Johor Bahru bus routes
-
Possible there's just as much if not more international readers out there than local readers. Nowadays with the global popularity of the Internet, do not under-estimate the potential of its ability to reach out to audiences way beyond this island !! In any case, it's always better to avoid using terms which only some people understand & which does not give others a very good impression of yourself, which also makes it harder for people to believe what you say !
I find it's you who don't understand, in view of your myopic view of what's going on ! If only you bother to read more throughlly my previous post (which i won't bother to repeat here again !) then you wouldn't find yourself writing what you're written below ?! Just to get to the point, all i'll say is that although what you've mentioned may be superficially correct i.e. makes some sense on the surface only, in overall reality however the bigger picture [which i've mentioned in my previous posts] overrules ! Hope you bother to think this throughlly before venturing into anymore superfictial questions !
The same thought prevails as to your feedback on the buses used by HI.
BTW, i'm not the only person saying as even 'The_Bus_Guide' has touched on that issue in his post here & his explanations are clear & convincing enough.
Hope you can understand what he's saying also, then you won't find yourself saying what you've said as below!
N.B. I suspect not the same person is using 'sbst275' to feedback to my
posts, in view of the different writing styles & sophisication of thoughts ??
I hope you're not getting someone else to write your posts ?!? BTW, how
old are you ? I'm beginning to think there should be a children's section in
this forum, so that i can then avoid wasting too much of my patience &
time in trading unproductive posts like the below as i prefer to post in the
adults section instead of the children's section, hope you can
understand ??Originally posted by sbst275:Are there more international readers than local readers here?
You dun understand... The higher road tax buses pay are by right to cover the COE. Who dun know SG govt type? You think they so nice tell you public buses dun need to pay COE? Even the road toll, they wun bother, because that $9 is to their gain, they dun see any need to reduce aft you start biz. Unless buses pay lower road taxes than cars. Lots of things are done off from your eye sight. Historically, SG buses have to pay more road usage cost, incl ERP and sort.
Anyway, next, 67 capacity buses are not suitable for SG... If they are deployed on Svs like 238, they need more buses to run, adding to maintenance cost. You can have fancy buses, but if they cannot carry enough passengers, you have to buy more. Svs like 151 are already facing shortage of buse as well.
Like for Sv 151, there are 22 buses... If using HI type, it needs 27 buses. I need more buses yet my number of passengers remains fixed. Also with the inccuring cost of running 5 add buses. You can have HI type of better buses, but if they are not practical in terms of loading, it can be a killer. Already, many buses that uses SD carry more than 100 ppl onboard during peak hrs.
You may say as MY progress, they get better buses? Are you sure? The off areas like Muar still gets older buses for the future. Even they are able to get better buses, you sure other problems wun rise with their resources? -
You want to say this has international readers is up to you...Originally posted by hseochin:Possible there's just as much if not more international readers out there than local readers. Nowadays with the global popularity of the Internet, do not under-estimate the potential of its ability to reach out to audiences way beyond this island !! In any case, it's always better to avoid using terms which only some people understand & which does not give others a very good impression of yourself, which also makes it harder for people to believe what you say !
I find it's you who don't understand, in view of your myopic view of what's going on ! If only you bother to read more throughlly my previous post (which i won't bother to repeat here again !) then you wouldn't find yourself writing what you're written below ?! Just to get to the point, all i'll say is that although what you've mentioned may be superficially correct i.e. makes some sense on the surface only, in overall reality however the bigger picture [which i've mentioned in my previous posts] overrules ! Hope you bother to think this throughlly before venturing into anymore superfictial questions !
The same thought prevails as to your feedback on the buses used by HI.
BTW, i'm not the only person saying as even 'The_Bus_Guide' has touched on that issue in his post here & his explanations are clear & convincing enough.
Hope you can understand what he's saying also, then you won't find yourself saying what you've said as below!
N.B. I suspect not the same person is using 'sbst275' to feedback to my
posts, in view of the different writing styles & sophisication of thoughts ??
