[轉載]城巴E50H樣板車現身蘇格蘭

Judging from the photos of the left rear and the right side, the hybrid equipment might all situated at the left side towards the rear and on top of the A/C unit, as the right side of vehicle looks like the normal E500MMC.

原帖由 ATE258 於 2014-5-23 12:54 發表

The loss passenger capacity due to the hybrid equipment maybe compensated by stretching the chassis to 12.8m.

Here in US/Canada, ADL is offering a 'go-anywhere' model that only comes with 12.8m con ...

原帖由 NV58 於 23/5/2014 05:13 AM 發表
Had a look at some pictures on the flickr site, I'm very surprised, and actually quite disapppointed, by what the layout may end up.

The beauty of the existing hybrid double decker types running in t ...

咁又未必少三成載客量咁多嘅
畢竟佢用咗另一間公司出品嘅混能系統, 而且系統比以前成熟, 系統總重應該有所下降
故此車嘅淨重唔會重好多, 若然將E400H嗰套混能原個搬落去嘅話, 咁應該重唔過九巴AVW同AP
因為以TfL版計,E400H只係比E400重四五百公斤左右, 而E500MMC嘅淨重都係十五噸多啲

原帖由 S3N92 於 23/5/2014 09:00 AM 發表

唔該閣下睇埋美版下層先再講啦...個部下層仲衰又唔見你講

其實兩個版本喺總座位量上, 一樣唔算好, 大家都起碼少咗七八張櫈
只係分佈上同舊版有分別

而家呢部就上層少起碼四張, 下層少三四張, 同舊版淨係喺下層減櫈唔同
但係而家呢部就好似E400H咁, 將嚿電放喺上層車尾, 佔用一啲上層車廂空間
另一方面, 車尾冷氣機組, 同通往上層嘅冷氣槽佔用車尾唔少空間
故此成套混能系統要繞過呢啲組件, 安裝喺其前方
又為免進一步內侵下層車廂空間, 於是將混能系統嘅電子控制元件堆曬喺左邊

至於中門後嘅小型散熱口, 我諗應該有摩打連散熱風扇喺度(如果係用Series Hybrid嘅話), 而呢種設計早喺NBfL見過
NBfL: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kjs251/6936276335
E500MMC Hybrid: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesdawkins/14051474478

不過點好過升高曬下層啲位嚟擺呢啲混能系統組件, 一嚟佈局唔好睇, 二嚟會令某啲車軸超重

[ 本帖最後由 GW5498 於 2014-5-23 18:07 編輯 ]

唔知道會唔會超重又需要改野

看一看美洲版的車廂，似乎與香港版差不多：
http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/ ... d=332829&page=1

原帖由 S3N92 於 2014-5-23 01:00 發表

唔該閣下睇埋美版下層先再講啦...個部下層仲衰又唔見你講

I haven't seen the US version, but these new ones for HK has a completely different hybrid system it looks like (BAE Systems HybriDrive like that E40H). It makes no difference anyway, the loss of capacity is going to be the killer of the E50H.

What I am saying is that, if this E500H is design with a sacrifice of about 30% of capacity, that completely nullify the fuel saving that you normally get in a hybrid, which is about the same percentage. From an operational cost point of view, why does anyone want that? It's not cheaper to run, per passenger, in real term, and it is likely to be more expensive (50% more than a striaght diesel based on all comparable models in the UK).

The ones we have in operation in the UK for a few years now, by which I mean the E400H, B5LH, and even the NBfL, makes sense because they do not have notable lost of capacity. Using the E400 as an example, you probably see a deficit of 3 passengers in the hybrid model, which is minimal really. The thing is, these hybrids in the UK works because they can carry the same number of people as the diesels, and thus capable to do the same job whilst pocket the cost saving from the 30% fuel they save, and in turn recoup the 50% increase of price of the hybrid model over the course of their life. We know this is sound from a business point of view because we have seen the likes of Stagecoach and Go-Ahead Group buying hybrid buses without government subsidiaries, which would not have been possible if their operational costs are high.

For the E50H as it is now, you may get saving from the 30% fuel it is likely to save, but once you lose the 30% capacity, what happen is, as an example, for a route with a peak requirement of 10 E50Ds, now you will need 13 E50Hs just to retain the same level of route capacity. In other words, there is no actual saving from going hybrid from an operational perspective, and importantly, there is no way to recover the premium - per bus - of the price on the hybrid model. I think I now see why the E500H hasn't got off the ground if the earlier model was worse than this.

FYI, I'm not saying this to slack ADL off. One with an objective mind on how business run will see the fraud of the E50H quite easily.

