#4000 Arrives

[Busjack]

i wonder if 103 gets some of the 58 hybrids

208 would get things (with regard to articulated buses) back to about the point where they were when BusHunter posted the "what's left of the NABIs" thread. That would indicate that 103rd would be entitled to about 50 articulated buses.

My conjecture is that the 58 would mostly make up for what 77th lost when the NABIs were officially taken off the street.

Of course, anything may be temporary based on where the $172 million in capital bill buses go.

[chgofan78]

I think the breakdown will be very similar to the way it was when there was only the 7500-series NABIs around. The only thing I would change is now we see that the system can still function somewhat with fewer accordion-style buses. Therefore, maybe a fifth garage can be thrown into the mix with the 4000-series buses. I wouldn't mind seeing Chicago Garage get a small amount of buses to help the loads on 20 Madison, X20 Washington/Madison Express, and 66 Chicago. My breakdown for the 208 4000-series would be 45 buses at Kedzie, 40 buses at 103rd, 83 buses at North Park, 20 buses at 77th, and 20 buses at Chicago.

[jajuan]

I think the breakdown will be very similar to the way it was when there was only the 7500-series NABIs around. The only thing I would change is now we see that the system can still function somewhat with fewer accordion-style buses. Therefore, maybe a fifth garage can be thrown into the mix with the 4000-series buses. I wouldn't mind seeing Chicago Garage get a small amount of buses to help the loads on 20 Madison, X20 Washington/Madison Express, and 66 Chicago. My breakdown for the 208 4000-series would be 45 buses at Kedzie, 40 buses at 103rd, 83 buses at North Park, 20 buses at 77th, and 20 buses at Chicago.

Only one problem, there was mention a few months ago that maintenance facilities at Chicago can only accommodate up to a length of 57 ft and recent arctics used by CTA (both 7500s and 4000s) are 60ft long. How do you solve that issue without reassigning routes?

[MetroShadow]

Only one problem, there was mention a few months ago that maintenance facilities at Chicago can only accommodate up to a length of 57 ft and recent arctics used by CTA (both 7500s and 4000s) are 60ft long. How do you solve that issue without reassigning routes?

Split the routes to two garages, if it has to come down to it.

[jajuan]

Split the routes to two garages, if it has to come down to it.

That's one solution. But it's not necessarily just as simple as that. You have to consider what's available at a second facility as well as that facility's vicinity to the route(s) in question for one. That availability of equipment factor would still bring in the possible juggling of other route assignments to implement the split.

[jacksone44]

Only one problem, there was mention a few months ago that maintenance facilities at Chicago can only accommodate up to a length of 57 ft and recent arctics used by CTA (both 7500s and 4000s) are 60ft long. How do you solve that issue without reassigning routes?

There is $27M of the $496M from the state slotted for garage upgrades. Maybe a portion of it will address this problem? The idea of splitting routes amongst garages in my opinion requires too many resources...

[Jon]

4141 was on the 146 around 1030 at the Adler.

[qwantae]

4141 was on the 146 around 1030 at the Adler.

I saw that one too around 4pm turning on Roosevelt from Columbus, I was like "Wow" we got nearly 150 of them already.

[Busjack]

Interesting that CTA gives it's OK and will recieve buses 2 months later. I thought that they were always coming since the October date since NF stated they exercised options as in an actionable deed. The only question was would they have been BRT styled or not. All indications were for the BRT but now that that is up in the air, I guess not. More interesting is that Rodriguez leaves the door open for a possible return of NABI's. If they come back there would be close to 420 Artics out there.

Looking at the CTA Press Release, it says that it used WMATA options, not Seattle.

I wonder if that has any effect on the bus model.

Also, some confirmation of the New Flyer October announcement, although it apparently wasn't as firm as New Flyer gave the impression:

CTA was able to move quickly on the new bus order because last fall the Chicago Transit Board approved the reassignment of terms of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s (WMATA) contract option for the purchase of 58 New Flyer articulated hybrid buses pending the availability of funds.

Of course, I wonder if you can believe CTA Press Releases, although I do with respect to "last fall."

[BusHunter]

Looking at the CTA Press Release, it says that it used WMATA options, not Seattle.

I wonder if that has any effect on the bus model.

Also, some confirmation of the New Flyer October announcement, although it apparently wasn't as firm as New Flyer gave the impression:

Of course, I wonder if you can believe CTA Press Releases, although I do with respect to "last fall."

It didn't have any effect on the bus model when Seattle's order was piggybacked, so I'm assuming the same holds true here. Speaking of announcements, Kevin stated last week the buses would arrive in June and the press release says they will now come in the fall. With the speed of the initial artic delivery, I don't know what to believe. Buses were stated to come in by June and it's April and were looking at #4141 on Bustracker. That shows anything is possible. Well just have to wait and see what happens. BTW, most of last weeks artic deliveries are on the #146 this morning except #4137.