I hope you're not getting someone else to write your posts ?!? BTW, how
old are you ? I'm beginning to think there should be a children's section in
this forum, so that i can then avoid wasting too much of my patience &
time in trading unproductive posts like the below as i prefer to post in the
adults section instead of the children's section, hope you can
understand ??
That road tax issue, you are just too brief... You go read up how govt add indirect cost to your bills. Again, I have to this to say, road tax wise, only SG has that public bus road tax higher than commerical cars. And you have not taken into consideration of the so-called 'concession' limitations as of introduction of ERP since 1998.
As for buses, forget it... I think you should try talking Svs 90, 151 bef you come and say their chassis suitable for SG.
Pls, if you wanna make personal attacks on a forumite, you are already violating forums rule which you have read when you signed up onto sgForums. -
It's NOT in my interest & business to make any personal attacks on another writer on this or any other forum !!!! I've many other more important things to do, you know ! All i'm saying in my N.B. footnote is that i find the literary quality of the feedback posts made from 'sbst275' somewhat inconsistant which made me wonder if it's indeed the same person writing the posts, so i know if i'm talking with the same person, as i do NOT wish to keep repeating my points all over again if it's not the same person/persons doing the writing.
Why i ask how old are you is because i prefer to talk with another adult & not some immature child since i really don't know your age in case it's not the same writer !
Can you understand up to here ??
That is all.
Therefore absolutely NO ISSUE with any motive of launching any so-called personal attacks on another person here.
Therefore please WAKEUP & READ CAREFULLY what i'm saying here before anyhow jumping to any conclusions !!!!
Therefore if there's really any issue of 'personal attacks' then do recognise it's also within my rights of interpretation that YOU (not me) is the person trying to start such rubbish, which most seriously is something i'm NOT INTERESTED to pursue !
I've noted your comments on the tax issue & about buses below. Seems to me i'm talking to a block of dead wood here, in view of all that i've already mentioned in previous posts which i prefer to NOT repeat myself again !!
I sense that we are NOT of 'compatable frequency' for meaningful & effective communication afterall. Therefore i intend to TERMINATE any further exchanges with you [i.e. sbst275] from now on, especially since i'm really not assured if i'm indeed talking to the same person all the time ! As such i'll also have to IGNORE any feedback which i may receive from 'sbst275' from now on.
From now on, both parties can treat as if the other party does NOT exist !
Then no issue of any potential violation of any rules & more importantly to me, i can then focus on my main objective of using this bus forum, that is of pursuing further my long-term interests in buses & coaches instead of putting up with unproductive trading of exchanges with people whom i consider NOT up to my standards of expectation to make it worth my while to try to talk to them !!!!! So you're OUT & you'll won't be hearing from me again & no need to send any further feedback to any of my posts since i no longer intend to waste my patience & time to reply to you !Originally posted by sbst275:You want to say this has international readers is up to you...
That road tax issue, you are just too brief... You go read up how govt add indirect cost to your bills. Again, I have to this to say, road tax wise, only SG has that public bus road tax higher than commerical cars. And you have not taken into consideration of the so-called 'concession' limitations as of introduction of ERP since 1998.
As for buses, forget it... I think you should try talking Svs 90, 151 bef you come and say their chassis suitable for SG.
Pls, if you wanna make personal attacks on a forumite, you are already violating forums rule which you have read when you signed up onto sgForums. -
Uh huh... Just yesterday afternoon at JE, another man briefly stepped into the CW3 bus just to take a good look at the steering wheel. D-R-O-O-L.........Originally posted by hseochin:Not only SBST drivers, the other day even saw private bus driver (whose vehicle parked next to the 2 CW3 vehicles in JE Interchange) smiling with the CW3 driver while looking @ his bus !
Such behavior i find understandable since such model of M-B used by HI not widely seen in SGP yet & i sense these onlookers don't mind taking them for a test drive ?!? Afterall, it's been a long time since any major revisions in the M-B bus-chassi models in SGP ! Now you have MY leading the way in acquiring these new generation M-B in volume, with some SGP operators only getting theirs later & likely in smaller quantities only.
