Today's Articles: 53.
Articles' Numbers: (19980905_01-54) {No article 23}
Article 1:
新巴開機場線,好!
Jacky,AL65 (williamc@tsl.net.hk) from 203.82.252.106 at Fri Sep 4 14:09, 1998 said:
看到蘋果報導後令我開心不巳,因新巴有計劃
開南區/小西灣機場線.相信眾人叫好!
對於李日新的一番話令我覺他很小氣.
1.之前新巴投到88條線,他就說只是想有競
爭的結果.若不是年初的意外他深信必可投
到這88線.
2.新巴想開機場線,他就話新巴貪心,莫非他
怕會同CITYFLYER爭?
3.講到垃圾車,他接N26時用二手柴用到今年
既失信,又失敗.再者前中巴賣予新巴的車馬
是當年全新買回來.好過他要用第二個國家
用過的巴士呢!別忘記,新巴接手時不需租用其他
公司的巴士,但CTB接N26時又要租KCR的MCW MK1
又租嶼巴ISUZU呢!
新巴,上!
Jacky,AL65
MSD20
Article 2:
Re: 香港巴士路線之最
Citybus 10 (eg_slk@stu.ust.hk) from ustsu18-nc1.ust.hk at Fri Sep 4 14:45, 1998 said:
> 大埔居民 (makhome@netteens.net) said:
> 大家能不能說出:
> 1)最長之路線:
> 九巴 - 369
> 城巴 - 969
> 新巴 - 680
> 2)行車時間最長之路線:(正常來說)
> 九巴 - ?
> 城巴 - ?
> 新巴 - ?
> 3)最多車之路線:
> 九巴 - ?
> 城巴 - 5B
> 新巴 - 8
Article 3:
Re: '香港巴士字軌/掛牌表',邊條線最過時？
Jacky,ML1,S3BL268 (jackyyng@hkschool.net) from bootes.hkschool.net at Fri Sep 4 20:45, 1998 said:
> LM3 (angela05@netvigator.com) said:
> 點解好似好舊(有Ｄ線！！！）
> 我覺得96 and 97 都........
> CONTINUE.....
>
> P.S.上述只是個人意見！有錯請更正！
>
> LM3
仲有32M喎!成兩個月都係一樣!
希望板主能體會我們的感受,因為個D做表的
大佬真係好唔負責,俾下人地做又唔肯放手!
好似個叫eriC君,我SEND過好多醫貓俾佢,一D
回音都冇,咁我地點可以唔挑起罵戰呢?您又
唔砍佢地D專營權出黎,攪到個表烏煙瘴氣,
唔攪到大戰出黎,真係偷笑啦!仲有,我在此點
名批評係我非必要不做的,不過佢唔單止唔負
責,仲唔友善,叫我點可以唔點名批評喎!若板
主唔想再有罵戰,咁就打挎他們的'專營權',
公平競爭,咁咪好囉!
若有任何的犯規,祈為見諒!(勿點出來呀!)
鬧過好多次字軌表的Jacky,ML1,S3BL268
Article 3: (Request 1)
> 73773 (97017130j@polyu.edu.hk) said:
> 喂大佬呀! 呢個係掛牌表黎架, 緊係寫掛牌車架啦! 條線係咁ma! 唔通部車大驗,
> 日日落牛什, 我日日同你改呀? 你想人改, 你叫九記轉掛牌囉!
>
> 前32M掛牌佬 73773
你睇住,This is
字軌/掛牌表!
Not Only 掛牌表!
仲有,呢條線係咁,都唔會成兩個月一樣掛!
(note:勿挑起罵戰!)
Article 3: (Request 2)
> Ken Fung (kenf@hkstar.com) said:
>
> 最大問題係我唔知條線點至係做得好, 因為我自己唔知道
> 真正既字軌車, 可能真係三個月冇郁過字軌呢? 如果殺錯
> 好人咪大件事?
>
有時真係唔出聲都唔得,有些線像隧巴621咁,其實城巴線冇字軌車都冇
咁火滾,衰在佢6月後加了些城巴車後就完全唔做野,一部九巴車都冇,
我真係唔知點講好,九巴的掛牌易得多啦,咁都唔寫,一睇就知佢冇做野啦,
請板主你明鑑.
Article 3: (Request 3)
> Jacky,ML1,S3BL268 (jackyyng@hkschool.net) said:
>
> 咁又唔係啦!冇一條真係全字軌的線ga~~~!
>
> 而我覺得最好的字軌表,應每個禮拜update一次,
> D車總會轉下掛!如果成個月都係一樣的話,就殺死佢
> 都抵佢死啦!
>
> 最緊要記住:冇一條係全字軌的線的!
>
> 敬希明察!
錯!!
14號成年幾冇轉過字軌喎.
LV73,LV92,LV100,LV126
除非年驗及日修.
(最新加入DC2,但今日行DS8.....)
最緊要記住:世事無絕對
MC1>
「巴」全集
Article 3: (Request 4)
你到底知唔知乜野係字軌/掛牌車呀?
一個禮拜就轉下o個o的車就叫字軌/掛牌車呀?
你對字軌/掛牌車的概念都幾獨特.
而且你點知o的人真係 update 過?
我走去 edit 自己字軌線的 page 什麼都不改就按 submit
一樣 update o左個 update 日期時間個o番.
--
車匙!
Article 3: (Request 5)
首先要攪清楚字軌同掛牌的分別, 我唔係好明'全字軌的線'的意思,
不過九記行掛牌制, 架車掛左牌就個個月都係o個條線! 轉只會係字
軌. 有錯字軌係會期期轉, 但係普通人又點知個字軌? 你點知邊部係
一車, 邊部係四車? 就算問站長問卡佬, 人地三九唔識七, 邊個啋你?
如果九記線要人寫埋字軌, 我諗十條有七條要換人, 到最後咪又係得
一班人玩晒!
陳義
Article 3: (Request 6)
272P
Article 3: (Request 7)
> Ken Fung (kenf@hkstar.com) said:
>
> 你呢個題目好易引起罵戰喎, 小心.
>
> 又要睇醫生既 Ken
我覺得個題目可改為'邊條線做得最好'
(PS,Ken兄,請保重身體)
金魚字 HS7872 HU7872
Article 4:
Re: 九巴服務 日日退步?
★皇太子☆ (luklook@hknet.com) from 202.67.237.194 at Fri Sep 4 20:01, 1998 said:
> Mr. Bean! (cityman@netteens.net) said:
>
> 本人認為九巴服務退步的原因是:
> 1:'發達通'機唔係好肯安裝;
唔係唔肯安裝, 係'發達通'機供不應求姐~~
> 2:車箱越來越骯髒;
九巴都有定期幫D車車做清潔ga~~
車箱骯髒大多是'乘客'所做成~
> 3:很多巴士的車齡超過十五年.
其實九巴都不停更新車隊la~~~新車未造好, 如何把舊車淘汰呢~~
其實以上都不成九巴服務退步的原因, 只不過是你的個人誤解,
九巴只要你好好細心觀察~~就找到九巴真的退步原因...
完全冇惡意O既~~吉拿仔~~ *~*
Article 4: (Request 1)
> 1:'發達通'機唔係好肯安裝;
搭103及其他隊巴, 未試過九巴用唔到八達通, 城巴就試過幾次,
新巴更加次次要找'沙'入錢.
> 3:很多巴士的車齡超過十五年.
我覺得九巴車係一年新過一年.
好多線都不停換新字軌.
Article 4: (Request 2)
> 2:車箱越來越骯髒;
反而覺得好多車廂輕淨左喎！
> 3:很多巴士的車齡超過十五年.
那又甚麼樣呢？祗要安全就得啦，而且九巴都話會買新車啦
Article 4: (Request 3)
> F-stephen (c462a198@netvigator.com) said:
>
> 我會覺得這樣道理:
> 新車不等於好公司,有十五年車齡(九巴只有好少的鴨仔)的巴士
> 亦不等於差公司,只要滿足香港人要新要冷氣的要求,就算有少數舊
> 車在都冇所謂.但為何香港人不喜歡中巴?就是因為在街上見到中巴
> 舊車太多,新車少,故滿足不到需求,咪弄得如此田地!
>
> 故此,我覺得九巴在九十年代行正路,結果現在仍受人歡迎,同樣亦
> 在進步中,試問我們在街上是否經常可見到鴨車?
但土瓜灣有非常多鴨車在行走!
>
> F-stephen
Article 4: (Request 4)
But there's a lot of 'duck' in Tokwawan!
Friend of Kowloon City Ferry Bus Terminus
Article 4: (Request 5)
嚴格來說，大部份九巴是三軸巴士，不只鴨，所有兩軸車也很少。
大部份車都是12年以內的巴士，12年以上的巴士不多。
野比大雄 (Patrick Siu)
Article 4: (Request 6)
> 1:'發達通'機唔係好肯安裝;
好似係因為製造商造唔切部機!
> 2:車箱越來越不清潔;
唔覺,可能你搭o岩果d差d啦...
Article 5:
唔好斷章取義
L.Verde (gw7112li@netvigator.com) from hhtam024097.netvigator.com at Fri Sep 4 22:23, 1998 said:
> anthony LAM (lsf@hknet.com) said:
> 大家可唔可以理性一點，寫文時，一味話果三百架寶係李生時買，
> 請問那又如何？o係十幾年前買落啦，仲關佢乜事？鬧人都要有point嘛．
>
> 那些車應該就要退休，九巴都已經退晒啦，鬧乜o者各位？佢叫新
> 巴[當刀]晒o的車先有乜唔o岩？
>
> 我淨係指'[當刀]晒o的垃圾車先'這part.
林兄, 唔好斷章取義喎.
小弟絕對同意李生所言應該[當刀]晒Ｄ垃圾車呢句. 就係中記攬實批
老爺巴士, 唔肯買新車, 搞到今日聲譽掃地, 最後執笠o既田地.
不過各位o既評論絕對唔係只針對呢句說話. 其實最令人不滿o既, 係佢
講完呢句之後, 又話新記唔應該兩年買五百幾架冷馬. 上文加下理,
顯出一個完全睇唔起新記o既囂張態度, 李生懷疑新記有乜能力去高速換
新巴士 - 根本呢Ｄ就係城記呢三幾年o既舉動.
自己要做又做唔到 (全空調化一再拖延), 就斷定新記都唔得, 又話冇
新巴士就唔好學自己咁猛開線, 搶市場佔有率.
