What Is Your Favorite Retired CTA Bus?

[jajuan]

Close to mines : 4146- the last one I've rode.

After the 148 first started operations I knew it was just about the end of the Americanas. They were around only about a week or two more in revenue service. As a matter of fact, I think 4145 was the last one I ever rode, on a morning trip of the 135.

[CHI74]

What do you think about the FLYER D900 model 1983 D901a by FLYER INDUSTRIES .

Just would like to get your POV.

I personally like them what do you think?

[Busjack]

What do you think about the FLYER D900 model 1983 D901a by FLYER INDUSTRIES .

Just would like to get your POV.

I personally like them what do you think?

They were apparently rust buckets, especially in Toronto. About 70 of CTA's left the roster early.

As a matter of personal taste, I thought they looked like cheap imitations of New Looks. Again, I thought the look went over better in Toronto, where the chrome was preserved on some Flyers (can't swear what model they were).

[trainman8119]

They were apparently rust buckets, especially in Toronto. About 70 of CTA's left the roster early.

As a matter of personal taste, I thought they looked like cheap imitations of New Looks. Again, I thought the look went over better in Toronto, where the chrome was preserved on some Flyers (can't swear what model they were).

If I am correct here, after the arrival of the 9900's was complete or near complete, the CTA found frame cracks behind or near the rear doors and was not happy at how Flyer went about reparing them. I believe there were suppose to be some 500 of those considered (with options, I guess) and CTA took 25 more (the 1600's) and told Flyer to keep the rest. I think the CTA had the heebie jeebies with that kind of problem after the problems with the Grummans, which were being used by Pace. I think it was after that that CTA somewhat rushed into the orders for the Americana's. The thing to note here is that the Americanas were something the CTA didn't totally like, because they had no rear window, and at the time, CTA wanted rear windows on their buses for security sake. It turned out to be a pretty good purchase though, because those buses, although they weren't much to look at, were really good buses. They were solid, quick and, for the most part, pretty reliable. The bodies looked like hell when they finally got retired, but I would say, the last one I rode on La Salle Street still was a champ (it was a 4100, can't remember the number).

[CHI74]

Thank you for your impute.

Question how did they go about fixing them i mean was is a "cheep" fix ?

I will also have to agree with you BUSJACK on the Toronto statement they (now that i look at it)

it seams like that it would fit in with the Toronto transit system.

One more thing .... Ware did they rust and how bad.

Thank you for your time.

[Busjack]

Thank you for your impute.

Question how did they go about fixing them i mean was is a "cheep" fix ?

I will also have to agree with you BUSJACK on the Toronto statement they (now that i look at it)

it seams like that it would fit in with the Toronto transit system.

One more thing .... Ware did they rust and how bad.

Thank you for your time.

trainman mentioned frame cracks by the rear doors.

The complaint noted on Toronto sites was that the frames were tubular carbon steel, which rusted easily (hence the comments about potential problems with regard to CTA 1630-2039).

[sw4400]

The complaint noted on Toronto sites was that the frames were tubular carbon steel, which rusted easily (hence the comments about potential problems with regard to CTA 1630-2039).

I'm lost here... Not knocking what the Toronto sites say about the frames being tubular carbon steel, or your post Busjack. But I'm just generally confused by the CTA's decision here... if the frames on 1630 through the end of D40LF's orders and the 600-Series DE60LF's orders are going to be this tubular carbon steel that was reported to cause all these rust problems on our D901's, then why are we(the CTA) making the exact same mistake twice? It is bad business and will shorten the life of approx. 400 D40LF's and all of our DE60LF's.

BTW: I did notice a slight problem in your post, Busjack... the D40LF's stop at 2029... Just thought I'd point it out.

[jajuan]

I'm lost here... Not knocking what the Toronto sites say about the frames being tubular carbon steel, or your post Busjack. But I'm just generally confused by the CTA's decision here... if the frames on 1630 through the end of D40LF's orders and the 600-Series DE60LF's orders are going to be this tubular carbon steel that was reported to cause all these rust problems on our D901's, then why are we(the CTA) making the exact same mistake twice? It is bad business and will shorten the life of approx. 400 D40LF's and all of our DE60LF's.

BTW: I did notice a slight problem in your post, Busjack... the D40LF's stop at 2029... Just thought I'd point it out.

I would think the reason would be that in the 20-25 years time between the procurement of the D901s and the D40LFs, there could have been some technological and engineering advances achieved to help solve or alleviate that problem. Think about it for a bit, technological advances don't just stand still at the same point in time. There are people who look at different problems that show up in the development of any machine and work out solutions that help solve that problem. Some of you are speaking as if the Flyer engineers and designers just sat on their hands and did nothing in these past two decades. That is a long time between 1983 and 2006-today (dates of the current Flyer acquisitions so far) in terms of advancing knowledge in technical areas. I'm sure there has to have been some advances in steel development between 1983 and today for tubular carbon steel frames to still be used by New Flyer at this point. They really couldn't be a dominant player in American bus manufacturing without developing new ways of looking at an old problem. Not to mention a lot of their manufacturing and testing results are made public.

[CHI74]

BUSJACK and TRAINMAN : Thank You for the input it is appreciated, also i have one question that i hope someone can answer. On the subject of TUBULAR CARBON STEEL why does it rust so faster then say solid steel my guess is that since it is a tube that moisture becomes trapped inside, am i correct on this score? Thank You for you time and a good day to you all. :D

[Busjack]

BUSJACK and TRAINMAN : Thank You for the input it is appreciated, also i have one question that i hope someone can answer. On the subject of TUBULAR CARBON STEEL why does it rust so faster then say solid steel my guess is that since it is a tube that moisture becomes trapped inside, am i correct on this score? Thank You for you time and a good day to you all.

Yep. Also, thinner.

I'm lost here... Not knocking what the Toronto sites say about the frames being tubular carbon steel, or your post Busjack. But I'm just generally confused by the CTA's decision here... if the frames on 1630 through the end of D40LF's orders and the 600-Series DE60LF's orders are going to be this tubular carbon steel that was reported to cause all these rust problems on our D901's, then why are we(the CTA) making the exact same mistake twice? It is bad business and will shorten the life of approx. 400 D40LF's and all of our DE60LF's.

I'm sorry I brought up the Option 3 and 4 issue again, as the answer given by busfan2847 from the New Flyer site was that this time the frame is encased in aluminum.