-
Like I said, they don't need more buses. The operator can make the bus licensed to carry 80 passengers if they want. Its just a matter of putting more seats and more hand straps. The issue is the GVW (Gross Vehicle Weight) or the maximum laden weight the bus could carry which, in the case of the MAN 18.250 (18 000 kg), is similar to that of the B10M, N113 and O405. Hence, the 18.250 is able to carry as much weight as the S'pore buses.Originally posted by sbst275:Anyway, next, 67 capacity buses are not suitable for SG... If they are deployed on Svs like 238, they need more buses to run, adding to maintenance cost. You can have fancy buses, but if they cannot carry enough passengers, you have to buy more. Svs like 151 are already facing shortage of buse as well.
Like for Sv 151, there are 22 buses... If using HI type, it needs 27 buses. I need more buses yet my number of passengers remains fixed. Also with the inccuring cost of running 5 add buses. You can have HI type of better buses, but if they are not practical in terms of loading, it can be a killer. Already, many buses that uses SD carry more than 100 ppl onboard during peak hrs.
You may say as MY progress, they get better buses? Are you sure? The off areas like Muar still gets older buses for the future. Even they are able to get better buses, you sure other problems wun rise with their resources?
If the bus is licensed for 67 it doesn't neccessary have to carry 67. A bus packed from end to end will roughly have about 100 people inside. In fact, the provision of a lager standing area in the forward section of the MAN 18.250 is intended to pack in more passengers, at the expense of having fewer seats. Therefore, if the 18.250, in its HI config, is indeed put on 151 for example, I think it will be able to carry more passengers at one go given the extra standing space, as compared to the B10M with its narrow aisle.
I admit Malaysia IS getting better buses. Don't talk about 'cowboy' towns like Muar lah. The current breed of high floor, front engine bus is good enough for them. These buses go through winding country roads which is usually battered and could be even prone to flooding. So, it is not wise to use such expensive machinery. Even so, you would still see at least one new rear-engined model.
However, the outlook of buses in the big cities like KL and JB have changed. Now we see more European marks such as MAN, Mercedes, Dennis and Scania. Although the city buses are getting there, the express buses have improved vastly. Now we see big, powerful buses such as MAN 18.310, Scania K124IB and others ruling the highways. -
By right, ppl buy a vehicle for biz, dun care abt other disc...
Because I am going to use it till the end of its allowed lifespan...
As for COE, pls, if you know how govt work, then you know. Road tax by right is for everything, road usage and so... Though they claim SBS buses dun pay COE, then why their road tax is abt 40-50% higher than normal cars? By right if you say concession, it means concession over other car cate... Like lower road tax, ERP waived
As for the buses, you try taking those svs I mentioned, if they use the buses, the capacity would have been 150% loading -
Even as you tell me COE, it cost $1.12 a day... Simply, 1 passenger fare of $1.15 can cover it
Or if they are peak hr buses, then it is $1.45 fare that can cover -
Cool down SBST275 & HseoChin
This is just a bus forum no need to get so worked up.No offense though to sbst275,Do you know how old HesoChin is and how many years of experience he had in Buses?Think again dude,I'm saying this NOT that i side by him but just a food for thought.If you really understands his post deeply then you will gain knowledge from there 
Lastly i hope you both peace each other 
To Hseochin or Suhirman
Do you think cities like JB & KL Suitable for low steps articulate buses??Double deckers are simply out of the question!
I do hope that HI Will buy more midibuses for its fleets in future. -
That's true,Believe it or not SBST O 405 can take slightly more pax than the "Coach" B10Ms due to its standing areas.I've seen a fully loaded(more than 100)MAN 18.280 before and it's truly amazing how this machine can handle it's speed well with that kind of loads!Originally posted by The_Bus_Guide:The buses of HI are definitely suitable for S'pore. From what I understand, the higher capacity for the S'pore buses are due to the higher number of standees. Seating wise, it's roughly the same: CRB (51), MK 2 (51), MK3 (50) MK4 (50). Please note that there are single seats on the MAN 18.250 which accouts for a lower seating capacity. If a S'pore operator were to buy a similar bus as HI, it's not neccessary for them to buy more buses. Instead, the operator would tailor the bus to suit its needs. -
As I look at bus co finanical results,
any concession in road taxes given by the authorities goes into another section - Claims and so on -
I believe he's just as inquisitive as i was, when i actually took some photos of the new generation dashboard for my records !! BTW, anyone also taken photos of it so far ? Would appreciate if i could see them & i could e-mail you mine in return ? Reason why i ask is because my camera's resolution not high enough to show more detail.