識得話人, 唔識得話自己. 一味只係狂踩對方, 話人冇資格同自己鬥.
呢種唯我獨尊o既態度,
非常令人 失 望 加 憤 怒 !
講真o個句, 新記大把垃圾車, 城記冇咩?
唔好話Ｄ大廢豪啦, 俾Ｄ全新落地都普躉佢用, 響班垃圾司機手上,
一樣都係垃圾車！
o係長沙灣道俾架蟻躝咁慢o既#22xx阻住行激親o既
凱日‧豪原
Article 5: (Request 1)
o係李老先生講呢句o野之前, 相信仲有唔少人仲寫緊服字俾佢, 佩服佢當年o既
眼光, 引入o左呢批咁''襟老''o既巴士. 事實勝於雄辯, 呢批珍寶即使營役o左
咁多年, 到而家佢地o既跪車率都遠較城巴o既新車為低.
九巴退寶係九巴o既事; 中巴覺得呢批車保養好、性能可靠、龍精虎猛而繼續
用落去亦係中巴o既事. 每間公司有佢自己o既經營哲學, 呢個亦唔係問題o既重點.
問題係李伯狂言呢批車係垃圾, 咁究竟佢地垃圾在邊度? 藍色乞佢憎? 咁老
都咁精神, 襟用過佢D冷馬? 行得快過坡柴? 定還是....? 新巴正不斷買新車返o黎
服役, 珍寶(甚至其他非空調巴士)被退係必然o既事; 況且如果人地o黎車
o黎得切, 到申請獲准時已有足夠空調車開新線而又同車隊空調化步伐取得平衡
o既話, 咁關佢咩事? 點解要[tong]晒D''垃圾''車至可以開新線? 又唔見
佢地木記摺晒D坡柴至開線? 至於新巴o既如意算盤打唔打得響, 運輸署自會有
專家進行評估 (有板友亦分析過, 唔係咁易). 或者佢老人家有好精闢獨到o既
分析都唔定, 可惜李伯無喇喇講句咁無厘頭o既o野出o黎, 真係失晒佢巴士界
老行尊o既身份. 阿林兄你講得o岩, 鬧人要有point. 窒人都要有point.
亂''up''廿四, 只會貽笑大方. 李伯呢舖叫做口出狂言, 牛頭唔搭馬嘴.
態度囂張, 口不擇言 -- 除o左盡顯李伯過份自信o既霸主心態外, 亦曝露出木記
高層o既不安, 因而欠缺冷靜, 急於打擊對手, 結果係自曝其短、欲蓋彌彰.
Mike NG(CMB-LF126)
Article 5: (Request 2)
冇錯, 家陣d寶係仍然行得走得, 但乘客坐得舒唔舒服, 司機駕駛環
境好定差都係一個好重要o既問題, 你鍾意坐d'挫o下挫o下'o既車,我
唔話得你, 但你都要顧及其他人(例如老人), 他們沒有你咁精壯, 可
能隨時會一開車就跌倒, 後果可以不堪.
而且, 負責駕駛的司機比你搭車更辛苦, 如果新巴一路擴展新線, 變
得遲遲唔退得晒, 受害的可能唔係你, 但係其他好多人.
所以新巴應該退晒d舊巴士先至開新線.
Article 5: (Request 3)
> L.Verde (gw7112li@netvigator.com) said:
>
> 林兄, 唔好斷章取義喎.
> 小弟絕對同意李生所言應該[當刀]晒Ｄ垃圾車呢句. 就係中記攬實批
> 老爺巴士, 唔肯買新車, 搞到今日聲譽掃地, 最後執笠o既田地.
> 不過各位o既評論絕對唔係只針對呢句說話. 其實最令人不滿o既, 係佢
> 講完呢句之後, 又話新記唔應該兩年買五百幾架冷馬. 上文加下理,
> 顯出一個完全睇唔起新記o既囂張態度, 李生懷疑新記有乜能力去高速換
> 新巴士 - 根本呢Ｄ就係城記呢三幾年o既舉動.
>
> 自己要做又做唔到 (全空調化一再拖延), 就斷定新記都唔得, 又話冇
> 新巴士就唔好學自己咁猛開線, 搶市場佔有率.
>
> 識得話人, 唔識得話自己. 一味只係狂踩對方, 話人冇資格同自己鬥.
>
> 呢種唯我獨尊o既態度,
> 非常令人 失 望 加 憤 怒 !
>
> 講真o個句, 新記大把垃圾車, 城記冇咩?
>
> 唔好話Ｄ大廢豪啦, 俾Ｄ全新落地都普躉佢用, 響班垃圾司機手上,
> 一樣都係垃圾車！
>
> o係長沙灣道俾架蟻躝咁慢o既#22xx阻住行激親o既
>
> 凱日‧豪原
你即睇唔起城記d司機? hey!新巴d司機都係由中巴過去!
城巴d司機全都是新司機ma! 司機開車慢又罵!, 快又罵,
新司機都是為了安全, 因為新ma! 快又有何用呢? #22xx阻住
, 為何不爬頭, ????????
Dennis 的客戶不是得新巴一人, 城巴, 九巴, ......and the world????????? have many 客戶! 兩年真是有可能? 他十分老定了,
如果做不到, 你地咪又係度罵! ........ 希望大家仔細想想真是有可能?
Article 5: (Request 4)
正確的駕駛者應以合理而安全的速度駕駛.
過慢亦是不對的.
(慢 ＝/＝ 安全)
Article 5: (Request 5)
> Cummins LT10 (cumminsl@netvigator.com) said:
>
> 贊成！！
>
> Cummins LT10
but慢=比較安全?
N357
Article 5: (Request 6)
o甘講都可以成立... 但仍應合理速度地行！
唔郁咪重安全？ 哈。。 講笑乍！
Cummins LT10...
Article 6:
Re: 中巴執左都要鬧(有勢保中華Banner人士注意)
Citybus 10 (eg_slk@stu.ust.hk) from max14-30.hk.super.net at Sat Sep 5 08:23, 1998 said:
> DA54 (da54@netteens.net) said:
> 我昨晚收到封冇subject的 e-mail, 現原文照錄如下:
>
> [始]
> Subject:
> Date:
> 3 Sep 1998 17:44:06 -0000
> From:
> josephchan@hongkong.com
> To:
> da54@netteens.net
>
>
>
> 我完全唔知你個banner 係乜意思, 甚麼'中巴長存, 逝保中華', 係人都知中巴的服務唔掂架啦, 如果佢叫得
> 做'中華'汽車有限公司, 唔該佢就攪得好好地啦, 因為叫得做中華的, 就會反應中華民族的人格, 佢攪得
> 咁差, 簡直就係染污中華民族的聲譽, 所以我勁想中巴玩完, 因為佢衰格...... 等佢唔好繼續唱衰中華民族,
> 凡有中華為名的公司或國家, 都要做到最好, 如果一個有中華為名的個體做得唔好, 就要被消滅......
>
Yes!This is right!The name of Chinese was being attacked for 100 years since 1841.So we can't tolerate the CMB to blacken the name of Chinese again!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Make a name for yourself - Freemail@hongkong.com
> Hongkong.com Ltd. http://freemail.hongkong.com
>
>
> [終]
>
> 對這些語無倫次的人感到悲哀.....
Article 6: (Request 1)
人家有人家的意見, 不論是否語無倫次,
你把別人的電郵貼上來好像有點缺德.
--
車匙!
Article 6: (Request 2)
怎樣「缺德」??
我相信透露電郵可以使大家直接聯絡他, 也可證明這是真憑實據.
亦可為有關人士作保障......
(否則相信板主亦要delete上面的 e-mail address 了)
Article 6: (Request 3)
電郵是私人函件, 你的做法等如將別人給你的一封信件
影印多份後通街貼一樣.
又唔關板主事, 你又冇犯板規, 你覺得冇問題大可以保留你的文章,
每人對一這件事的想法不同, 我只是表達我的意見.
--
車匙!
Article 6: (Request 4)
> Dennis Law (ctb2500@upnaway.com) said:
> But can anyone be sure that the person posting this mail is a bus fan?
> Even though the expressions in this mail is not too good, this may represent the thoughts and opinions of certain people, which may even be the public's viewpoint.
> Having actions too radical towards such a mail message would probably sound unwise, as it may spoil the image of a certain group of bus fans.
竟然將「中華」巴士同「中華」民族混為一談，我相信此等人
無論是否巴士迷都是十分無聊、愚笨及幼稚的.
這些人為了踩低中巴, 咁o既理由都寫得出.... 唉......
-----
另﹕有些人為了報復新巴「食o左」中巴, 竟然一樣亂鬧人.
不如慳返啖氣鬧「中巴敵人」木瓜先喇, 人地李阿爺口出狂言喇！
Article 6: (Request 5)
DA54君，容我加一句：我對呢種大民族主義o既人感到悲哀...
而家中巴摺o左，冇o左代表中華o既，咁最大o既咪係...
(假如依照此言論，大嶼山巴士代表大嶼山、九龍巴士代表九龍)
某巴士公司咪代表整個城市？嘩！好唔掂o番！
D絲絨椅污糟到死，又反車又擺街，咁佢咪唱衰香港？
(唔好寄『炸彈郵包』bomb我mail box呀！我講笑咋!! ^_^ )
咁新世界就更加要做好啦！代表成個世界，做得唔好俾外星人笑
就唔係咁好啦！下話？
DA54君，如果一次半次就算啦！唔好同佢一般見識啦！
唔好咁勞氣，激親自己咋！
共勉之！
剛由北京返港，好耐都冇上網o既
LX253
我個巴士網都有藍方旗o架！
Article 6: (Request 6)
> T.P.T. (dckk@netteens.net) said:
>
> 哈~~ 又有o的無聊兼白痴既人寫埋o的咁無聊既E-mail,
> 成篇文都咁主觀, o個個人都唔方叻得去邊啦!
>
> 辛苦, 辛苦.....
有d人以為自己好叻,講野係會好主觀,仲要明明自己錯都要咬番生,中巴除了
車箱多垃圾和飛站外,都無乜點衰,司機態度又好,又有禮貌,最衰就係傳媒喧
染,攪到出現衰市/網民.
