我愛的 -- ENVIRO300 (100 pics)

原帖由 DGCNYO 於 2011-9-21 00:51 發表

頂唔順又唔會掛，其實部車睇落輕在用左唔少細車機件

粗用牙煙D，多人問題不大，而機器都唔見得勁抽

而且12米車，你想佢可以粗用得去邊....正正常常stop and go濕濕碎 ...

真心問, 其實你有冇去過英國同埋坐過E300?

原帖由 DGCNYO 於 2011-9-20 16:51 發表

頂唔順又唔會掛，其實部車睇落輕在用左唔少細車機件

粗用牙煙D，多人問題不大，而機器都唔見得勁抽

而且12米車，你想佢可以粗用得去邊....正正常常stop and go濕濕碎 ...

Though it is a bit rude, but I have to concur sutrak's question as well.

For a start, you need to understand how large single deckers are utilised in this country. Buses of this size are very versatile and found in a large variety of operations - in-town citybus trunk routes and long distance interurban services in most cases. This is significantly different from how similar types of buses are being used in HK, where they tend to find themselves on quieter services.

And with that the difference between a E300-class (aka supermidi) and a full-size bus (e.g. B7RLE) comes into play. Both types have the same physical dimension and seat count, but this is where the similarity ends. A supermidi like the E300 is lighter, and more economical to run that for services that is less packed, but still require good number of seats, would be ideal like some medium-haul interurban services. Meanwhile, full-size buses are more suitable for busy services in large towns/cities and, because they tend to be a bit more refined, longer and busier interurban services as well.

The concept of supermidi dates back to the Optare Excel and Super Darts actually, and for Transbus (now ADL) and DAF (now VDL), they decided it is a good concept and develop it further to become the E300 and SB200. Now when you look at, for example, Stagecoach's utilisation of its fleet, you don't find a lot of E300s being used on very busy services, where heavier MANs, and the coming-soon Scanias are preferred. Some operators like First, Go-Ahead and Veolia-Transdev prefers heavier types to trade weight for better operational flexibility. The only exception I know is Arriva, who standardise on the SB200 on their large single decker requirements - although it didn't stop them from buying B7RLEs, Tempos and so on every now and then.

So no, you won't find the E300 doing stop-start services in the city. They have enough performance to work on interurban services that they are designed for, and do it well too.

原帖由 NV58 於 2011-9-21 02:54 發表


Though it is a bit rude, but I have to concur sutrak's question as well.

For a start, you need to understand how large single deckers are utilised in this country. Buses of this size are very versa ...

我認同E300的用途定位，E300的確在營運上有很多利的設計


不過不認同耐用上會有太過份的分別


因為並不是用任何強勁的大機器，而車重更輕量下剛性也可以相應減少，這理應在可接受水平


而用途上，E300的確不會用在比較惡劣的情況，這是性能的問題，如同Full SLF一樣


只係比比動力系數用來做大事未免太可憐了

原帖由 sutrak 於 2011-9-21 02:04 發表


真心問, 其實你有冇去過英國同埋坐過E300?

裝身偷輕做成雜音多同耐用無關喎


以前ALX車身一樣偷輕到轉個彎都拍拍推扭曲聲，一樣行咁多年，除了要小心扭得多會裂口外，問題不大

車身這東西雖然影響座感、質素甚至行車質感，不過在耐用成份上，卻遠遠不及底盤的問題

原帖由 DGCNYO 於 2011-9-21 13:15 發表

我認同E300的用途定位，E300的確在營運上有很多利的設計


不過不認同耐用上會有太過份的分別


因為並不是用任何強勁的大機器，而車重更輕量下剛性也可以相應減少，這理應在可接受水平

I don't really think you get what I'm on about.

Supermidi's are designed to give, let's say, 80% of the capability of the traditional full-size bus of the same size, because ADL and VDL see that is what most of the market needs for a bus of that size. They are built light not because of the use more powerful engine, that's the wrong way to look at it - For a supermidi, since it only need to be a little less capable payload-wise, it does not need to go to a full blow GVW of 18 tons, and correspondingly, it does not need a heavy chassis to handle the load. Being lighter, the end result is a smaller engine would do the job, which reduces the structural requirement further still.

It will be just as durable so long as it is not put into heavy duty operations - which they are not designed for. And on that ground supermidis are, by default, less durable. This is not a criticism, it's just how it was designed, and the logic that goes behind it. But for the same reason, many operators are more into the additional flexibility than a full size bus can bring, which is why the Volvos, Scanias, MANs, Citaros and Tempo are still selling well over the last decade.