Besides this model i'm also keen on any dashboard photo of the higher end model they use on JB-KL route if anyone have ? I 've also taken photo of it but under night lighting so i could 'swap' photos with those who have the daylight photos which show more detail ! I'm curious to find out the functions of the big LCD panel between the speedometer & tachometer & why the inverted L-shape orange light comes on during certain times even when the road speed & engine speed, hence engine temperature drops ?? Wonder if anything to do with the servo-hydraulic gearshifter ??
I don't understand why M-B does not show the dashboard photo on their brochures or website anymore...maybe they want to 'heighten the suspense' so that people used to the old M-B designs would then find reason to learn more about their newer products ?? Different marketing stretigy i suppose ?
The 4-spoke steering-wheel, i don't think those in HI's fleet is the air-bag version ? Nowadays with these newer designs, whether with or without air-bag it looks so similar, as with the case on the Sprinters & Vitos !Originally posted by purplecrazed:Uh huh... Just yesterday afternoon at JE, another man briefly stepped into the CW3 bus just to take a good look at the steering wheel. D-R-O-O-L......... -
Don't know if you're noticed, the B10M used by SBST doesn't have a flat floor between the axles unlike those used by private operators with coach bodies. As a result, not practically possible in the SBST version to extract any extra standing space compared to say an O 405, whose flat floor between the axles presents no such constrains in being able to take out some seats in exchange for more standing space.
The MAN 18.250 (which i consider as the chassi version of the SL252) is very similar to the O 405 so the standing capacity can potentially be as high as on the O 405. But on the 18.280 because this is a regular high floor model (more suitable for coach use than citybus use i say, like the B10M) you'll encounter the same constrains as on the B10M in that due to the parallel raised floor sections on the left & right sides of the floor, this makes convertion of seats to standing space impractical, due to the reduced ceiling height over the raised floor sections & of course, the risks of people tripping on the step due to the different floor heights between the centre passageway & left & right floor sections.
The O 405 & 18.250 i consider as having lower c.g than the B10M & 18.280, implying when fully loaded (say standing to the doors etc.) i'll logically expect the O 405 & 18.250 to be more stable dynamically than the B10M or 18.280 since these have the disadvantage of their payload acting from a higher elevation from the road level.Originally posted by carbikebus:That's true,Believe it or not SBST O 405 can take slightly more pax than the "Coach" B10Ms due to its standing areas.I've seen a fully loaded(more than 100)MAN 18.280 before and it's truly amazing how this machine can handle it's speed well with that kind of loads! -
Based on their current road conditions & the fact that they are building more new roads (like inner-ring highway around JB city etc.) which are actually becoming as good if not slightly better than those in SGP, i see no reason why articulated low-floor citybuses can't be used.
As for double-deckers, they need to ensure the routes it uses have enough height clearances. I notice most of the bridges or viaducts in MY nowadays are of international standard of specifications so implying even double-deckers should not present any big problems if used in MY nowadays.
However, given the choice between double-deckers & articulated single-deckers [due to the reasons i've already mentioned in other posts in this forum under the topic i think of articulated double-deckers], i'll of course prefer double-deckers NOT be used & instead sticking to either articulated single-deckers or even double-articulated single-deckers if driver to passenger ratios really need to be improved.
As for midibuses in HI's fleet, i notice currently they have some but i put it as down to cost:benefit ratio as to whether it's worthwhile or not to buy more midibuses instead of full-size buses. For low demand routes maybe it's worthwhile because resources are then more efficiently used. If they have enough such routes i suppose they may then find it attractive to buy more midibuses, provided such routes don't duplicate too much ?Originally posted by carbikebus:
Do you think cities like JB & KL Suitable for low steps articulate buses??Double deckers are simply out of the question!
