Then of course no RMB is being allowed in the
Tsim Sha Tsui area...
Article 18: (Request 3)
> 荃 灣 獨 裁 者 said:
> Ah yes, all RMB terminate at Jordan...
> But I don't think GMB can effectively replace
> certain bus company as RMB. At least I'll
> take 8A /8P instead of GMB 6 for the fare
From where to where? From Hunghom KCR to Whampoa,
GMB 6/6A is cheaper than 8A.
Or else, why do you think most passengers at
Hunghom KCR still prefer GMB 6/6A over franchised
Article 18: (Request 4)
> 荃 灣 獨 裁 者 said:
> This is because 6/6A offer sectional fare.
> But I mean TST to Whampoa.
Though why most seem to wait at GMB 6/6A busstop
at Hunghom KCR towards Tsim Sha Tsui more than
those of franchised buses? The combined
frequency for franchised buses (8A+5C+8) should
be ok, right?
> I don't agree so.
> Otherwise no ADS will be on 8A.
> (Adding ADS to a AM route should show that
> the route is very profitable)
If demand is so great, why not all the buses on
8A being double decker? (not that I agree AM is
the best type of bus to be used on 8A)
> TfL said:
> 個 人 唔 係 咁 鐘 意 日 本 低 地 台 midi, 一 來 座 位
> 少, 二 來 車 身 窄. 靈 活 性 方 面, 九 記 批 Dart
> 長 AM 成 米, 邊 度 有 得 比? 一 部 短 Dart 的 靈
> 活 性, 其 實 並 不 比 AM 差. 可 靠 性 方 面, 我
> 想 歐 洲 巴 士 談 不 上 會 比 日 本 巴 士 為 差 吧?
Mind to elaborate as to how Japanese buses aren't
being as dependable as those European buses in
From my experience, acceleration of AM1 is even
better than AA42. I haven't seen as much AM's
breakdown on the road like AA's.
If Japanese buses are not so dependable, any
reason why those Japanese buses on Lantau Island
can climb up and down Tung Chung Road day after
day and they can still run, vs. other 'types' of
European (brands) buses, which were forced to
serve on 'flat roads' routes?
Speaking of dependability, do you think a bus breaking down
along Tung Chung Road would cause more serious trouble than
those on urban areas? How dependable should buses on
Lantau Island be?