原帖由 DGCNYO 於 2011-9-21 13:15 發表
而用途上，E300的確不會用在比較惡劣的情況，這是性能的問題，如同Full SLF一樣

It will every now and then, just putting them on such operations will not work. The E300 in particular was designed on the back of the lessons learnt from the Super Dart. When launched, the SPD was bought by a good number of operators who believe they can do the job of a full size bus, but as it turned out, it wasn't quite the case. This is why so many prominent Super Dart users, such as Lothian, Go North East, Cardiff Buses and First to return and buy Volvos, Scanis and Citaros instead. This also explains why the E300 (and SB200 for that matter) has been selling so poorly until now.

原帖由 DGCNYO 於 2011-9-21 13:15 發表
只係比比動力系數用來做大事未免太可憐了

Of course. If anything, horsepower-wise the E300 has comparable power than its heavier competitors (Particularly against the Scania which nominally have less power on the K230UB/N230UB) and if you ever be on one, it is certainly not slow either. However, smaller engine does have lower torque, which is rather important on heavier load and longer distance interurban services (e.g. easier to pull out into traffic in a 60mph single carriageway). If that sounds silly, look no further than Stagecoach's double decker intake over the last few years - they are buying Scanias alongside E400 Tridents for a reason, because the latter's smaller engine - despite having 30bhp more than the Scania's - makes them too slow to be used on interurban services regularly.

原帖由 DGCNYO 於 2011-9-21 13:15 發表
裝身偷輕做成雜音多同耐用無關喎


以前ALX車身一樣偷輕到轉個彎都拍拍推扭曲聲，一樣行咁多年，除了要小心扭得多會裂口外，問題不大

車身這東西雖然影響座感、質素甚至行車質感，不過在耐用成份上，卻遠遠不及底盤的問題

Of course it does. A structure that is too light will not handle the load, and more prone to metal fatigue (Good example is the Marshall Capital bodywork that need to have a window paneled over because of structural overstress).

And bodywork structural integrity and durability is far more important than you think - all low floor chassis you are seeing nowadays are semi-integral design - without the bodywork, the chassis will not stand on its own and will give way.

Anyway, that's not even what sutrak was debating. As far as I can see, he is questioning your understanding on how different classes of buses are being operated in the UK.

[ 本帖最後由 NV58 於 2011-9-21 19:03 編輯 ]

原帖由 NV58 於 2011-9-22 02:57 發表


I don't really think you get what I'm on about.

Supermidi's are designed to give, let's say, 80% of the capability of the traditional full-size bus of the same size, because ADL and VDL see that is ...

大家見解不同，討論而己

而我的看法E300的輕量是很吸引，因為這基本直接跟用油量掛勾，15噸以下的~12m車很理想

如果不是惡劣的制度、用途，E300的確是是理想的車型，實在的確沒需要用到18噸上限來滿足


用在些並非十分高需求的城際線，定位絕對比B7RLE有利，總沒人希望用更多的錢跟油在能力高的車用在不需要這麼高能力的路線

由其英國城郊不會這麼可怕的擠過不通，這種情況E300理所當然的在輕量化一環中跑贏

原帖由 DGCNYO 於 2011-9-22 21:58 發表

大家見解不同，討論而己

而我的看法E300的輕量是很吸引，因為這基本直接跟用油量掛勾，15噸以下的~12m車很理想

如果不是惡劣的制度、用途，E300的確是是理想的車型，實在的確沒需要用到18噸上限來滿足


用在些並 ...

咁請問閣下坐過邊一間公司o既Enviro300 而得出閣下o既見解呢?

只是好奇, 請勿介意

原帖由 sutrak 於 2011-9-22 23:00 發表


咁請問閣下坐過邊一間公司o既Enviro300 而得出閣下o既見解呢?

只是好奇, 請勿介意

你講咩見解先？係可以裝到3+2你覺得唔係做黎D，還是部車唔得先？

原帖由 DGCNYO 於 2011-9-24 18:06 發表

你講咩見解先？係可以裝到3+2你覺得唔係做黎D，還是部車唔得先？

The 3+2 layout is strictly as a school bus, that is not used on normal service duties.

And on rural routes, if anything, the heavier types are still normally preferred over supermidis.

[ 本帖最後由 NV58 於 2011-9-24 18:17 編輯 ]

原帖由 dongfeng 於 2011-9-16 14:07 發表
在Enviro家族中，只有Enviro 300 沒有被香港的巴士公司引入。
究竟Enviro 300的車軸設計，能否符合運輸署的發牌標準呢？

九巴AVC配E300車身我覺得會好過MCV殼

原帖由 sutrak 於 2011-9-21 02:04 發表


真心問, 其實你有冇去過英國同埋坐過E300?

我都好想知個答案
可惜人地係咁迴避呢個問題