#4000 Arrives

[MT0851]

So, which is it? And of what relevance is the tractor or trailer roof, since the bus is a pusher?

Daerah says it is the front, and since he drives them, so, I guess that is what it is.

But that would get us back to the question that if the AC is on the roof, what is in the back? Otherwise, CTA's policy would have been to put a window there.

By the way, good pictures. They also show that the fatso seats were installed at the factory, instead of the retrofit needed on a bunch of the 1000s, and the longitudinal arrangement.

Whoops, I meant to write tractor section there. I've been around transit for a few years now and on all artics, the tractor section means the front, while trailer means the back, on pusher or puller artics.

The A/C compressors are on the tractor section's roof along with the blowers for the tractor section, so in the trailer section of the bus they couldn't put the blowers on the roof so they're in the rear and their air inlet is on the inside rear wall of the bus, as seen in one picture and that's why they don't have a rear window. Since there's only blowers in the rear of the bus and no HVAC compressors, there's no need for vents on the rear of the bus because the only reason they're there found on buses is to expel heat from the HVAC compressors and since they're up on the roof of the tractor section, there's no need for them on 4000.

The blowers in the trailer section are supplied freon (When the AC is turned on) from the compressors on the tractor section's roof via flexible tubing through the joint and the inside of the ad-racks. For the heating side of things, there's tubing that runs throughout the bus supplying hot anti-freeze from the engine to all the heaters including the blowers in the rear of the bus and up on the roof on the tractor section, but that doesn't need any extra components or special vents, just an air intake vent located on the inside of the bus.

If 4000 didn't have the A/C compressors on the trailer section, it wouldn't have the extended rooftop HVAC compartment on the tractor section.

As you can see on Vancouver Translink's D60LFRs they don't have A/C and don't feature the extended tractor section HVAC compartment as you can see here, http://trans-vancouver.fotopic.net/p47464965.html

They also feature a rear window because the blowers for the trailer section could be place on the roof of the trailer section unlike the CTA's which had to be placed in the rear due to the batteries being placed on the roof of the trailer section.

[sw4400]

supposedly the recent announcement of 58 60 ft/artics from New Flyer will be the uniquely designed styled buses used for the implementation of BRT. I dont know how true that is...just rumored for now. stay tuned on that.

If true, then CTA will be getting "X" number of DE60LFR's exclusively for BRT. Which makes sense... it'd be a pain in the a## to paint them exclusively for the service then say, in a few years pull them for regular service, or a sudden need for extra BRT buses for whatever reason.

As far as babying the DE60LF's, I guess it's ok for... say 150 or so. But when you have 900(presuming the CTA procures all orders that are in limbo at this point), that'll take time to do and really slow service. Let's say 40 DE60LF's return to Kedzie from a day shift(for this example: shift is from 8a-4:30p), those 40 are now out of service until the inspection is done. Now lets say that 20 or so of those have something small wrong(i.e a little scratch along the rear paint, a unusual engine noise, but no "Check Engine" light or alarm comes on, or a burned out brake light). In these examples, are you saying the CTA will cease operating these buses until they are fixed? IMO, that's a little overkill, and if this is the case, why are we leasing these vehicles? Wait for some capital funds, then buy them. How many on this board baby their Toyotas or Chevys or whatever you drive/driven when it was brand new, and if the slightest scratch or engine noise came up without a warning light, you'd cease driving until it was fixed?

[jajuan]

If true, then CTA will be getting "X" number of DE60LFR's exclusively for BRT. Which makes sense... it'd be a pain in the a## to paint them exclusively for the service then say, in a few years pull them for regular service, or a sudden need for extra BRT buses for whatever reason.

As far as babying the DE60LF's, I guess it's ok for... say 150 or so. But when you have 900(presuming the CTA procures all orders that are in limbo at this point), that'll take time to do and really slow service. Let's say 40 DE60LF's return to Kedzie from a day shift(for this example: shift is from 8a-4:30p), those 40 are now out of service until the inspection is done. Now lets say that 20 or so of those have something small wrong(i.e a little scratch along the rear paint, a unusual engine noise, but no "Check Engine" light or alarm comes on, or a burned out brake light). In these examples, are you saying the CTA will cease operating these buses until they are fixed? IMO, that's a little overkill, and if this is the case, why are we leasing these vehicles? Wait for some capital funds, then buy them. How many on this board baby their Toyotas or Chevys or whatever you drive/driven when it was brand new, and if the slightest scratch or engine noise came up without a warning light, you'd cease driving until it was fixed?

To answer your question of why are we leasing these buses, because it's a heck of a lot cheaper to lease them than to buy them outright. This gives the CTA somewhat of an advantage in that with the issue of no capital funding for new equipment and needed infrastructure repairs such as station overhauls and garage overhauls or rebuilds, CTA gets the buses much sooner than a possible few years from local government, particular the state, dragging its feet to appropriate new funding. That money saved from leasing can presumably be used in other areas of the budget to improve service.