I do hope that HI Will buy more midibuses for its fleets in future.[/b] -
I notice there's no other model in Singapore that's as similar to the MAN 18.250 as the M-B O 405 here. Whether it be the GVW, chassi dimensions, dashboard, rear axle hub designs & even the closeness of the engine capacities.
Over the past decade in Malaysia, there's indeed been an enormous amount of 'upgrading' done on the outstation coach sector there. In terms of hardware & service. In hardware, many higher end new bus-chassi were introduced in Malaysia either the same time or ahead of Singapore. The quality of Malaysian coach bodies also improved noticably such that they now on par if not superior to bodies from Singapore coach body builders & some like MTrans known to export to UK. In service, nowadays you have '1st class' whereby the driver & attendant, somewhat over-dressed i'll say, in suit & tie to serve food onboard to passengers & greet them while standing by the door when they get down etc. You don't get much chance to use such service within Singapore though !
Of course ticket fares for coaches are far more expensive than on short distance citybuses.
In the shorter distance urban bus sector, understandbly Malaysia has 'traditionally' lagged behind Singapore in both hardware & service, in quite sharp contrast to the long distance coach sector mentioned above.
I attribute that mainly due to the cheap fares which doesn't give much incentive &/or makes it impossible for operators to upgrade both hardware & service levels to match Singapore's levels. BUT the good news is that, judging from operators like Handal Indah being around now, the hardware especially & slowly even the service standards are gradually being jacked up.
It seems to me that HI has the financial reserves to withstand somewhat more risks than some of the other 'poorer' operators around such that they can afford to charge fares not very much higher than the others in the short distance urban routes despite their quite big fleet of new or brand-new vehicles of newer generation models which Singapore has largely still not upgraded to !
Of course, the bigger cities in Malaysia like KL & JB would be the most likely places to have any new citybuses being deployed while the out-lying & more backward smaller towns would continue to have the lousier junks for the forseeable time being.Originally posted by The_Bus_Guide:Like I said, they don't need more buses. The operator can make the bus licensed to carry 80 passengers if they want. Its just a matter of putting more seats and more hand straps. The issue is the GVW (Gross Vehicle Weight) or the maximum laden weight the bus could carry which, in the case of the MAN 18.250 (18 000 kg), is similar to that of the B10M, N113 and O405. Hence, the 18.250 is able to carry as much weight as the S'pore buses.
If the bus is licensed for 67 it doesn't neccessary have to carry 67. A bus packed from end to end will roughly have about 100 people inside. In fact, the provision of a lager standing area in the forward section of the MAN 18.250 is intended to pack in more passengers, at the expense of having fewer seats. Therefore, if the 18.250, in its HI config, is indeed put on 151 for example, I think it will be able to carry more passengers at one go given the extra standing space, as compared to the B10M with its narrow aisle.
I admit Malaysia IS getting better buses. Don't talk about 'cowboy' towns like Muar lah. The current breed of high floor, front engine bus is good enough for them. These buses go through winding country roads which is usually battered and could be even prone to flooding. So, it is not wise to use such expensive machinery. Even so, you would still see at least one new rear-engined model.
However, the outlook of buses in the big cities like KL and JB have changed. Now we see more European marks such as MAN, Mercedes, Dennis and Scania. Although the city buses are getting there, the express buses have improved vastly. Now we see big, powerful buses such as MAN 18.310, Scania K124IB and others ruling the highways. -
What bus service (if any) from Gelang Patah station to (1) Ledang Heights & (2) Leisure Farm Resort ??
These 2 places should be on the right of the 2nd Link highway if coming via CW3 from Jurong East. Having been invited to a bungalow launch event this weekend & not planning to drive myself there, as i want to take this as another opportunity to 'test out' CW3 once again !!
If i don't want to take the bus from Gelang Patah station, what are the nearest known bus pickup/drop-off points around these 2 places ? Near which landmarks or roads etc. ? -
If ppl try to insist of that ARF and that COE...