今日我同空鴨鍊車輸左的
S3M94
Article 7:
Re: 三個月
Gakei! (gakei@netvigator.com) from hkpu15.polyu.edu.hk at Sat Sep 5 00:22, 1998 said:
> Ken Fung (kenf@hkstar.com) said:
> 由於字軌表投訴甚多, 現在加上新制度. 凡三個月內沒有
> 更新資料, 即會被除去路線負責人一職而不會發出通知.
> 新制度會於 Oct 1 生效, 請各負責人留意.
我負責的兩條線多月來都冇變過o的掛牌車, 係咪都要循例 login
入去修改的 page 什麼也不改再按 submit ?
--
車匙!
Article 7: (Request 1)
> Ken Fung (kenf@hkstar.com) said:
>
> 至少都按一下 submit, 因為唔 submit 個時間係唔會變.
很坦白的講, 咁做係冇意思o羅!
這只會助長那些好日都唔改的慣性地三個月按一下 submit 去摶大
霧。
見唔少線個 date 好新, 但內容就超 outdate。
另外, 板主閣下整個 last updated 都有三個月喇! (6月3 日下午二
時幾), 宜家仲要俾得一個月寬限期添? 是否過份仁慈了? 這未免是
對不少盡責的板友太不公平了!
一 reply 同字軌表有關的文都好驚會鬧出事的
cky (今早同周公一齊晌公司開會)
(ps:上幾篇文有板友讚過小弟在字軌表的表現, 實不敢當, 只是盡
己綿力為大家效勞, 還請各位多多關照支持!)
Article 7: (Request 2)
> cky (kyfchiu@netvigator.com) said:
> 很坦白的講, 咁做係冇意思o羅!
其實一用負責人制就預左會不負責任的負責人......
> 這只會助長那些好日都唔改的慣性地三個月按一下 submit 去摶大霧。
咁都好過有些連板都唔上負責人, 但係仲可以逍遙法外霸住條線,
連 Submit 制都唔按啊!
> 見唔少線個 date 好新, 但內容就超 outdate。
以港島線來說, 得幾個負責人係真正完全update,
有些只識加車, 部車換左都唔知.
> 另外, 板主閣下整個 last updated 都有三個月喇! (6月3 日下午二
> 時幾), 宜家仲要俾得一個月寬限期添? 是否過份仁慈了? 這未免是
> 對不少盡責的板友太不公平了!
值情過份仁慈啦, 我認為依家應該要突擊取消不負責任的負責人路線啦.
> 一 reply 同字軌表有關的文都好驚會鬧出事的
我都唔敢多在板出聲關於字軌表
> (ps:上幾篇文有板友讚過小弟在字軌表的表現, 實不敢當, 只是盡
> 己綿力為大家效勞, 還請各位多多關照支持!)
咁你係盡責嘛! 小弟住柴灣都唔幫得幾多, 盡量幫喇!
對於新巴唔準時開 83 有點失望的智叔
Article 7: (Request 3)
> 417 (96006257@plink.cityu.edu.hk) said:
> 條線 3 個月內o的車都冇換冇改廣告車牌點算？
入去只按一下 submit 將個時間改下都好. 因為呢條
新制度係主要打擊一 D 霸左線之後又忘記左既不負責任
負責人. 如果有時間入去改時間只為霸線但係又唔改
資料既, 呢種負責人真係快 D 死左佢好過.
Ken
Article 7: (Request 4)
> Gakei! (gakei@netvigator.com) said:
>
> 我覺得如廣告車的廣告變更等是負責人自願性質提供,
> 不應納入監管範圍. 顧名思義, '字軌/掛牌表' 就
> 是以提供字軌掛牌車資料為主.
>
> --
> 車匙!
呢個制度好, 至少有部分霸o左線但又不上本板的人,將他的負責取消.
碼40, 42c..., 是誰呀, 我都未見過!!又無update 資料
Article 8:
Re: 通告 0904A: 徵求投票內容
金魚 (n960@hkabc.net) from ppp253099.hkabc.net at Fri Sep 4 21:53, 1998 said:
> Ken Fung (kenf@hkstar.com) said:
> 本人整左一個投票箱想作測試, 如果反應良好日後會經常
> 攪投票. 第一次投票大家有冇乜野好提議? 不妨提出. :)
> 投票形式只限單選或複選.
'邊款巴士坐得最舒服'
金魚字 HS7872 HU7872
Article 8: (Request 1)
政府應否取締中巴?
呢個題目好唔好呢?
K.Y.Chung
Article 8: (Request 2)
How about having some votings for comments on bus news issues?
(Such as whether or not NWFB should introduce a large number of new routes at this stage.)
What happened? Got a flu?
(I've got one here in Perth already! Sigh!)
Article 8: (Request 3)
'水塘豪應否存在?'
'快餐椅好坐嗎?'
日日都坐快餐椅/水塘豪0既S3BL (:P)
Article 8: (Request 4)
本人覺得可以舉行[板友最不喜歡的巴士選舉]會得到良好的反
應.
Article 8: (Request 5)
選你最鍾意的老頂
1)陳袓擇
2)李日新
3)許雄
Article 8: (Request 6)
不如重新放線,免得板友獨佔多條路線.
而投票就選出本年的巴士新聞.大約二十宗選出最轟動的巴士新聞
Article 8: (Request 7)
舊 年 ' 80M 巴 士 總 站 ' 搞 過 ' 最 佳 巴 士 網 頁 '
事 隔 咁 耐 , 網 頁 又 多 左 , 係 時 候 再 搞 多 次 ...
發下 up 風既
SK Chan
Article 9:
Re: 字軌表邊條做得最好??
CTB921 (yccheung@netfront.net) from ppp135.netfront.net at Sat Sep 5 11:22, 1998 said:
> 金魚 (n960@hkabc.net) said:
> 如題:
>
> 這個可令各位有個借鏡
負責3B和12系線的John 2100一星期更新一次，都幾好!
Article 9: (Request 1)
> DA54 (da54@netteens.net) said:
> 112 Joseph Ho 啦, 自從 n 月前過線俾佢後, 差不多日日
> update, 好盡責o架......
Joseph Ho 係適當改字軌時 update 遮, 呢樣先至0岩架.
> 其餘不少都好好的, 恕未能盡錄.
DA54 兄在港島線都做得唔錯架!
其餘有 T.P.T. 的 78, cky 的各條線都唔錯架.
九龍新界區就要各位出聲喇!
智叔
Article 9: (Request 2)
> Cummins LT10 (cumminsl@netvigator.com) said:
>
> 59A 59M 59X 59S 都好好架!!
>
> Cummins LT10
GF1912兄的59M夠準確, Updated!
Article 9: (Request 3)
Claymon (wang5@hknet.com) said:
> 九龍新界區就要各位出聲喇!
>
我自己就覺得沙田區 S3BL, 東邪兩位就真係做得好好!
尤其係 S3BL 未放線俾其他人之前, 差不多大半沙田西路線都
做得掂. 沙廠線派車一向以亂見稱, 咁都 manage 得咁好非常
難得.
Article 10:
Re: 對新巴城巴的另類意見
Edward Shum (edshum@hkstar.com) from ip-230-155.cyberec.com at Fri Sep 4 19:59, 1998 said:
> 林文放 (manhing@hkstar.com) said:
> （一）沒錯，昨天李日新的確口出狂言（中記批車唔垃圾）。
> 但新巴何嘗不是口出狂言，兩年內換五百部車，很容易
> 重蹈城記的覆轍－言而無信。除非新巴也訂富豪奧林比
> 安，如果純訂三叉戟，英國有無咁多貨？
Colin君的意見與我一致。
> （二）李日新叫新巴做番好自己都有道理，現時新巴只是接手
> 不到數天就想接機場路線。機場路線雖不多，但買車和
> 包裝路線上就需大量資金和學問。新巴接手南區機場線
> 是可以的，但小西灣總站現時又無坑兼且面對地鐵競爭
> ，又不知有多少客，這會拖死新巴的。如果城記咁想做
> ，由城記去吧，新巴無必要那麼急於擴張。
小西灣車坑緊張大家都知，現在只是城巴定新巴辨機場線問題。
其實小西灣與南區的分別不是太大，相信沒有人喜歡提著行李乘
地鐵，相信也不會有很多人願花錢乘的士落中環站轉機鐵，加上
小西灣及重建中的柴灣居民平均年齡下降，對於機場的往來次數
應該會相應增加，在這個大前提下新巴營辨機埸線還是理智的。
把握現在的時機而放眼明天，難道過了河的城巴還會把線送回新
巴做？
> （三）很多中記迷很容易將中記投射到新巴為中記替身。但以
> 我這數天的觀察，由施偉廉主管的新巴極有濃厚的城巴
> 色彩，由其新車到路線，甚至跳飛機都是！對於我來說
> ，中巴早已於九月一日凌晨死去，大家只會逐漸看到一
> 間城巴化的巴士公司。而關則輝此君的談話作風，由新
> 巴客量急速上升一句，都看到關則輝與李日新亂說話起
> 來，根本半斤八兩。
新巴就是新巴，城巴就是城巴，就算他們管理手腕一樣又如何。
而關則輝先生那一句不知他從那角度所發出的言論，當中的乘客
量的比較有否包括一些現已屬於城巴的路線就無從考究。
Jubilant
Article 10: (Request 1)
同意你的論據, 短期內新巴應重站穩住腳, 使接辦的路線
運作上了軌道才去發展新線, 不過, 作為多年後的路線發
展計劃的話, 及早研究也是應該的.
非常同意這一點. 投放太多感情, 會招致看事物及發表意見流於偏激,
容易走火入魔, 人見人怕.
--
車匙!
Article 10: (Request 2)
> Colin Chang (kalim@netvigator.com) said:
> 一年要250部巴士，我覺得又唔係想像中咁難。除o左英國車，仲可
> 以考慮德國車同瑞典車；除o左丹尼士三叉戟，仲有富豪超奧林匹克
> 、世冠低地台巴士、平治、MAN......
我自己都覺得兩年要五百部都不算太難, 不過要小心選擇車款,
現在最需要是短軸雙層車, 其實單層車新巴大部分線都不適用.
> 講o既說法無用，最仲要係要兌現。不過，兩年內500架車並非無可
> 能o既。四個月內，新巴都有成六十架新車，之後為「不為」定係
> 「不能」，佢自己醒醒定定囉。
現在應該要決定買甚麼車及落訂時候, 時間差不多.
