20 Sep, 08:56PM in sunny Singapore!

Tri-door MAN Lion City at SITEC 2016

Subscribe to Tri-door MAN Lion City at SITEC 2016 164 posts

Please Login or Signup to reply.
  • SMB128B's Avatar
    4,871 posts since May '11
    • The future of SDs is here...

      Shown in SG as part of an LTA co-organised exhibition, looks like a concept bus for the SDs...

      I'm glad that they have finally decided to do sth with the SD layout... Maybe we are finally seeing progress?

      Also, I guess with this bus, MB in SG is bye bye~

      Pics: http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=985106&extra=page%3D1&page=1 

      EDIT: Just found out that this is merely a concept show... Hopefully LTA will rly consider and procure some of these

       

      Edited by SMB128B 22 Oct `16, 7:58AM
  • Sbs6750E's Avatar
    1,909 posts since May '15
  • carbikebus's Avatar
    19,732 posts since Nov '03
  • SMB1368T's Avatar
    1,029 posts since Mar '16
  • SMB128B's Avatar
    4,871 posts since May '11
    • Originally posted by carbikebus:

      Itsa concept,Many modification can be done..The rear steps too high

      True... This is an LE version I guess...

      But I'd much rather take this over current SDs even if it cant be helped... One more door is the dealbreaker for me...

      Anyway those who cant climb steps just use the two doors as usual lor...

    • Originally posted by Sbs6750E:

      How long is the bus? 12 m?

      Most probably...

  • sgbuses's Avatar
    2,345 posts since Nov '05
    • Originally posted by SMB128B:

      EDIT: Just found out that this is merely a concept show... Hopefully LTA will rly consider and procure some of these

      And the moment when you realize that every single new SD introduced into the next decade is this same model...

  • SMB128B's Avatar
    4,871 posts since May '11
    • Originally posted by sgbuses:

      And the moment when you realize that every single new SD introduced into the next decade is this same model...

      Idm! Not if the SD is a nice tri-door MAN and not underpowered and old-config Citaros...

  • carbikebus's Avatar
    19,732 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by SMB128B:

      True... This is an LE version I guess...

      But I'd much rather take this over current SDs even if it cant be helped... One more door is the dealbreaker for me...

      Anyway those who cant climb steps just use the two doors as usual lor...

      I thought for Euro V,LE only available 7 litre 250hp/290hp-1000/1100nm?

  • AtlasSava's Avatar
    118 posts since Mar '16
    • Originally posted by carbikebus:

      I thought for Euro V,LE only available 7 litre 250hp/290hp-1000/1100nm?

      But judging from pictures/videos, it has the same engine as the LF version though. If it was using the 7l D0836LOH engine either it's height should be of the A69 SBST had last time, or take up 2 seats at the last row like the A37.

  • SBS9C's Avatar
    2,357 posts since Sep '09
    • It is good for feeders or routes with high passenger turnover due to the sparse amount of seats and the 3rd door improving the passenger flow. For longer routes especially those with express sections, the current configuration will still be favoured by more passengers.

  • carbikebus's Avatar
    19,732 posts since Nov '03
    • If the bus can modified the rear steps to be lowered i think it will be a huge sucess for feeder service..Maybe can extend the length to 12.1m?

  • TIB429E's Avatar
    1,546 posts since Dec '13
    • Just re-introduce Low-Entry buses will do...

      TBH, I rather let MB Citaro to modify a third door out than MAN. Comparing the rear, the MAN have a slanted-slope-down platform, the Citaro have a flat platform. It would be more ideal to introduce the third door on a flat platform. 

  • carbikebus's Avatar
    19,732 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by TIB429E:

      Just re-introduce Low-Entry buses will do...

      TBH, I rather let MB Citaro to modify a third door out than MAN. Comparing the rear, the MAN have a slanted-slope-down platform, the Citaro have a flat platform. It would be more ideal to introduce the third door on a flat platform. 

      MAN is ideal for 3 doors feeders,Their acceleration also way better than Citaros

  • SBS351M's Avatar
    598 posts since Jan '07
    • Originally posted by TIB429E:

      Just re-introduce Low-Entry buses will do...

      TBH, I rather let MB Citaro to modify a third door out than MAN. Comparing the rear, the MAN have a slanted-slope-down platform, the Citaro have a flat platform. It would be more ideal to introduce the third door on a flat platform. 

      The Citaro doesn't have a flat platform.

      Look at the seats at the rear, they go upwards (ie the further you go, the seats are higher, and the fact that there is a raised platform on the rear left side (when looking at the front) makes it extremely difficult to configure a RHD Citaro with a 3rd door, even in LE configuration.

  • TIB429E's Avatar
    1,546 posts since Dec '13
    • Originally posted by SBS351M:

      The Citaro doesn't have a flat platform.

      Look at the seats at the rear, they go upwards (ie the further you go, the seats are higher, and the fact that there is a raised platform on the rear left side (when looking at the front) makes it extremely difficult to configure a RHD Citaro with a 3rd door, even in LE configuration.

      Source : Google 

      I'm not really referring to that though. Somehow, I remembered that I once suggested for this configuration for the MAN A22. The comments I gotten was "steep slope", "too high", "uneven" blah blah..

      So I assumed that Citaro have better platform(almost flat), which is ideal for such idea for a tri-door buses in SG. 