[Busjack]

It didn't have any effect on the bus model when Seattle's order was piggybacked, so I'm assuming the same holds true here.

But the ambiguity is whether we now get a WMATA spec bus, as opposed to 4150-4207 being the same as the 4000s already received. 4000-4149 were on the Seattle spec with Chicago logos and seating, but apparently not completely conforming to the RFP for up to 900 more. Of course, NF just could have said that CTA gets 58 buses and WMATA 58 fewer, but CTA gets its spec at the $840K apparent price.

Googling, I haven't been able to find out what a WMATA spec bus was, except that it seemed like they ordered BRTs.

[BusHunter]

But the ambiguity is whether we now get a WMATA spec bus, as opposed to 4150-4207 being the same as the 4000s already received. 4000-4149 were on the Seattle spec with Chicago logos and seating, but apparently not completely conforming to the RFP for up to 900 more. Of course, NF just could have said that CTA gets 58 buses and WMATA 58 fewer, but CTA gets its spec at the $840K apparent price.

Googling, I haven't been able to find out what a WMATA spec bus was, except that it seemed like they ordered BRTs.

All I could find out is that WMATA is getting BRT's from New Flyer but they are 42 footers.(click on view fact sheet at bottom of page for pictures and more details of that order) They did receive NABI articulated BRT's last year These new WMATA artics seem to be a bit of a mystery.

[Busjack]

FWIW, Wikipedia lists 5431-5452 DE62LFA BRT. Apparently 1 of 22 received.

[Anonymous Guy]

But the ambiguity is whether we now get a WMATA spec bus, as opposed to 4150-4207 being the same as the 4000s already received. 4000-4149 were on the Seattle spec with Chicago logos and seating, but apparently not completely conforming to the RFP for up to 900 more.

When CTA piggybacked off Seattle's 2008 run of DE60LFs, they didn't get exactly the same buses we received.

The spec sheets between the two are comparable, though. Maybe it's just a matter of aestetics?

[Busjack]

When CTA piggybacked off Seattle's 2008 run of DE60LFs, they didn't get exactly the same buses we received.

The spec sheets between the two are comparable, though. Maybe it's just a matter of aestetics?

The paint job doesn't change the price of the bus (or negligibly does, compared to the $800K price). You have to paint the bus one way or the other (unless you were Cleveland buying the NABI stainless steel body one). Apparently, changing the seating arrangement doesn't either.

I was referring to mechanical systems, including the several areas where Proposer 1, in commenting on the bid specifications for the up to 900 more, said "same as the current order," but, in a couple of situations CTA said "do not agree" with the change. Obviously, then, CTA didn't spec the first 150 in that regard.

Hence, a picture proves little.

[geneking7320]

The roof pods on the Seattle bus appear to be different from those on CTA NF low floor artic (looking at the pics in the buses section).

[sw4400]

The paint job doesn't change the price of the bus (or negligibly does, compared to the $800K price). You have to paint the bus one way or the other (unless you were Cleveland buying the NABI stainless steel body one). Apparently, changing the seating arrangement doesn't either.

I was referring to mechanical systems, including the several areas where Proposer 1, in commenting on the bid specifications for the up to 900 more, said "same as the current order," but, in a couple of situations CTA said "do not agree" with the change. Obviously, then, CTA didn't spec the first 150 in that regard.

Hence, a picture proves little.

Busjack, do you ever stop to read the posts and look at the pictures/links provided, instead of just ripping somebody's post up and making them look like jackasses? I think you do, because if you didn't, then you'd notice like myself and geneking7320 that the poster was referring to the different roof pods!!!

Look at the image I uploaded from Kevin's photo page and try to compare... someone as knowledgeable as you "are" should be able to see the difference in the photos, and would hence notice what Anonymous Guy is getting at.

If anyone else, other than Busjack, reading this notices the difference, I'm throwing down a challenge to you! Look at Anonymous Guys photo and the one I uploaded from Kevin's Bus Page. Can you see what Anonymous Guy is talking about?

4000.bmp

[Busjack]

No, I don't see a external difference, and wouldn't without the view from above. Also, an enclosure doesn't prove what is underneath (did you watch Magic's Secrets Revealed last night).

That wasn't ripping the post.

On the other hand, you seem to have ignored his final statement "The spec sheets between the two are comparable, though. Maybe it's just a matter of aestetics?"

If the poster is saying that something mechanical is different, let him say it. For instance, some Seattle articulated buses have Caterpillar engines. I'll acknowledge that the CTA ones don't.

And, finally, that doesn't answer the initial question, whether the 58 will be on a Seattle, CTA, or WMATA spec. Not that I really expect an answer to that, except perhaps from someone at New Flyer.