> 問題係李日新咁講，你估真係「為新巴好」呀，定係「為城巴好」
> 呢？老實講，我認為兩間新公司都無資格短期內再開新線，因為
> 城巴唔夠車，新巴舊車多。但係如果係都要「兩害選其輕」，我會
> 選新巴，因為有舊車總好過無車，而且可以打破壟斷。
其實新巴以現時路線要兩年半內全冷都幾難,
新巴五百部加中巴約二百部得七百部,
而新巴路線確實亦加了不少車行, 我懷疑兩年半內全冷可信性.
> 我認為中巴就係中巴，新巴就係新巴，各有自己o既公司特色，根
> 本無法替代。雖然而家大部分巴士都係中巴車、中巴色同前中巴
> 司機，但係感覺根本唔同。
我好認同, 單以新巴司機無論在行車情況及服務態度上與中巴時都不同,
可能係好荒謬, 但事實就在眼前. 新巴中巴始於係兩間公司.
> 各為其主，無話咩人以前係邊間公司o既人又點點點。負責任o既「
> 巴士人」，應該從自己公司o既利益出發。唔通以前響中巴做，後來
> 過o左城巴，就會對中巴留情？對舊公司咁有情義都唔會走啦。
只不過李生說話似乎是貶低自己公司呢!
智叔
Article 10: (Request 3)
But who can be sure that these bus models are suitable for the operations in Hong Kong?
(Remember KMB's ill-advised purchase of 100 Seddon Pennines in the 1970s? How did they ended up?)
If NWFB can keep this promise, that will be great. However, if it turned out to be the opposite situation......
Then how about the Airport route proposal case?
How can New World First Bus get enough 'Airport Tridents' within a few months?
(Remember! They need to have at least a luggage rack!)
In my opinion, NWFB should try to renew its existing fleet as soon as possible before considering any non-urgent route proposal.
In fact, I would suggest that bus fans should treat NWFB as a new bus company instead of CMB's shadow company.
That is a good point! But have you noticed that comments towards bus companies nowadays are often strongly biased?
(No matter which company is being targeted.)
Article 10: (Request 4)
我同意你的意見，你的文章都算幾有文路喎！
Bruce
Article 11:
Re: 新線建議261X
金魚 (n960@hkabc.net) from ppp253099.hkabc.net at Fri Sep 4 21:58, 1998 said:
> ZIDANE (johnnywc@netteens.net) said:
> ... 九龍城碼頭OR紅磡碼頭TO屯門...行經紅磡, 何文田, 彌敦道, 荔枝角道, 荃灣道, 屯門公路......., OK?
61x都蝕錢,仲開條261x,你發燒嗎??
金魚字 hs7872 hu7872
Article 11: (Request 1)
我個人認為
261X應該由屯門山景至紅磡火車站.
途經山景,大興,工廠區,新墟,市中心.友愛,豐景園,屯門公路,汀九橋
,長青隧道,青葵公路,西九龍公路,佐敦,尖沙咀(彌敦道,天星碼頭,漆
咸道),紅磡火車站.
初期用10.3米細車冷馬行駛.
收費約$12.8
Article 11: (Request 2)
九龍城碼頭<-->屯門...經紅磡,佐敦,旺角,大角嘴,西九龍快速公路,丁九橋,屯門公路is better.
Kowloon City Ferry Bus Termins
Article 11: (Request 3)
妤就唔係唔妤,但會唔不夠客?(如269B)
Article 12:
Re: 我以後唔搭969入天水圍!
Alvin Wong (97487384@plink.cityu.edu.hk) from hkusud.hku.hk at Sat Sep 5 13:39, 1998 said:
> N357 (clarina@vol.net) said:
> 今日睇Apple Daily，睇到阿李生講D野，真係覺得食鬼不知所謂，
> 又話中/新巴D車垃圾又廢，好心佢睇下1年前D坡柴先啦！車齡咪同
> D雞（後期過D）唔差得太遠，接手26線後意外一鑊大過一鑊，好地
> 地上天橋都翻車，D龍咁穩鎮都可以玩死，犀利！
>
早幾個月都有架 DA 反左o拉，又唔見你話中記犀利！！
> 入番正題，人地NWFB整機場線都吠得一餐，以為自己全港至大巴士
> 公司，唔好忘記仲有個九巴架，細路！所以，我以後由銅鑼灣入天
> 水圍肯定唔會搭969系，寧願968+69M/69X/268B/269C...都好過坐D
> 賤車。入機場都係(A/E11-23, no way)呀！總之，有得選都唔搭食
> 鬼巴士！
>
> N357
做巴士迷可唔可以做得理性 D 呢？？我覺得你開始有 D 走火入魔！！
不吐不快既
Alvin Wong
Article 12: (Request 1)
> Cummins LT10 (cumminsl@netvigator.com) said:
> 好似反親 3 擔 都係龍啵！
>
> Cummins LT10
例如呢？(870除外)
N357
Article 12: (Request 2)
> Cummins LT10 (cumminsl@netvigator.com) said:
>
> 藍地九記 11M 熱狗，唔記得邊架羅。
> 所以之後 Dennis 改良過條擔。
That bus was S3N45(DM8514).
> 好似重有， 有冇人補充呀？
S3N28(DM8183) has been overturned in Tsuen Wan in 1990 when it was serving on route 848.
Besides, CMB's DL21 (even though it is actually a Condor ^_^) was turned over on Island Eastern Corridor near Chai Wan in early 1994. The driver was killed instantly.
Article 13:
Re: Conspiracy theory on Citybus...
Dennis Law (ctb2500@upnaway.com) from borg27.upnaway.com at Fri Sep 4 21:12, 1998 said:
> AL=Sunba (akyl@rubens.its.unimelb.edu.au) said:
> I think that will be quite controversial, but this is something
> long in my mind that i really want to say.
>
> Why TD gave 780/788 and other routes to CTB?
> One reason, remember, the decision was made on around Feb this year,
> at that time HK is beginning to enter into recession and interest rate
> was already above 10%. Also remember, CTB has just taken out a syndicated
> loan of HK$1,500,000,000. Of course CTB management know that is not right
> for them. So what they decided to do is to exert pressure to the government
> that if CTB was not awarded some profitable routes, we are going to lose a huge
> amount of money. If that is the case, the whole company may be in trouble.
> And that is going to be chaotic for HK public transport. So in light of this
> threat, TD decided to axe 780/788 to CTB, otherwise CTB will be in deep trouble.
How come you can be so sure that Citybus has threatened TD by using such a tactic? Any evidences or references?
> Also, CTB always use the excuse of 'excess stock of buses' to pressure the gov't,
> so that CMB routes would be axed to it. Like in 1994, when the talk between CMB
> and gov't on the extention of franchise began, CTB has said on a couple of occasions
> that it had purchased a couple of hundred buses more than what was needed. And so
> TD gave 'new 14' to CTB. Fine,OK, what i have noticed was the same tactic was being
> used earlier this year, which was again like, 'we have pirchased how many how many
> buses in excess', what's happened then?
Then how about if Citybus didn't do that when TD decides to cut some CMB routes? Are you willing to see a shortage of buses on certain services which eventually will affect the general public?
> You see why Rees can be such arrogant(like today)? Because CTB is heavily indebted,
> if TD is not acting on its favour, transport on the Island and now the new airport
> will be in deep trouble. So now TD is really in the hands of CTB. CTB can do anything
> to threaten TD/Gov't and the officals will listen and do whatever CTB want.
I'm afraid I can't understand this point. How will this affect the new airport?
> I always maintain poor services is only one of the relatively minor reasons for
> CMB demise. In the back of the curtain, there is a lot of dirty politics going on which
> we may never never know.
'One of the relatively minor reasons?'
Then how about the complaints about the standard of CMB's service from the general public? Are you trying to convince me that those complaints can be ignored?
> What do you think? This is just what i thought, you may dispute it, and i am
> not going to enter into a war with anyone, OK?!
As soon as the points mentioned in this discussion are meaningful, an aimless argument should not actually take place.
Article 13: (Request 1)
> AL=Sunba (akyl@rubens.its.unimelb.edu.au) said:
> First, i have said i do not intend to get into a war with anyone, but i will let you know what i think.
> I have said and stressed this is a conspiracy theory and realise it is hard to prove, otherwise it would
> make big news in HK.
So that's your personal opinion, right?
(Hopefully I haven't misunderstood your ideas. ^_^)
> No,you've missed my point. I was saying CTB used the argument that it had plenty of idle buses to force TD award new routes.
> When CTB ordered those buses they should not have known they were going to be awarded with those routes. Otherwise that would means there were some under-the-table deals between
> CTB and TD, such that CTB ordered those buses in advance?
Then how about the case this year?
If there's really a secret deal between CTB and TD, CTB should be able to avoid a shortage of buses before this year's route handover. Right?
> There will always be a possiblity that an indebted company experience financial distress and
> may eventually go bankkrupt. If that is going to happen, transport to and from airport & on the
> island will be in turmoil.
In case this really happens, (which I suppose nobody would like to see,) TD can simply award those routes to another bus company. So I suppose that wouldn't be too chaotic.
> I would accept your point, but those complains have been going on for years and CMB has respond positively to those. Why TD has to get rid of CMB? We can see it
> improving.
How about the pace of the improvements?
(Having only 24 A/C double deckers with 2+2 seating when compared with the other operators, for instance.)
Comments towards my thoughts and opinions will surely be welcomed! :)
Article 13: (Request 2)
CTB is always short on buses. Are you saying this is a snow ball effect due to rapid expansion, CTB needs to order more than enough and force TD to grant it more routes to operate? I don't know any secret conspiracy in the government, although normally it wouldn't make sense to grant more routes to a bus company with a shortage of buses!
If you call getting rid of A/C service on route 15 this summer is 'improvement of service', then I shall accept your point.
Yes, I'll probably see full A/C service by CMB if it was able to continue to operate within two years. (a time period much shorter than KMB's schedule) However, have you consider other factors such as on-time departures, cleaniness, drivers' attitude, etc... which also drew complains by passengers on the Hong Kong side? To me, these are compnay culture within CMB which, unless a totally new management is brought in like NWFB, can't be changed easily.
100/911R Wong
Article 13: (Request 3)
Now honestly, are CMB driver's attitude towards passengers THAT bad?? I have met many unfriendly drivers from both KMB and CTB....... In terms of puntiality, CMB is not the only one. Have u ever waited for a 203?