Those are considered 'peanuts'... ARF is only 1 time off and even so, it is a mere few hundred dollars
COE, I have said $7000 that can last for 17 yrs if imposed vs $1200 a year for road tax? Which is heavier?
Concession... Means buses pay lower or dun even, what car pays like ERP. -
The 18.250 and the 18.280 are the same citybus chassis. The coach is the 18.310. The 18.250 has a 7 litre engine but packs more power, 250 hp as compared with the O405 (SBST) with just 220 hp. I also think that the 18.250, with its high rear seats, has a vertical engine and not an underfloor horizontal engine like the O405. However, the SL252 (Rapid KL), which also have a 7 litre engine, doesn't have such high placed rear seats which suggests a similar engine placement as the O405. So, based on this, I doubt that the 18.250/280 is the chassis version of the SL252 but perhaps more likely a locally assembled chassis based on the design of the SL252 with slight alterations.Originally posted by hseochin:I notice there's no other model in Singapore that's as similar to the MAN 18.250 as the M-B O 405 here. Whether it be the GVW, chassi dimensions, dashboard, rear axle hub designs & even the closeness of the engine capacities. -
I'm quite sure 18.250 is the entry-level low-floor chassi with 3 steps as per O 405 but 18.280 has >= 4 steps to get onto the seat level, including the raised platform on the left & right sides of the bodywork. Plus the dashboard, axle hub looks totally different (bigger as for 18.250 like on O 405) & 18.250 uses the older noisier most certainly 12-litre horizontally mounted engine etc., so implying not possible to consider the chassi the same but with output differences since so many key features are different ??
18.280 uses the newer quieter 7-litre engine with MAN truck derived dashboard
instead & 'normal' manual gearbox since it's high floor chassi more suited for coach use.
O 405 (in naturally aspirated version with Euro 0 emissions) is 250 BHP, roughly on par hence with 18.250 while the SL252 (due to its age) expected to use the much noisier naturally aspirated 12-litre engine of 240 BHP, same as on the old MAN's used by SJE. SL252 is meant to be a 'parallel' model from MAN to compete with O 405, hence the same 3-step floor with horizontally mounted engine, citybus dashboard & similar axle hubs.
18.280, 18.310, 18.370 etc. are higher output & high floor chassi more suited for coach than citybus use.
The most i'll say 18.250 is largely based on SL252 but with Euro-1 or Euro-2 charged-cooled 12-litre horizontally mounted engine of 250 BHP like on the later generation O 405 with unchanged power output despite having been raised to Euro-1 emission levels. 18.280 of course cannot be the chassi version of SL 252 since the chassi design is fundamentally different.
I haven't noticed much differences in the extreme rear seat heights between 18.250 & 18.280 but note the low sloping waistline on the body of the 18.250 which suggests a lower engine height more consistent with that of a horizontally mounted engine ?? But on 18.280 it's the same high waistline all the way from front to extreme rear, not surprising since i expect the engine to be vertically mounted instead ?Originally posted by The_Bus_Guide:The 18.250 and the 18.280 are the same citybus chassis. The coach is the 18.310. The 18.250 has a 7 litre engine but packs more power, 250 hp as compared with the O405 (SBST) with just 220 hp. I also think that the 18.250, with its high rear seats, has a vertical engine and not an underfloor horizontal engine like the O405. However, the SL252 (Rapid KL), which also have a 7 litre engine, doesn't have such high placed rear seats which suggests a similar engine placement as the O405. So, based on this, I doubt that the 18.250/280 is the chassis version of the SL252 but perhaps more likely a locally assembled chassis based on the design of the SL252 with slight alterations. -
There will always be ppl trying to insist those concession are enough
That will be mei wan mei liao de...
But, they the authorities know how much they have collected from SBS and SMRT for road rax and ERP.
To them, waiving that COE is 'peanuts' as it is $7000 for 17 yrs. Compared to $1200 a year for road tax, furthermore higher than cars
Or the ERP, the buses dunno make how trips through any ERP gantries a day.
