|
|
Post by londontravel on Nov 5, 2016 11:09:17 GMT
Could someone tell me why the enviro300 is not TfL compliant?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 5, 2016 11:16:57 GMT
Could someone tell me why the enviro300 is not TfL compliant? As Far as I'm aware they're far too heavy for London service |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2016 11:32:40 GMT
Could someone tell me why the enviro300 is not TfL compliant? As Far as I'm aware they're far too heavy for London service Who the heck told you that? It was a full size vehicle not aimed at the London market of course it has now been replaced by the 11.9m E200 MMC. |
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Nov 5, 2016 17:42:16 GMT
Could someone tell me why the enviro300 is not TfL compliant? As Far as I'm aware they're far too heavy for London service It's not April the 1st yet mate, you can't say things like that yet I'm sure there were issues with having a dual door layout plus citaros and scania's are just generally better buses hahaha |
|
|
|
Post by planesandtrains on Nov 5, 2016 21:01:22 GMT
The MAN E200's at Metrobus are quite similar to an E300
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 5, 2016 22:18:23 GMT
Could someone tell me why the enviro300 is not TfL compliant? As Far as I'm aware they're far too heavy for London service And yet we've managed with NB4Ls, bendy buses, BYD double deckers and the hydrogen buses all being "lard butts" in various ways. I don't know the definitive reason although lack of dual door design seems plausible to me. What's interesting is that Stagecoach and First still have Enviro 300 "integrals" (all ADL design) plus loads of E300 bodies on heavyweight chassis like Scania and MAN in service across the country. If weight was a big issue I'd expect them to have been stood down and replaced with lighter, more fuel efficient designs where the investment could be justified. Of course Stagecoach have long favoured heavyweight chassis and robust bodywork for parts of their stage carriage work - look at the huge numbers of B10M / Alexanders that they bought and kept in service for years. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 6, 2016 1:24:52 GMT
Could someone tell me why the enviro300 is not TfL compliant? I'm not 100% sure but it may be the same reason why the ALX300 never was offered in dual door - the structural design. Apparently, a very knowledgeable person that I know told me that, to incorporate a second door on a ALX300 could affect the structural integrity of the bus unlike on a Citaro or Omnicity where it's obviously been built to handle a second door. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Nov 6, 2016 6:48:44 GMT
Could someone tell me why the enviro300 is not TfL compliant? I'm not 100% sure but it may be the same reason why the ALX300 never was offered in dual door - the structural design. Apparently, a very knowledgeable person that I know told me that, to incorporate a second door on a ALX300 could affect the structural integrity of the bus unlike on a Citaro or Omnicity where it's obviously been built to handle a second door. I heard similar thing many years ago, its lighter weight design needed the side members to maintain structural strength, and avoid distortion along its length (torsional rigidity) Presumably the new MMC version has more structural strength as it is offered upto 11.9m (which makes the enviro 300 pointless) There is something about weight as well, the smaller wheels, axles etc were never designed to be part of a bus rated for 16-18 tonnes, More like 14 tonnes (need to look up spec sheet to give exact answer). TfL want extra standing passengers and power operated ramps etc which all add weight |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Nov 6, 2016 8:29:09 GMT
As Far as I'm aware they're far too heavy for London service And yet we've managed with NB4Ls, bendy buses, BYD double deckers and the hydrogen buses all being "lard butts" in various ways. I don't know the definitive reason although lack of dual door design seems plausible to me. What's interesting is that Stagecoach and First still have Enviro 300 "integrals" (all ADL design) plus loads of E300 bodies on heavyweight chassis like Scania and MAN in service across the country. If weight was a big issue I'd expect them to have been stood down and replaced with lighter, more fuel efficient designs where the investment could be justified. Of course Stagecoach have long favoured heavyweight chassis and robust bodywork for parts of their stage carriage work - look at the huge numbers of B10M / Alexanders that they bought and kept in service for years. I guess due to tight turns / badly parked cars there are no more 'large single decker' routes in London. (RV1 uses hydrogen SB200s, and the new StreetAir EV is an SB200 hybrid coming to London soon) I'm surprised Arriva never bought any diesel SB200's which would have been good for the 184   though during my West London exile, I saw Metroline's sole Alexander bodied DB300 single decker which never caught on in London (not sure if it's still about   ) |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Nov 6, 2016 9:25:34 GMT