    • Originally posted by carbikebus:

      MAN is ideal for 3 doors feeders,Their acceleration also way better than Citaros

      With that DDU, do you think you still can get buses to accelerate like that fast? icon_lol.gif

      I rather enjoy the comfort of Citaro on such speed tbh 

  • carbikebus's Avatar
    19,732 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by TIB429E:

      With that DDU, do you think you still can get buses to accelerate like that fast? icon_lol.gif

      I rather enjoy the comfort of Citaro on such speed tbh 

      Some feeders timing also quite tight where some sectors required to sped a bit fast..Trust me Voith Citaros doesn't make good feeder buses unless the timing is relaxed type..I would rather see Scania KUBs or A22s doing most feeder jobs.

  • TIB429E's Avatar
    1,546 posts since Dec '13
    • Originally posted by carbikebus:

      Some feeders timing also quite tight where some sectors required to sped a bit fast..Trust me Voith Citaros doesn't make good feeder buses unless the timing is relaxed type..I would rather see Scania KUBs or A22s doing most feeder jobs.

      Name that some feeders, would you? I would really want to try those feeders that still have tight schedule after LTA took over icon_lol.gif

  • carbikebus's Avatar
    19,732 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by TIB429E:

      Name that some feeders, would you? I would really want to try those feeders that still have tight schedule after LTA took over icon_lol.gif

      Wei Teck,For a start you can try 386 especially after 1945hrs🤗 LTA approved schedule 👌🏼

    • And I don't really know 84 and 403 can be declared as feeders too or not?Weekdays 354 1 trip also got 16 mins per trip also,Am peak 17-19 mins with break time from 2-7 mins per trip..

    • SMRT one is different with spamming of A22s,There is no way you can run too fast..

  • SBS351M's Avatar
    598 posts since Jan '07
    • Originally posted by TIB429E:

      Source : Google 

      I'm not really referring to that though. Somehow, I remembered that I once suggested for this configuration for the MAN A22. The comments I gotten was "steep slope", "too high", "uneven" blah blah..

      So I assumed that Citaro have better platform(almost flat), which is ideal for such idea for a tri-door buses in SG. 

      The existence of the various protrusions (most likely contraining parts/equipment underneath) cluttering around the left side of the bus (ie right side of the picture) basically shows that the Citaro is in fact very unsuitable for a RHD 3 door adaptation. Doesn't help that the Citaro has a low ceiling, there is simply very little headroom to play with on the left side (RHD doorside) of the Citaro.

      Another thing is, Citaro has limited playing room in terms of customisation, the Citaros can't be ordered as a chassis, in fact there is no chassis, it is a standardised integral frame across all buses from all operators using it (though in rare cases you could order it and fit your own skin with your own styling on the frame, but thats just superficial instead of structural). This limited room for customisation IMO basically kills its chances as a 3 door RHD city bus, as I doubt Mercedes would be willing to reengineer a LHD centric product just for a small market like Singapore, bearing in mind that any reengineering of the Citaro will be a lot harder than the Gemilang bodied A22 due to the reasons mentioned in the first paragraph.

      Edited by SBS351M 29 Oct `16, 4:59PM
  • carbikebus's Avatar
    19,732 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by SBS351M:

      The existence of the various protrusions (most likely contraining parts/equipment underneath) cluttering around the left side of the bus (ie right side of the picture) basically shows that the Citaro is in fact very unsuitable for a RHD 3 door adaptation. Doesn't help that the Citaro has a low ceiling, there is simply very little headroom to play with on the left side (RHD doorside) of the Citaro.

      Another thing is, Citaro has limited playing room in terms of customisation, the Citaros can't be ordered as a chassis, in fact there is no chassis, it is a standardised integral frame across all buses from all operators using it (though in rare cases you could order it and fit your own skin with your own styling on the frame, but thats just superficial instead of structural). This limited room for customisation basically kills its chances as a 3 door RHD city bus, as I doubt Mercedes would be willing to reengineer a LHD centric product just for a small market like Singapore, bearing in mind that any reengineering of the Citaro will be a lot harder than the Gemilang bodied A22 due to the reasons mentioned in the first paragraph.

      Agreed with you on this as Citaro is CBU buses not sold as chassis or bogey.

  • TIB429E's Avatar
    1,546 posts since Dec '13
    • Originally posted by SBS351M:

      The existence of the various protrusions (most likely contraining parts/equipment underneath) cluttering around the left side of the bus (ie right side of the picture) basically shows that the Citaro is in fact very unsuitable for a RHD 3 door adaptation. Doesn't help that the Citaro has a low ceiling, there is simply very little headroom to play with on the left side (RHD doorside) of the Citaro.

      Another thing is, Citaro has limited playing room in terms of customisation, the Citaros can't be ordered as a chassis, in fact there is no chassis, it is a standardised integral frame across all buses from all operators using it (though in rare cases you could order it and fit your own skin with your own styling on the frame, but thats just superficial instead of structural). This limited room for customisation IMO basically kills its chances as a 3 door RHD city bus, as I doubt Mercedes would be willing to reengineer a LHD centric product just for a small market like Singapore, bearing in mind that any reengineering of the Citaro will be a lot harder than the Gemilang bodied A22 due to the reasons mentioned in the first paragraph.

      Ahh I see I see...

      But still, it would be good if they(MAN) modify the platform to almost flat..or probably just stick back to 2 doors product, with only low entry feature. 

Please Login or Signup to reply.