Then there are ppl would say got ARF or sort, those 1 time off and small amt alao ppl say are great concession... That is just what SG govt would say... -
I think i must have seeing the wrong thing,Is the HI MAN 18.250 use low profile tyres like O 405s?If yes then i've seen 18.250 instead of 18.280.Thanks for the explanation HseochinOriginally posted by hseochin:Don't know if you're noticed, the B10M used by SBST doesn't have a flat floor between the axles unlike those used by private operators with coach bodies. As a result, not practically possible in the SBST version to extract any extra standing space compared to say an O 405, whose flat floor between the axles presents no such constrains in being able to take out some seats in exchange for more standing space.
The MAN 18.250 (which i consider as the chassi version of the SL252) is very similar to the O 405 so the standing capacity can potentially be as high as on the O 405. But on the 18.280 because this is a regular high floor model (more suitable for coach use than citybus use i say, like the B10M) you'll encounter the same constrains as on the B10M in that due to the parallel raised floor sections on the left & right sides of the floor, this makes convertion of seats to standing space impractical, due to the reduced ceiling height over the raised floor sections & of course, the risks of people tripping on the step due to the different floor heights between the centre passageway & left & right floor sections.
The O 405 & 18.250 i consider as having lower c.g than the B10M & 18.280, implying when fully loaded (say standing to the doors etc.) i'll logically expect the O 405 & 18.250 to be more stable dynamically than the B10M or 18.280 since these have the disadvantage of their payload acting from a higher elevation from the road level.
BTW,Is the MAN 18.250 Euro II Still in production?I thought it is 7 litres?? -
To the best of my knowledge, none of HI's buses uses low profile tyres so therefore the 18.250 or 18.280 etc. uses largely similar (regular type higher height) tyres, maybe only with different speed ratings.
Among O 405 here, only some it seems in the SBST fleet uses low profile tyres while all on SMRT(TIBS) fleet uses them. Rest of O 405 i've seen on SBST or TransitLink in JB uses higher height tyres.
According to 'The_Bus_Guide' 18.250 uses 7-litre engine, which i doubt so in view of the much more noiser nature of the engine which emits to me 'higher sound power' more consistent as coming from the older 12-litre engine instead.
As i notice, the bigger cc engines tend to emit to 'more soild' & 'higher sound power' to my ear compared to smaller cc engines which sound more 'tinny' eventhough the performance can be no different.
I believe MAN should have a charged-cooled version of this 12-litre engine capable of Euro-2 with 250 BHP.
MAN's 7-litre version i believe is up to Euro-3 level with 280 BHP which
i suspect also uses multi-valve technology as on the M-B OM 906 LA/hLA.Originally posted by carbikebus:I think i must have seeing the wrong thing,Is the HI MAN 18.250 use low profile tyres like O 405s?If yes then i've seen 18.250 instead of 18.280.Thanks for the explanation Hseochin
BTW,Is the MAN 18.250 Euro II Still in production?I thought it is 7 litres?? -
These 2 links would shed some light.
http://www.mtbm.com.my/bus/city/18280hoclr.htm
http://www.mtbm.com.my/bus/intercity/18313hoclr.htm -
[quote]Originally posted by The_Bus_Guide:
[b]These 2 links would shed some light.
http://www.mtbm.com.my/bus/city/18280hoclr.htm
Aha,Similiar tyre size with this one! -
Upon checking the engineering drawing @ their website, i notice they now use the same citybus dashboard which was used on the SL252 (similar as on O 405) on the 18.280 as well !
But i sense something's not quite 'right' in that they pass off the 18.280 shown in the website photo as 'chassis' only because the bodywork certainly does appear to me to be of 'sufficient' quality in design & finish to pass off as original MAN citybus body instead !?! The 'themes' in the styling is certainly consistent with MAN integrally constructed CBU OEM bodywork which 'flows smoothly' from their bus to coach to truck product lines, i observe. Most unlikely therefore they should say it's 'chassi' only as such ? Maybe the body shown only used as 'model' for illustration purposes ?? As such i find it somewhat confusing because looking @ the complete bus purely on looks it would likely be though to be a SL252 or SL262 instead ?!?