Article 14:
Re: 新巴新車
AD4541 (mhtse@ctn.net) from pc132.ctn.com.hk at Fri Sep 4 15:12, 1998 said:
> 大埔居民 (makhome@netteens.net) said:
> 那條路線有新巴新車呢?
> Trident --- 8,8P,N8...(請接力)
> Dart --- 25,27,M21...(請接力)
>
> 請問15 有冇新巴Dart?
>
> 大埔居民
> Trident ---112,111
> Dart ---19
Article 14: (Request 1)
> cky (kyfchiu@netvigator.com) said:
>
> Trident --- 8,8P,111,112,116
> Dart --- 25,27,M21,19,78
116幾時出沒,我看不到?
Article 15:
Re: [ 討論 ] 邊條路線最耐歷史 ???
BR4474 (c6091596@comp.polyu.edu.hk) from hkpa05.polyu.edu.hk at Sat Sep 5 09:05, 1998 said:
> 74X (id02271@netvigator.com) said:
> 請問各板友 , 大家有冇一 D 自己認為最
> 喜歡而且歷史最長久既巴士路線呢 ? 如果
> 有既不妨大家一齊討論下啦 !!!
>
> 74X ◎_◎
九巴一號?
Article 15: (Request 1)
我認為九巴二號線(尖沙咀---蘇屋)算係歷史悠久
不過如果以北區計，九巴70號都應該算係
因為七十號是響三、四十年代開辦，最初係十五/十五A，六八年獅
隧通車，便改為十九號A；到七三年先改為七十號，一直沿用至今。
當然七十號除左歷史悠久外，仲有不同車款都行過呢條路線，亦對
北區都好重要。
Article 15: (Request 2)
又講歷史啦:
九巴1號線
三十年代:尖沙咀碼頭至深水埔
四十年代:尖沙咀碼頭至九龍城
(1號線九龍城站早期位於世運公園,後來遷往聯合道)
七十年代(72):尖沙咀碼頭至樂富 --> 橫頭磡
八十年代(85):尖沙咀碼頭至樂富中心 --> 竹園村(現在)
九巴2號線
三十年代:尖沙咀碼頭至荔枝角
四十年代:尖沙咀碼頭至深水埔(警署鄰之欽州街)
六十年代(62):尖沙咀碼頭至蘇屋(至現在)
九巴6號線
三十年代:尖沙咀碼頭至九龍城經太子道
四十年代:尖沙咀碼頭至荔枝角
七十年代:尖沙咀碼頭至美孚(荔枝角橋底)
還有甚麼線想知?
(遲些容生好似會出本巴士路線歷史手冊,可能會好好睇...)
F-stephen
Article 16:
Re: 咦?! 個'版友代表車'去左邊?!
Dennis Law (ctb2500@upnaway.com) from borg27.upnaway.com at Fri Sep 4 19:51, 1998 said:
> Jacky,ML1,S3BL268 (jackyyng@hkschool.net) said:
> 如題!
> 請板主解釋!
This section has been cancelled by the boardmaster, Ken Fung, already.
Article 16: (Request 1)
> Jacky,ML1,S3BL268 (jackyyng@hkschool.net) said:
>
> Then,...Why?!
According to Boardmaster:
' 我幾日前已經宣佈 9 月 1 日取消板友代表車, 只是遲了
兩天......因為想本板可讀性提高, 不想讓一個玩意用去了
站牌的一角, 況且有人不守規則, 輸入超過三架代表車, 甚
至代表飛機......我相信遲早會有爭吵, 倒不如取消好了.
Ken '
LF2 (BE 8749)
Article 16: (Request 2)
激死我0剌,0甘都要停!
板主哥哥,你係0米永遠都0吾開0架0剌!?
憤怒的古競豪
Article 17:
Re: 李日新有話想講!
Ken Fung (kenf@hkstar.com) from 202.68.58.226 at Sat Sep 5 12:38, 1998 said:
> Damon (hill@speednet.net) said:
> 李: '昨日一番話引來HKBDB那麼多人批評，都是我唔好彩!'
李生響邊度講過呢番話?
Ken
Article 17: (Request 1)
> 小丸子新巴VA51 (k5959585@hkschool.net) said:
>
> 嘩!!呢個城記董事「李巴巴」,成日說'唔好彩'呢句說話.
> 都不知係度玩甚麼?我話李巴巴d呢句說話簡直不負責任!
>
>
>
>
> VA51 TONG HN8481
> LV97 CM7009
> already NWFB....
上次反車死了4個 －－－李伯伯說黑仔又點！！！
Article 18:
你對城巴的印象有冇改變?
rt.690 吳佩慈 Fans (kyy690@netvigator.com) from hhtam003202.netvigator.com at Sat Sep 5 01:34, 1998 said:
我覺得以前在93年接手26條線時,印象比例好,特別在5系有冷熱混合
行走,我當時搭5B(3XX)時,一上車即有涼快舒服的感覺,其次當時東區沒有
冷氣車服務行走(除了中巴23,38過海、機場線外),我當時想起,城巴
點解唔開條線行東區呢?我當時每日要搭106返工,由於106冷馬服務,
只由九巴5部冷馬車行走,即過了九記時段,又要忍受熱狗之苦,當時
中巴專營權仲傾緊,政府話要CUT線俾城巴,
我心想106應該被CUT名單之內,最後結果都.........-_-!
到了95年中,我的願望終於達成,個次政府有CUT東區線,可是85只係
平日用披柴,只係假日全日先有冷馬,而99當時假日停開,最慘都係
舊年,搭930,o的冷馬得d小小風吹,根本係非常非常熱狗車.
而且我落車之後,我個重要部位開始痕樣,我【拗】越來越痕,於是
我去看醫生,醫生話我的部位有虱,醫生話通常這類虱流連在沙發椅上.
致此,於是我開始對城巴有點失望-_-!
城巴為你提供更佳服務,好難咯
rt.690 吳佩慈 Fans上
新巴車隊 VA-61~~~~~~HP 8961
Article 18: (Request 1)
> Cummins LT10 (cumminsl@netvigator.com) said:
>
> 甘慘呀。。 :)
>
> 我坐親城記都有虱虱同我玩，好熱情招待架！
> 不過好彩佢冇去錯過 D 地方！ :p
> 近期重有 小強 加入埋添， 幾熱鬧呀！
>
點解你地會有咁多發現? 為何我成日著短褲坐城記車都沒有事?
Bruce
> Cummins LT10
Article 18: (Request 2)
你好彩呀
我對城巴由擁變無FEEL,覺得他由惡由死擺難擺,代表車變做新記車
Article 19:
新哥未必係亂up
鮑魚 (leyland@netvigator.com) from hhttnt02205.netvigator.com at Sat Sep 5 01:23, 1998 said:
李日新話新巴兩年內換得晒d車係奇蹟.初初聽落,真係好串.亂up一通.
但諗深一層,又可能唔係喎......
以前城巴之所以買到咁多車,係因為訂單主要來自VOLVO,MAN,DENNIS
三間.所以先0黎得咁快.而MAN更只做城巴,不用做九巴的訂單.(以香港
計,假設外國的訂單係固定)
而家新巴主要係買齋等同DART,兩隻都係DENNIS貨.睇新巴而家都唔似會
再買奧黏同MAN,或三零.
如果以上係事實的話,兩年內換晒冷巴,唔係講咁簡單.
因為訂齋等同DART的,除0左新巴外,重有城巴同九巴呢兩大買家.佢地不
斷擴充,當然需要大量入貸.而新巴的專營權在今年年初才批出,加上預計
需要巴士數目的時間,起碼四月或以後才落訂.而因為九巴同城巴對於長遠
策略0黎講,應該一早已經落ORDER.DENNIS能否0係兩年內做到五百架車已經
成問題,再加上九記同城記的,有幾多單,真係冇人知.
加上城記同九記的單應該排先,佢地又未必會讓路比新巴d車出先.所以新巴
真係未必做到佢的承諾.
總括而言,新巴同城巴唔同的地方係:
城巴買車,因涉及多間製造商,而且亦只有九巴的單,所以會較快.
新巴主要靠一間公司,更有九同城的單,所以未必會咁快換晒d車.
馬季開咧,祝各馬迷好運.
鮑魚
Article 19: (Request 1)
> Kevin Wong (wphg19@netvigator.com) said:
>
> (下略...)
>
> 但係新巴好似話過以後買車會落Tender喎, 到時可能係Benz或者Scania
> 都有份呢.
但係Benz同Scania本身都有其他單
如果單層車會好少少
但雙層車
可能要來港試過至決定買
兩年認真勉強
城記本身決定買MAN都係深思熟慮
買車唔係買生菜
>
> 而且Dennis o既Dart好似係有現貨供應o既, 如果新記買Dart, 時間方面
> o既問題應該唔大.
不過需求大呢
其實新巴預計可以解決有關問題
可能係諗住同英國總公司一齊搭單買
因為英國第一巴士係大公司
一定買車多
不過只知Dart用得呢套
Trident點解決？
（英國可以用兩輛車，香港唔得！）
小西灣村城巴總站站長
林文放
Article 19: (Request 2)
聽聞而家新記批得仔就係英國'Frist Bus'訂o既,不過新記趕住要車,
所以轉俾新記用...
Tony(GB2444,FX8032)
ICQ:8791015
Article 20:
Re: 建議:減輕英皇道交通擠塞
林文放 (manhing@hkstar.com) from venus.csc.cuhk.edu.hk at Sat Sep 5 03:39, 1998 said:
> Route 99 (ayeung@vol.net) said:
> 由於目前行經英皇道東行的路線十分多, 好鬼塞車, 我建議
> 部份巴士(以北角碼頭為總站)入北角道及渣華道再去北角
> 碼頭,以減輕英皇道近華豐的擠塞。
唔好在北角道至轉
因為北角道轉彎一段短距離就有燈位
好易搞到塞車
要改行渣華道
應是改入興發街轉入哥頓道再入電氣道
（英皇道東行得一線條加上新巴城記玩車海戰，仲唔搞到英皇道
一鑊泡）
小西灣村城巴總站站長
林文放
Article 20: (Request 1)
而家行英皇道o既線大大話話都有廿幾條, 由興發街至琴行街一段東行線起碼行15-20分, 新記又表明唔准爬頭(法例話於巴士線唔准爬頭, 否則司機要扣三分同$450), 咁就弊喇.
