR has been using B10M already on the same road already.

原帖由 rlcw 於 2010-6-20 22:08 發表


BTW , 每日仲有大量長過10米既旅遊巴行 not equal to they're appropriate to do so

If there's a police asking for why , you'll have to pay the bills .

如果板友喺講陳添條KR21就應該拎咗許可.