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.
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.
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.
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.
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