如果去北角D車改行渣華道, 可能冇咁塞, 另可否減咁D站? (譬如話新光個站係唔係可以唔要呢??
Article 20: (Request 2)
其實改某些線行電氣道, 渣華道係'換湯唔換藥',
我經常搭 118 好清楚那裏情況, 電氣道, 渣華道因為要配合英皇道燈號,
同樣地都係較短左綠燈時間, 加上那裏經常有車泊在一旁,
所以塞車情況也好不了多少.
如果真係要改某些線行電氣道, 渣華道, 最好改往北碼及18,112號線,
對上車客影響較少. 要改多一些線行或者考慮各條東隧線啦!
我認為新城巴只係加多左少少車行遮,
問題癥結始終係英皇道燈位又較短左, 我覺得運輸署應該將整個
轉紅綠燈循環時間加長, 這才是實際.(雖然行人過馬路又要等耐左)
智叔
Article 21:
唔通關了門靚Ｄ?
SK Chan成昆 (deskchan@netvigator.com) from imsp038.netvigator.com at Fri Sep 4 15:10, 1998 said:
希望冇人講過...
經 常 影 相 都 聽 到 有 巴 士 迷 ( 係 咪 不 良 就 自 己 諗 ! )
' 要 求 ' ( 多 數 冇 乜 禮 貌 ... ) 司 機 將 車 門 關 閉 ,
請 問 關 左 門 既 巴 士 影 出 黎 係 咪 靚 d 既 呢 ?
咁 點 解 又 要 關 門 呢 ?
突 然 唔 知 受 咩 刺 激 , 諗 起 有 板 友 講 過 顏 公 子 個 句
正 野 ... 呢 甚 麼 ' 趕 狗 入 窮 巷 ' 個 句 呢 . 奈 何 小 弟 hang
機 , 請 問 之 後 係 點 , 同 咩 時 候 講 既 呢 ?
謝 謝
是日掛牌 : CN3568
SK Chan
Article 21: (Request 1)
唉! 見我個老友成昆咁有興致出0黎貼文, 等我呢個係板度隱姓埋名0左
年幾 2 年0既無名小卒都出0黎搭0下嗲先!
講真, 呢樣0野小弟都聽過, 都見過, 佢地可能係以為自己係呢一方面
好有研究, 又或者想係街度扮0下專家, 又要點又要咩咁, 其實一度門,
開0左同關閉0左都係一部巴士? 可能你會話, 有一0的人佢認為係藝術,
呢一方面我都讚同, 因為藝術呢家0野真係主觀到你都怕, 不過點都好
啦, 如果真係好想部巴士係關閉晒0的門呀窗呀偈呀咁.......就真係有
禮貌0的同司機講聱, 唔好咁無禮貌係度大喝0的司機, 佢地係無義務幫
你擺'浦士' .
而小弟就唔係咁執著, 唔會為0左一部車而去追十千幾里路. 亦唔會中巴
結束, 而去通宵守候, 坐新巴做歷史見證, 因為大家都知道, 當日中巴新巴
交接係學生哥留在床上好好地充好晒電, 盡備第一日上課0既時候.
可能大家到呢刻都未知我想帶出0的乜, 其實我係想講, 迷一樣0野, 唔係
叫你去麻目追求, 做每樣事都要以大局為重, 迷巴士只不過係一個興趣,
係無需要為佢而不理一切, 特別是家陣讀緊書0既板友, 唔好為0左迷巴士而
覺又唔訓, 書又唔讀, 學又唔番 (我唸無咁0既事0下話?!), 只要唔好影響
其他0野咁就得喇!!
(我係度講緊咩呢?? 俾0的 ICQ 叫到我都唔知想講乜)
Article 21: (Request 2)
話 時 話 有 冇 板 友 / 學 生 真 係 因 為 咁 而 冇 番 學 呢 ?
SK Chan
Article 21: (Request 3)
「趕狗入窮巷，必為其反噬；弄火迫人，必自焚其身」
cut14線前講o既
Article 22:
Re: 城巴座椅
Citybus 10 (eg_slk@stu.ust.hk) from ustsu18-nc1.ust.hk at Fri Sep 4 15:00, 1998 said:
> 大埔居民 (makhome@netteens.net) said:
> 城巴車隊中有多少種座椅呢?
> 1)Those in B12
> 2)Those in 1312-1321,2101-2111
> 3)The ordinary type used in all older buses and most single deckers excpet 15xx,1312-1321,1341 up (Note:This type of seat comes in narrow & wide sides,and headrest is only available in buses 106-205,511-585}
4)The most comfortable & soft type,with red headrest,in 2112-2161 (Cityflyer)
5)Those in 2500
6)Those in 15xx
7)Those in 1332 onwards,with HK body
>
> Citybus 10
Article 22: (Request 1)
firstly, 5 and 6 use same type.
8)2201
9)106-117
Article 24:
Re: 九巴服務 日日退步?(修正版)
Kwan (SFAC3A09@NETVIGATOR.COM) from imsp038.netvigator.com at Sat Sep 5 13:19, 1998 said:
> Mr. Bean (cityman@netteens.net) said:
> 本人在昨天寫了一篇關於九巴退步的文章.但覺得有問題,所以現在作出修正.
>
>
> 本人覺得九巴服務退步的原因,有下列數點:
> 1:八達通機唔好肯裝(指非隧道線);
唔係呀!我見到D K,M線有架冇機,我估係D 機係未到.
不過點解城記D車有機就唔明了.
> 2:低地台巴士唔好肯買(就算有買也是作街頭展覽多於作服務.尤其是Trident);
這個問題是由於要首先給龍運有車行所以才延遲有車.
金躉現在都有行呀.
> 3:很多巴士的車齡超過十五年.
十五年的車都行得走得,其實只要安全舒適的話十五年
車與五年車是一樣的.
Article 24: (Request 1)
> 2:低地台巴士唔好肯買(就算有買也是作街頭展覽多於作服務.尤其是Trident);
大部份 Trident 去晒龍運
> 3:很多巴士的車齡超過十五年.
請計計幾多車超過十五年先啦！今年係一九九八年，即係一九八三年出
廠先算超過十五年，八三年時 M , BL 同 DM 先剛剛出現喎....
Article 25:
Re: 運輸博物館
Hanvas 漢 華 (hanvas@netvigator.com) from hhtam035133.netvigator.com at Sat Sep 5 13:36, 1998 said:
> 齊天大聖 (xyz@ipoline.com) said:
>
> 頭先睇報紙話啟德重建計劃裡面，會興建一個航空運輸博物館。
> 唔知會唔會包括陸上運輸？如果會既話，部HK104會唔會有機會擺係
> 入面？
將 HK104 擺 入 航 空 運 輸 博 物 館 ， 除 非 ...... 部 HK104 識 飛 啦 !
Article 25: (Request 1)
HK 104 是不會去榑物館0
Article 26:
Re: 建議南區-機場之路線詳情
T (mhtse@ctn.net) from 203.80.101.56 at Sat Sep 5 08:17, 1998 said:
> 1010 (schneide@netvigator.com) said:
> 開A線.
> 單程收費:$45
> 班次:15-20分鐘一班
>
> 香港仔馬會外作總站-經華富-不入置富花園-山道天穚-西隧
> -西九龍快速公路-之後沿A11行.
>
> 香港仔馬會外作總站原因:
> 香港仔總站已無坑可用
>
> 不經置富和西營盤原因:
> 12米Trident應該行唔到,就算行到都...
> 除非買11 or 10米躉啦.
> (不過我估城記訂0左都有排等,何況新巴仲未落order)
> 不過如果新巴做...唔通叫佢用DA,LA,VA,20xx行A線0羊.
> 2+2 DA,VA還可以,但不是低地台.
>
> 其實我認為新巴應該開E線先,這樣做可以用d舊11米冷馬
> 入置富,西營盤.食多d客.
>
> 仲有,我覺得現階段三巴(新巴,城巴,龍運)都不應開此新機場線,
> 一來冇合適車可用,二來唔夠車用,三來客量未必多...
>
> 另外,我覺得就算開新機場線都應先交由龍運或城巴經營.
> 新巴有新躉到都應先退舊車(都城雞鴨寶),而並非開新線就用新車,
> 舊線繼續用都城雞鴨寶.如果新巴再開新線就真係2年都轉唔全冷lu.
>
>
> 大家意下如何?
>
> Schneider 1010
幫城巴(DOG)唔經置富和西營盤,不如行私家車?
Article 26: (Request 1)
其實，可以考慮用海怡做總站，不過唔知鴨利洲仲有冇坑?!
Article 27:
前機場德和矛現在該怎麼辦？
野比大雄 (busstop@netvigator.com) from hhttnt04002.netvigator.com at Fri Sep 4 20:41, 1998 said:
這幾天，因為忙，上不來，對不起。
前幾天，Ｍ～２，改了用，ＡＭ行。
有一天，機場矛，到海濱，操車去。
我想知，機場矛和機場德，怎處置？
野比大雄 (Patrick Siu)
Article 27: (Request 1)
矛聽聞會去龍運幫手,德就行M1,M2
Article 27: (Request 2)
Kwan兄，今次又要話下你：
M2已用全線AM，M1就不知(AA48?)
至於前机場AA，有3架去左248M，有10架去在249M。
知道未？
DL
Article 28:
Re: Discuss:What if Rt.2 goes via Java Road?
100/911R Wong (wongjsy@sfsu.edu) from hhttnt08034.netvigator.com at Sat Sep 5 09:42, 1998 said:
> AL=Sunba (akyl@rubens.its.unimelb.edu.au) said:
> Of course i am referring to Eastbound trips.
> (1) Direct competition against minibus; Rt. 2 $3.70,
> Minibus $4-6 (???)
> (2) Avoid King's Road during peak hours
> (3) Traffic lights along Java Road have similar sequence
> (4) Lots of routes go to Shau Kei Wan in King's Road, Sunba
> has to differentiate its service.
> (5) May even win back the passengers that take 77/99
>
> What do you think?
> AL=Sunba (ICQ# 14532458)
I first need to agree with LF2's point about King's Road East bound being dedicated as bus lane, hence it might not make too much sense to make route 2 via Java Road when it's already packed with minibuses and other vehicles. (it can be quite congested during evening rush hours, which may slow down travelling time)
I'm not sure if 77/99 are direct competitors of 2. One day I was heading back from Quarry Bay back to Tsim Sha Tsui. I preferred to transfer to 917, though I also figured the A/C time cycle for 914. So, would I take 77/99 and pay tunnel fare without going to the tunnel? Plus, I can't transfer to 917 at Admiralty as well.