For the 18.313 i note the 12-litre engine is vertically mounted, which i do believe is similar to that used on the earlier 16.240 (also vertically mounted) used by SJE except that SJE's is the normally aspirated noisier version with lower output & exhaust emission standards. I also note the truck derived dashboard used instead of the citybus dashboard, not surprising since they target the 18.313 for coach use.
In conclusion, i'll say that what's currently shown @ the MAN website is probably only their current product line-up for the Malaysian market i.e. they don't show the older models like those SL252 used by Intrakota & these are the ones my 'engine perception' instincts (based on perceived levels of 'soildness' & 'sound power') tells me that the 12-litre was ever used on their citybus model like the SL252 & in view of the larger physical dimensions of a 12-litre (compared to say a much smaller 7-litre unit) it's most certain in the SL252 that the 12-litre engine was horizontally mounted like on O 405. If it's a coach body then maybe they'll consider vertical mounting as well in view of the lesser need to ensure a low floor level compared to in the case for a citybus body.
I note there's no 18.250 mentioned @ the MAN website, so that'll mean one can't be too sure yet that the engine on the 18.250 is vertically mounted ??
Why i don't think the engine is vertical is because in order for it to be vertically mounted onto a citybus body (with the emphasis on as low as possible as floor height) the engine would have to a 'small' cc engine (like 7-litre instead of a much bigger 12-litre unit) so that the longitudinal protrusion is not too 'long' that they need to raise the rear section of the body too high & long. If the 18.250 uses the 7-litre engine then possible it's vertically mounted since the protrusion into the body is minimal. BUT having actually 'heard' the 18.250 on my rides taken, the sound characteristics simply tell me the engine used cannot be as small as 7-litre, which means to me the next larger known engine they use is the older noisier 12-litre unit, which for citybus body mounting would most certainly have to be horizontally mounted.
So, you could be right that the 18.250 has vertically mounted engine but i think the best way to be sure is to flip open the bonnet to find out...but for the reasons mentioned above, i'm still doubtful.
As for the MAN models used in HI's fleet, assuming they use only the current models available on CW2, i then expect it to be 18.313 instead of 18.280, as earlier though, unless MAN offers 2 versions of the 18.280 i.e. citybus & coach versions ?? But if it's the 18.313 the engine doesn't sound like a MAN 12-litre engine to me, more like a 7-litre instead ?!Originally posted by The_Bus_Guide:These 2 links would shed some light.
http://www.mtbm.com.my/bus/city/18280hoclr.htm
http://www.mtbm.com.my/bus/intercity/18313hoclr.htm -
I dun know anything abt bus type/make/model, but I noticed recently that one of their usual, big/full-size CW3 bus has been turned into a SHUTTLE BUS between Bkt Indah-Gelang Patah. On the bus signage is written as such & they also state the price as RM3.Originally posted by hseochin:As for midibuses in HI's fleet, i notice currently they have some but i put it as down to cost:benefit ratio as to whether it's worthwhile or not to buy more midibuses instead of full-size buses. For low demand routes maybe it's worthwhile because resources are then more efficiently used. If they have enough such routes i suppose they may then find it attractive to buy more midibuses, provided such routes don't duplicate too much ?
I don't know what's the frequency & timing of the shuttle bus and I wonder if this is a worthwhile effort since most people from Bkt Indah tend to wait at the main road leading to the highway to board the Kotaraya-local route CW3 during peak hours. During off-peak, there doesn't seem to be any passengers taking the shuttle service.
But I wld say the shuttle service would certainly benefit more residences of Bkt Indah if it takes on the route usually taken by Triton 501/ HI 111, picking up passengers from within the housing estates (invisible bus stops in front of the houses) instead of just from the main road, which is what CW3 is currently doing. And it wld be also good if the pick-up point includes Bestmart.
Therefore, if HI wants to provide the shuttle bus for the long-run, then perhaps it's good to use the "midibuses"?