原帖由 GW5498 於 2014-5-23 09:46 發表


咁又未必少三成載客量咁多嘅
畢竟佢用咗另一間公司出品嘅混能系統, 而且系統比以前成熟, 系統總重應該有所下降

I hope my 30% is wrong, but it is based on what I read the other day, though how reliable the source is, is questionable.

However, the principles I mentioned above still stands - Ones you lose too much capacity, the case for a hybrid becomes less and less. You need to save enough money to pay off the extra cost of the bus itself, ideally, before the end of their operational life.

The one thing I guess why the E500H seems to lose so much more space comparing with, say the E400H, I suppose, is having more batteries to tackle the load of the air-conditioning unit, and the extra size of the bus. However, Volvo has demonstrated that the batteries can be packaged in other parts of the bus on the B5LH. We know the layout of the B5 is far from ideal, but it only down on 5 standing passengers comparing to the B5TL, all because of the extra weight from the hybrid system. When you lose seats like the E500H, one of the problem is we don't know how the weight will hit the standing passenger capacity as well. I guess we can only wait and see when it gets licensed, and hopefully my fear is proved wrong.

[ 本帖最後由 NV58 於 2014-5-23 12:49 編輯 ]

其實我只係唔明啲電池點解唔擺咁幾嚿落下層凳底而要咁樣食咗車尾咁多位，又或者再去盡啲擺埋喺頭轆上面又得啫，反正嗰個位又唔預嚟坐/擺嘢，甚至司機位底下塞多幾嚿，樓梯底用埋頭轆上面空位塞多幾嚿，要用盡空間應該唔係咁難掛......

[ 本帖最後由 8166NL 於 2014-5-24 14:22 編輯 ]

剛才發現最新報導原來有影埋香港個堆 E500H

http://www.busandcoach.com/Digitrial/ADL334-edition.pdf

似乎無想象中咁浪費車廂空間





睇極都仍然覺得如果香港要用混能
最合理就係 ADL 做 11 米 E400H，12.1 米 E350H
Volvo 做最短既 10.5 (只有 B5LH 做得返以往短蠆同矮蠆既轉向半徑) 同 12-12.8 米 B5LH
不過 Volvo 一日無正式發展三軸混能 (舊年開始玩混能掛接，可能想調返轉由個度開始拎經驗)
或者香港一日未跟隨歐洲既車身長度同負重條例，都唔使講落去

原帖由 HW8373 於 25/5/2014 06:48 AM 發表


剛才發現最新報導原來有影埋香港個堆 E500H

http://www.busandcoach.com/Digitrial/ADL334-edition.pdf

似乎無想象中咁浪費車廂空間

睇極都仍然覺得如果香港要用混能
最合理就係 ADL 做 11 米 E400H，12.1  ...

我睇到左邊中軸前放咗疑似係摩打嘅物體，如果真係嘅話，咁我可以肯定係用Series Hybrid,因為只有呢套系統先可以將摩打放喺底盤其他位置

原帖由 GW5498 於 2014-5-25 09:01 發表


我睇到左邊中軸前放咗疑似係摩打嘅物體，如果真係嘅話，咁我可以肯定係用Series Hybrid,因為只有呢套系統先可以將摩打放喺底盤其他位置

ADL 係工程師學會搞既 Seminar早已講明 E500H 係用 parallel 的

原帖由 8166NL 於 2014-5-24 14:03 發表
其實我只係唔明啲電池點解唔擺咁幾嚿落下層凳底而要咁樣食咗車尾咁多位，又或者再去盡啲擺埋喺頭轆上面又得啫，反正嗰個位又唔預嚟坐/擺嘢，甚至司機位底下塞多幾嚿，樓梯底用埋頭轆上面空位塞多幾嚿，要用盡空間應該唔係咁難 ...

你諗既CONCEPT係好，不過實際執行既時候仲有好多考慮因素

• 電池大小足唔足以擺入去以上空間
• 即使足夠容納電池體積，額外空間方唔方便維修更換
• 底盤仲有冇空間（我諗你都唔係好知司機位底同樓梯底有咩野係度）
• 最後，亦都係最重要，就係縮短電線長度，降低通電時既電阻同埋避免電線老化短路導致既火災風險

[ 本帖最後由 bnr34 於 2014-5-25 09:51 編輯 ]

原帖由 GW5498 於 2014-5-23 17:46 發表


咁又未必少三成載客量咁多嘅
畢竟佢用咗另一間公司出品嘅混能系統, 而且系統比以前成熟, 系統總重應該有所下降
故此車嘅淨重唔會重好多, 若然將E400H嗰套混能原個搬落去嘅話, 咁應該重唔過九巴AVW同AP
因為以Tf ...

其實如果用美版佈局，下層右邊車尾裝唔到緊急出口，o係香港出唔到牌，所以一定要改。