Speaking of route 2, I couldn't be more disappointed when NWFB had been advertising its Trident on route 2, and in the end, I couldn't even find a single A/C bus! (I don't care if it's Dart or anything else!) Now I really suspect how NWFB operates.
100/911R Wong
Article 28: (Request 1)
For my personal opinion, I want Route 2 using King's road.
The following are my reasons:
1. King's Road (Eastbound) is dedicated to buses. (from
North Point Road to HK Funeral Home) It is bus lane and
other vehicles are not allowed to enter. I think the
government want most of the buses using King's Road.
2. Traditionally, no buses is using Java Road (East Bound).
I think CTB is the first bus company that start to use
Java Road heavily.
LF2 (BE 8749)
Article 29:
Re: 一個巴士網頁
龍神丸 (clement@hkplanet.com) from hkpa05.polyu.edu.hk at Fri Sep 4 19:53, 1998 said:
> GW3430 (id00574@netvigator.com) said:
> 本人在睇其他網頁其間, 發現左呢個網頁.
>
>
> 近排忙到飛起的GW3430
嘩...乜佢咁勁既...連我個未開放既網頁(巴士網)都有link?
驚驚.....
(不過d 料好齊呀)
Article 29: (Request 1)
除o左主版之外,其他好似全部都係link 咋喎~
不過我網頁個link錯o既.. 根本係兩個網頁o黎
香港巴士總站: http://www.HKiD.com/people/hkbt/
城記五三七之頁: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/9337/
我仲發現到好多網頁個聯網都係用返我舊網頁條link,
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/2486/ or
http://www.HKiD.com/people/hkbt/hkbt/
有勞各網頁之負責人改返啦~ ^_^
P.S. 你網頁好似用o左我網頁其中一個image喎~
.....
T.P.T.
Article 30:
(建議)開辦來往北區至機場路線+合併278P
Kwan (SFAC3A09@NETVIGATOR.COM) from imsp037.netvigator.com at Fri Sep 4 18:24, 1998 said:
前陣子有人要開來往北區與機場和荃灣,現我有一個提議,
開一條來往北區至機場路線而經大隧轉車站.
基本上北區對巴士來往機場和荃灣有需求,但苦於搭客不
足於開兩條新線,這建議或可解決這問題.
在往機場方向可以使用落車付錢的方式,往荃灣的搭客可
在轉車站落車付錢取轉車票然後轉車出荃灣.往機場的可
以在到機場後付錢.
而往北區方向就可上車付錢,在轉車站上車的人可以加錢
後再上車.
好處就是用最少的資源提供最多的服務.
1.北區客可以在轉車站周圍去,唔駛下下開新線.
2.給北區客可以有車出機場而巴士公司亦有足夠客量.
3.減低早上在吐露港塞車的不便
4.278P可以唔駛轉全日或者取消
但針冇兩頭利,不好處就是實施時可能會出現技術問題如
轉車站收費方面或龍運同九巴分賬甚至搭車時間可能增加
的問題.
本人眼見E41冇人坐而有感而發,我唔想見龍運再開蝕本線.
P.S.這方法可行後我才想其他詳細資料
Article 30: (Request 1)
其實我覺得開一條276X，由上水去青衣機鐵站
途經三號幹線。這樣可以響轉車站轉乘其他路線往返各地，
至於去機場方面，由於龍運獨立於九巴，所以機場線係好難停
轉車站。
仲有278P於今個月可能轉全日，不過唔會改經三號幹線。
Article 30: (Request 2)
轉全日後的 278P 應保持原狀, 否則對其他葵青往來北區的乘客不
公平.
278X
Article 31:
CTB 22xx
100/911R Wong (wongjsy@sfsu.edu) from hhttnt05211.netvigator.com at Fri Sep 4 17:54, 1998 said:
Yesterday I went to Wan Chai, and I was (un)fortunately to try on 2201, which is a shame for A/C bus fan like me, with one of the narrowest air-ducts I've ever seen.
The driver also told me the A/C on this bus sucks, and modifications were made through parts similar to KMB's early AD's, with air-vents directed to the driver which weren't available originally. The bus was untypically dirty, and with the Trendtex seats without headrests, one may think this belongs to CMB!
Today I took a day-off and went to try those new 22xx. I took 2207 on E22. (though I wish I took the single door version. However, if I sit on the upper deck, there is practically no difference) To my surprise, the bus was much different from 2201 which I took yesteerday. At least the seats are similar to those of Cityfler, except the lack of pillow(?) on top of the headrest and the reclining seats. (the footrests and the seatbelts are there too!) The air-ducts, despite having the same size as those on 2201, at least have two (instead of just one on 2201) air-vents for the outboard passengers.
I suspect the reason why you can only find these Duple-Trident on E21 or E22 is because since they're quite similar to those Cityflyer, local passengers will likely to choose (even for myself!) these buses on E routes, which provide similar comfort, and save a few $ from A routes. Hence you probably won't be able to find them on E11 and E23. (competing with its own A11 and A22?)
Though I sure hope to see more of them available on other non-E routes, such as residential routes like 925R for the single door version.
100/911R Wong
For those who are interested, I observed the following today.
For E22
2204 HV 6874, 2238 HV7100, 2241 HV6640, 2243 HV7299, 2245 HV6689, 2207 HV7644
Article 31: (Request 1)
> Dennis Law (ctb2500@upnaway.com) said:
>
> Perhaps their feature of having only one door is another reason making them suitable for those E-routes.
> (How often would you see a passenger getting off a E22 at Tung Chung after boarding at Chak Lap Kok? ^_^)
> Personally, I would say routes 962 and 969 should be okay for these single door Tridents to serve on as well.
Yes, both 962 and 969 should be suitable for this type of buses. Although I'm not sure if 12m buses are really that good for 962. (yes, I know it's possible, just like 40M, but not preferred) So, beside those E-routes, I hope some of those will be allocated to the non-franchised division, which hasn't seen any new bus for its Hong Kong routes for a long time.
Although I still think if these new Duple Tridents run on routes (such as E11 and E23) alongside those airport routes, some passengers may get confused and board on the wrong bus!
It is quite funny to see one bus company in Hong Kong takes out the exit doors and provide more seats for passengers, while another bus company takes out the seats so more passengers can be cramped in a larger standing area.
100/911R Wong
Article 32:
Re: 九巴,加油呀!
Walter Kwong (h9816113@hkusua.hku.hk) from mp1143.hknet.com at Fri Sep 4 18:16, 1998 said:
> 九巴,加油呀!
>
> 隨著中巴專利權完結，可以說九巴是最能代表香港的巴士公司，
> 九巴的'波板糖'型路線板、司機親民形象、大量雙層巴士、大量
> 十一米熱狗巴士、行字軌制、......
>
> 唔知九巴還有沒有其他特色?
> 九巴,加油呀!
其實除左開新線時比較保守外，九巴服務真係唔差架喎！今日見到
74X 又加班喇！
Article 33:
Re: 中巴公關差 ?! 但係...
AD4541 (mhtse@ctn.net) from pc132.ctn.com.hk at Sat Sep 5 12:43, 1998 said:
> Piccolo (romeo.no.piccolo%f192.n1000.z128@iconet.hongkong.net) said:
>
月初我才講過, '一早起來, 發現周遭的巴士公司, 唔係食
言就係講大話, 實在喜歡唔落手... '
>
冇錯, 中巴係 '閉門造車' , 架新車出左牌都冇人知, 乜都
唔講唔講, 市民對之誤解多多...
>
中巴公關差唔差唔係我想討論, 我只係想話, 呢幾日我睇到
既係, 乜野叫做 '公關好... 那渣! '
>
垃圾車? 中巴留落D 寶同雞的驗車合格率依然好過城記D 所
謂 '新車' 喎, 中巴D 意外率低過城記一截喎...
>
兩年五百架車係 '奇蹟' ? 咁快就唔記得有間公司誇口每月
四十架之後食言拿 ?!
>
貪心 ?! 夾硬搶人十二條油水線, 甚至要官員講大話, 又叫
乜? 兩條線霸四條坑又叫乜? ...
>
中巴公關唔好 ?! 但係到今時今日, 中巴都仲未使出D 咁既
那渣手段喎...
>
Piccolo
我覺得城X這種做法是生人霸死地0
Article 34:
Re: M21客量/英皇道塞巴 8X/8P
Claymon (wang5@hknet.com) from 202.67.232.183 at Sat Sep 5 12:46, 1998 said:
> AL=Sunba (akyl@rubens.its.unimelb.edu.au) said:
> For M21, has there been any improvement after A/C buses are brought in?
甚麼改進呢? 班次比 21 密左唔少, 算唔錯喇.
如果係客量呢就普通啦, 平均每班坐到大半0既.
> For 8P/8X, if king's road is so congested, then many ppl
> would choose 8P instead of 8X, do any boardmate notice drop
> in passengers on 8X?
8X 為左同 8P 鬥九月一日又再加車行(達36輛! 原本30輛),
但班次就一至十二分鐘, 計落 8X 客量都同以前係差不多(有時吉車返)
唔多唔少 8P 係對 8X 有影響, 不過價錢差一大截,
有人始終會塞住車搭 8X.
8P 反而係搶銅鑼灣地鐵客多.
智叔
Article 35:
Re: 算唔算係一個happy ending?
Bruce Li (bruceli@vcn.bc.ca) from 202.67.234.170 at Sat Sep 5 09:47, 1998 said:
> VA51‧塞米一條‧碇真嗣 (parnell@cyberec.com) said:
> 中巴9月1日結束,請問你覺得當時你的心境如何?總括來講,
> 算唔算係一個happy ending?
對普通市民及部份巴士迷可以話係，但對中巴迷來說，當然就唔
係啦，分分鐘仲慘個死阿媽呀！
Bruce
Article 36:
Re: 九巴躉+K廠鴨
S3M94 (matt4127@netteens.net) from mxp5-42.chevalier.net at Sat Sep 5 12:03, 1998 said:
> 古競豪 (fatku@school.net.hk) said:
> 請問家陣D九巴TRIDENT出0左幾多架呢?
> 另外,請問仲有多少鴨車係屬於K廠呢?