And yet we've managed with NB4Ls, bendy buses, BYD double deckers and the hydrogen buses all being "lard butts" in various ways. I don't know the definitive reason although lack of dual door design seems plausible to me. What's interesting is that Stagecoach and First still have Enviro 300 "integrals" (all ADL design) plus loads of E300 bodies on heavyweight chassis like Scania and MAN in service across the country. If weight was a big issue I'd expect them to have been stood down and replaced with lighter, more fuel efficient designs where the investment could be justified. Of course Stagecoach have long favoured heavyweight chassis and robust bodywork for parts of their stage carriage work - look at the huge numbers of B10M / Alexanders that they bought and kept in service for years. I guess due to tight turns / badly parked cars there are no more 'large single decker' routes in London. (RV1 uses hydrogen SB200s, and the new StreetAir EV is an SB200 hybrid coming to London soon) I'm surprised Arriva never bought any diesel SB200's which would have been good for the 184 though during my West London exile, I saw Metroline's sole Alexander bodied DB300 single decker which never caught on in London (not sure if it's still about ) It's partly the historic obsession in TfL that tenders tend to be issued for 55, 60 or 87 capacity buses. Doesn't seem to be any modern thinking along lines of if we changed spec could alter pvr and carry same number of passengers, or more usefully increase capacity. Whilst some routes do have tight turns, my view is many in outer suburbs don't. If Richmond with its Victorian street layout can take 12m buses on H37 then many other routes could have longer buses if there was a will to do so. There are bus designs out there that allow higher capacity (if a bit squashed in) an example is Citaro K. Very useful for those routes that meet evening trains and have high demand for few stops, but dont need capacity at other times. Simply having bigger buses majority of time is overkill and costs more (but is the favoured solution of the route needs double decking brigade, daft when busy few minutes each day). You only need long buses (or double decks) if intend to provide seats for virtually everyone, TfL doesn't so should look more at designs with standing room rather than current block the aisle standing that happens now. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 6, 2016 10:12:14 GMT
There are bus designs out there that allow higher capacity (if a bit squashed in) an example is Citaro K. Very useful for those routes that meet evening trains and have high demand for few stops, but dont need capacity at other times. Simply having bigger buses majority of time is overkill and costs more (but is the favoured solution of the route needs double decking brigade, daft when busy few minutes each day). You only need long buses (or double decks) if intend to provide seats for virtually everyone, TfL doesn't so should look more at designs with standing room rather than current block the aisle standing that happens now. But, but that sounds like the way those bladdy foreigners run their buses! Can't be having any of that foreign stuff over here in good old Blightly. Toodle pip!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 19:36:30 GMT
The MAN E200's at Metrobus are quite similar to an E300 In what way? Aesthetically yes but in no other way. |
|
|
|
Post by planesandtrains on Nov 7, 2016 8:19:28 GMT
The MAN E200's at Metrobus are quite similar to an E300 In what way? Aesthetically yes but in no other way. Sorry, should have been more detailed, yes it's an MAN underneath, but when I first saw one on the 202 a few years ago I automatically thought it wasn an E300 body because of its slightly different styling. Never managed to ride one of these rare beasts before though |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Nov 7, 2016 13:07:51 GMT
In what way? Aesthetically yes but in no other way. Sorry, should have been more detailed, yes it's an MAN underneath, but when I first saw one on the 202 a few years ago I automatically thought it wasn an E300 body because of its slightly different styling. Never managed to ride one of these rare beasts before though It is indeed quite similar to the E300 aesthetically, the fact that it resembles a full size SD adds to this similarity too. The best way to describe it, having ridden on them a few times on the 130 and 202 before, is that it's quite noisy inside, especially towards the rear as you hear the full blast of the engine when accelerating. Also their engines are quite loud, the MAN MCV Evolution is more quiet in comparison. They rattle quite a lot too and the seats towards the rear are cramped and positioned awkwardly higher up than the seats in front. They're very quick and powerful though as expected from the 240 HP MAN 14.240 engine, which makes them great buses. |
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Nov 8, 2016 12:53:27 GMT
The MAN E200's at Metrobus are quite similar to an E300 In what way? Aesthetically yes but in no other way. Also both have enough power under the hood to propel a small rocket into space. |
|
)