[artthouwill]

I say let CTA and Seattle switch color schemes. Remember our buses used to be called the Green Limousines. Someone should tell Seattle the Supersonics no longer play there so they can get rid of those colors!!!

Seriously though, I'm sure that CTA was able to get some of their specs even piggybacking on the SEattle order. Though I have never been inside of a bus in Seattle, I think it hard to believe the interior is exactly like the buses in Chicago. There may be othr specs that could not have been included if only because Seattle's order was already in production and those specs (whatever they may have been) may have required a modification in the design, be it in the undercarriage, the roof or wherever. So perhaps there was something Seattle or CTA rquested in the A/C system that required a different style roof pod. I am not sure how, but I get the feeling there will be a difference between the 58 NFs to come and the 150 being shipped now.

[rmadisonwi]

The interior of the Seattle buses is certainly not the same as the CTA buses. Seattle's buses are fitted for maximum seating capacity, whereas CTA tends to go for maximum standee capacity. Plus, the seats themselves are much nicer in Seattle (they have as much padding as some highway coach seats...only missing armrests and the covers are vinyl and not cloth).

There may be some photos out there of the interior of the Seattle fleet, but I'm not going to go searching for them.

As for whether the boxes on the roof mean anything regarding whose spec it is, not really. New Flyer introduced a "low profile" roof setup for their hybrids some time after Seattle started receiving their hybrid artics. It's a design improvement that, for all I know, is now standard on all new hybrid NF buses. In fact, if CTA were to buy another batch of 800-series buses, the box on top would probably be smaller than it is on 800-809. It doesn't mean that they've changed the mechanical specs. It just means that NF found a better way to build the bus.

[Tcmetro]

I think Seattle has a tunnel mode, where the buses go 100% electric in the tunnel (not sure about this). I am not sure if this is on the Chicago buses.

[Guest]

I think Seattle has a tunnel mode, where the buses go 100% electric in the tunnel (not sure about this). I am not sure if this is on the Chicago buses.

Yes, one of the Bus World magazines has a scoop on Seattle's tunnels using the then brand new Breda dual mode articulated buses.

[Anonymous Guy]

WARNING - THIS POST IS EXTREMELY IMAGE HEAVY

Yes, one of the Bus World magazines has a scoop on Seattle's tunnels using the then brand new Breda dual mode articulated buses.

Yep - it's called the "Hush Mode," where the bus operates primarily on battery power during the station platform stretches of the tunnel to keep emissions to a minimum. It's a function that can be enabled/disabled via Allison/GM Hybrid Drive software upgrades.

In terms of aesthetics, having a roof mounted HVAC unit on the front of the bus and the battery pack on the trailer seems to be the standard design for DE60LFs.

Seattle's original hybrid artics (Equipped with CAT C9 engines) had that setup and the current CTA buses (Cummins ISL) have that design. The buses we received in 2008 (the order that CTA piggybacked off) have a double roof mounted HVAC setup. Between the two packs is orange electrical cabling, in which battery power is distributed throughout the bus, although I am not exactly if whether the front, the rear, or perhaps both enclosures carry battery packs.

Both of the enclosures are completely exposed. Makes sense for the HVAC units, but I wonder if that's a liability for the battery? Not to mention the exposed cables...

And since people did discuss the interior of Seattle's buses, here's what the upholstery on the 2008 DE60LFs look like:

When I saw shots of the interior setup of the CTA DE60LFs, I didn't like how the seating arrangements were almost completely sideway facing seats. Whenever I board a bus, I tend to scramble for whatever forward facing seats I can find.

About the order piggybacking bringing buses based towards certain specs - despite CTA following the Seattle order, Chicago did not get the same identical DE60LFs Seattle received. Instead the two more or less shared certain specifications, such as engine type, but the overall construction of the bus, can be arranged differently between transit agencies based on preferences.

If WMATA ends up getting DE60LFs with CAT C9s (unlikely) and the redesigned New Flyer styling, the new CTA DE60LFs would likely get CAT C9s as well, but with more or less the same amenities and old New Flyer design that the current CTA hybrid buses have.

[pudgym29]

[edit]

When I saw shots of the interior setup of the CTA DE60LFs, I didn't like how the seating arrangements were almost completely sideway facing seats. Whenever I board a bus, I tend to scramble for whatever forward facing seats I can find.

I do similarly, with the additional intent of sitting in the high-floor section at the bus' rear.

More CTA buses are featuring longitudinal (| sideway) seats in the low-floor section. I ponder if this is an unofficial reaction to boorish riders who seat themselves in the aisle seat of a transverse seat without any other rider in the window seat.

[Jon]

4145 is at NP. Did a LT school run around 1215.