唔知喎,昨日我在荃灣路出九龍方向見到一部duple trident,應該係屯裝
出的,螞蟻速度,車上3個car佬....
Article 37:
離題文章
Ken Fung (kenf@hkstar.com) from 202.68.58.226 at Fri Sep 4 19:04, 1998 said:
> Fat-Fat Pig (carsonw@netvigator.com) said:
> 有什麼軟件可以把巴士相的面積改細
> (最好是免費的^_^)
此乃非巴士有關問題, 已被定為離題文章.
Ken
Article 38:
Re: 新2200系在那線?
VA64 Pang (b3391@netvigator.com) from hhtak008114.netvigator.com at Fri Sep 4 18:41, 1998 said:
> Flying Chuk (chuk@netvigator.com) said:
> 小弟聽日想去影新2200系,請問在那
> 線可找到較多?
> 多謝提拱
>
> 飛機竺
E21, E22 at Tung Chung.
Article 39:
Re: VA57
cky (kyfchiu@netvigator.com) from mxp6-73.chevalier.net at Sat Sep 5 01:01, 1998 said:
> SF1 (samwg@netvigator.com) said:
> 9月1日 見到VA57行601,唔知大家有冇見到!
> 因電腦壞左由8月31日-9月3日
> 所以現在才貼文
9月3日佢行680。早陣子又有幾日行116。
cky
Article 40:
Re: 最 新珍寶存 量..........
古競豪 (fatku@school.net.hk) from blue.alumni.cuhk.edu.hk at Sat Sep 5 10:09, 1998 said:
> SF1 (samwg@netvigator.com) said:
> 新巴珍寶剩下LF13 18 21 26 27 28 46 48 105 107 109 110 111
> 113 114 115 115 117 118 119 120 123 125 126 127 128 152
> 154 160 209 217 218 220 223 226 228 229 239 243 248 249 254
> 256 257 258 260 264 265 267 268 269 270 272 273 274 276 277
> 278 281 284 285 286 287 289 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 300
> 301 302 303 304..SF3-26 28-31
你點知0架?
它們仲有無行過海線呀?
Article 41:
Re: Trident和2500的車輪是否比其他的細？
Jacky,ML1,S3BL268 (jackyyng@hkschool.net) from bootes.hkschool.net at Fri Sep 4 20:48, 1998 said:
> LM3 (angela05@netvigator.com) said:
> 如果是，點解這樣大的車可以用細輪？唔怕線“車太”？
>
> LM3
係!不過跣tire同tire的大細係冇關係喎!
Article 42:
93K 調整班次
R Lai (raymansc@asiaonline.net) from max11-2.hk.super.net at Sat Sep 5 12:40, 1998 said:
查閱過詳細資料, 大致同現有改變不大
維持平日:
寶琳:5-10min 一班
旺角:5-15min 一班
假日不打出來
9月7 日生效, 相信同298B有關
(唔通93K過冷馬行298B!!!, 變成繁忙時間無冷馬!!)
Article 43:
英皇道塞車
Piccolo (romeo.no.piccolo%f192.n1000.z128@iconet.hongkong.net) from earth.glink.net.hk at Sat Sep 5 12:31, 1998 said:
我只係想問, '泊碼頭' 方式上落客, 會唔會係其中一個
英皇道塞車的原因?
唔知家陣鑼灣去北角使唔使廿分呢?
Piccolo
Article 44:
再談李日新言論!
九巴84M (cfslee@HK.Super.NET) from taikoo.hk.super.net at Sat Sep 5 11:15, 1998 said:
呢個題目兩日來都有唔少巴士迷討論過,誰對誰錯,
而家未有定論,小弟有以下觀感:
-同行對手新開張,連一句祝賀說話都冇,已經係失禮.
但竟然對競爭對手柴台,毫無風度,令人反感!
-撇開城巴o的舊帳,同行缺乏新巴士供應給市民,
唔協助甚至做出踩對手的行為,有損相方關係.
-可能各位會認為同行競爭在所難免,但要知道兩間公司都係
公共事務,並非私人機構,唔係女人街賣胸圍底褲爭生意,
公共事務應以市民利益為前提,唔係以私人利益掛帥.
新巴開辦新線絕對是以市民利益著想,同行應表示支持及
作出協助(如開辦新線所遇困難,研究乘客量等等)
-再者,若新巴真係展開減價戰,最後得益會是誰?
從經濟角度分析,減價戰只會做成惡性競爭,
萬一一日雙方減價至無可利的時候,到最後只人大幅加價來作補償.
這時候,地鐵公司真係要多謝兩間巴士公司,因為要知道,
中巴到八十年代中期開始縮水原因,
係因為多了地鐵港島線這個新對手.
城巴苦心經營,搶回不少市民信心,唔通而家又想倒自己飯碗!
新巴幕後係新世界地產,經營有道,各位可以放心,
此種低裝的激將法係無效.
港九市民能享有咁完善的巴士服務,
全靠多年以來各間巴士公司互相合作,
李日新先生今次的不合作態度,在情在理都不合!
Article 45:
哪裏可以看到中巴的巴士站(指堆在一起的)?
Mr. Bean! (cityman@netteens.net) from imsp039.netvigator.com at Sat Sep 5 10:40, 1998 said:
如題
Article 46:
搭巴士撞到個咁o既人
Eddie Lam (bustop@glink.net.hk) from pluto.hkbu.edu.hk at Sat Sep 5 09:32, 1998 said:
尋日中午出金鐘食晏, 於是坐城記 690 (第一次坐).
上到樓上就見到有個人嚮度叫, 「暗暗尋尋」自言自語,
一見有客上樓上就大叫「對唔住!」, 之後就東張西望.
沿途都係重覆以上動作, 一直過左海先靜落黎.
我想知呢個係咪就係傳聞中企嚮裕民坊 98A 坑扮站長
果個傻仔呢? 我見果個人塊面白白地, 少少鞋秋, 講野
一舊舊o既.
Article 47:
傳聞兩則
GB2444,FX8032 (jackie01@hknet.com) from hhtck015190.netvigator.com at Sat Sep 5 04:35, 1998 said:
1.今晚聽一位渣E23 o既司機講,批22XX(單門版城躉)將會下個月番齊.
到時E線會全躉,而批'大富豪'會放返俾一區用,因為一區極度唔夠車用...
2.前日送亞姨o既機,走o個陣坐S64,聽司機話而家最多人坐o既S線係
S61,其次係S51,最小o既係S54,o的司機成日'個人遊車河'...
另外,有幾部前'飛機茅'(機場版Lance)已經油o左龍運Look,遲o的會行S線.
當中最有可能行S62.
聽日去灣仔返工o既Tony(GB2444,FX8032)
ICQ:8791015
Article 48:
【廣告】60X巴士總站更新
屯門之友---60XBT (chungtm@netteens.net) from imsp013.netvigator.com at Sat Sep 5 03:42, 1998 said:
本網頁九巴相簿新加入'60X 特寫'---22張相
中巴相簿新加入8張'通宵巴士'相
特別推介相簿新加入3張'中巴在屯門'
大相更新為VA64
歡迎參觀!
http://home.netteens.net/~chungtm/60x.html
PS,由於fortunecity個server shotshot地
有時Ｄ相打唔到出黎,麻煩clickclick RELOAD
謝謝!
Article 49:
Online Newspaper Cuttings (5.9.98)
Dennis Law (ctb2500@upnaway.com) from borg37.upnaway.com at Sat Sep 5 05:16, 1998 said:
The following articles are extracted from various newspapers published on 5.9.98:
Mingpao:
兩巴爭客 北角大塞車
九巴加開墳場特別線
前中巴司機認罪頂證同謀
Appledaily:
每 次 收 五 百 元 讓 同 事 開 錢 箱
中 巴 司 機 認 串 謀 偷 輔 幣
Article 50:
嘩!好多躉呀!!!
GB2444,FX8032 (jackie01@hknet.com) from hhtck015190.netvigator.com at Sat Sep 5 01:56, 1998 said:
今日要'囉'隻'死雞硬碟'去柴灣整(用o左3個月就死!!!),順便試坐8P. :~)
5:25係灣仔298上o左架新躉(1005),唔駛6:00就到柴廠,仲快過8X!!! :O
6:25搞掂所有手續,過去柴廠睇o野.見到有大約5部新躉停o係近門口o既空地度.
6:30過小西灣PK買o野飲,期間見到3架躉(行8P)一齊返到總站!!! :O
6:50坐8X過銅鑼灣尋人.上o左架869,慢到...唉! :~(
7:35架車終於'攔'到去保良局(柴灣到銅鑼灣要45分鐘!!!),俾人鬧到死!!!
8:15散水.o係'騷稿'等603,期間見到連續3架新躉(行112)一齊埋站!!! :O
終於坐到新躉o既Tony(GB2444,FX8032)
ICQ:8791015
Article 51:
中巴銀鏢+銀豪
小狗 (97235785d@polyu.edu.hk) from hhtck013111.netvigator.com at Sat Sep 5 00:31, 1998 said:
中巴摺左專利線幾日, 有無人見o的銀鏢or銀豪蒲頭呀?
如有, 在那裡?
Article 52:
【網頁廣告】ML25, VA60近照, ML1
Claymon (wang5@hknet.com) from 202.67.228.171 at Fri Sep 4 21:03, 1998 said:
小弟網頁今次加了中巴巴士相共十三張:
包括有紀念性的中巴熱線廣告車 - ML25,
最近修理好並服務中的 VA63 及全港首部三軸巴士 ML1 等相片
由此路進巴士隨想站
智叔
Article 53:
港台[殺那時空]下一週專題講巴士
學徒 (ranger@hknet.com) from mp1509.hknet.com at Fri Sep 4 19:42, 1998 said:
[殺那時空]下禮拜一專題是巴士,講中巴員工,時間為7:00-7:30PM
亞記本港台.大家到時留意收睇呀!!!!
學徒
Article 54:
Re: 九記都普鴨在彩云村撞車
Ken Fung (kenf@hkstar.com) from 202.68.58.226 at Sat Sep 5 14:39, 1998 said:
> LM3 (angela05@netvigator.com) said:
> 車頭有損害。我想它本來都無這樣快湯！我想現在立即湯！
我都覺得佢會被湯, 因為成架車'浪'住, 應該傷到個底盤,
況且 N258 年事已高, 九記都應該唔會整架囉...... :(
Ken