[nflyer22]

To answer your question of why are we leasing these buses, because it's a heck of a lot cheaper to lease them than to buy them outright. This gives the CTA somewhat of an advantage in that with the issue of no capital funding for new equipment and needed infrastructure repairs such as station overhauls and garage overhauls or rebuilds, CTA gets the buses much sooner than a possible few years from local government, particular the state, dragging its feet to appropriate new funding. That money saved from leasing can presumably be used in other areas of the budget to improve service.

I've been wondering about this for quite some time, and hope that someone has a comment to it. With the soft economy and failing financial crisis, there have been numerous reports from newspapers and other news agencies that certain lease deals, including of maybe these 60-footers from New Flyer, are in jeopardy with banks and lending organizations not willing to lend because of the above reasons. Does anyone have any further comment on this?

[sw4400]

To answer your question of why are we leasing these buses, because it's a heck of a lot cheaper to lease them than to buy them outright. This gives the CTA somewhat of an advantage in that with the issue of no capital funding for new equipment and needed infrastructure repairs such as station overhauls and garage overhauls or rebuilds, CTA gets the buses much sooner than a possible few years from local government, particular the state, dragging its feet to appropriate new funding. That money saved from leasing can presumably be used in other areas of the budget to improve service.

I understand the cost savings by leasing, not buying. But after reading daerah's comments which I highlighted below...

Which it could be true...they are leasing the 4000s and they are 'babied" to the highest extent. By being placed on certain routes... primarily 156...I was lucky to have it on the 134 the other day. Whenever they return to the garage, a thorough inspection (body and engine compartment) is conducted before we can release the bus back to maintenance to be reassigned.

I made a comical comment to one guy checking the bus...

Me "What, you don't trust us?"

..."Hehe, Nope, we have to check these buses out"

Me "Haha, you guys don't check out the other new buses like this, (1600-1700)

..."This bus is leased, we have to keep it in good shape man, nothing personal"

Me"wow, ok"

haha

Is it worth it? How long does it take to do this "inspection" on one bus? And if something is mechanically or aesthically wrong with the bus(es) being inspected at the time, as what daerah was quoted as saying, the bus(es) with problems must be removed from service and repaired, even if it's just a little dent from a angry customer who somehow has the strength to put a small dent into a side panel, or a smart-a## kid who keys a section of the bus or spray paints it.

Isn't that just a little extreme? Even for a leased bus? I mean, let's just put them in a bubble, for heaven's sake!!! It's a City Transit Bus!!! Scratches, dings, and mechanical issues are going to be part of it's life here, leasing it or buying it!!!

[Busjack]

I've been wondering about this for quite some time, and hope that someone has a comment to it. With the soft economy and failing financial crisis, there have been numerous reports from newspapers and other news agencies that certain lease deals, including of maybe these 60-footers from New Flyer, are in jeopardy with banks and lending organizations not willing to lend because of the above reasons. Does anyone have any further comment on this?

The lease, while a like a car lease in some sense, isn't to save money (since the buses will be fully depreciated by the end of the lease), but to get the money now. Again, see the Traxis article.

However, CTA could have used bonds just as well as a lease (which is what NICTD is using to pay for its 300 series cars). As frequently noted here, and in the CTA budget, certain other things (such as L lines and Nova buses) are also subject to leases, but those are after the fact. Maybe leases have better tax consequences for the investors than the bonds, in that the investors can deduct depreciation. The Traxis article also discusses some reasons why financing was through a lease and not bonds.

The news reports on the credit crisis basically said that some insurance companies guarantee the leases. A couple of CTA's were guaranteed by AIG, and thus CTA is now required to get a new insurer. Apparently there were different arrangements with this one. Other leases apparently were guaranteed by other companies, and apparently are not affected for now (what a lot of qualifers). See the end of the "Leased Equipment" topic for more links. Obviously, the credit crisis would have an effect on future deals, either because credit is harder to get or one has to fish elsewhere for a guarantor.

Also, sw, remember that I asked daerah if the babying was just during a shake out period. We'll know at some point, but I doubt that CTA intends to use hundreds of buses that it has to keep in the shop on a recurring basis. The DE60LF should have proved itself in Seattle and elsewhere by now (remember, this order is not on the CTA spec., but the Seattle one), and, again the Traxis article says:

The CTA’s ability to immediately introduce 150 new transit buses into the Chicago public transportation system will have far-reaching economic benefit to the city and goodwill effects to its ridership. The CTA has acknowledged the extensive operational costs of maintaining a fleet of buses in which many of the vehicles are beyond their useful economic life. The repair costs and the downtime associated with older transit buses are a drain on the CTA’s operating budget.

[jajuan]

The lease, while a like a car lease in some sense, isn't to save money (since the buses will be fully depreciated by the end of the lease), but to get the money now. Again, see the Traxis article.

However, CTA could have used bonds just as well as a lease (which is what NICTD is using to pay for its 300 series cars). As frequently noted here, and in the CTA budget, certain other things (such as L lines and Nova buses) are also subject to leases, but those are after the fact. Maybe leases have better tax consequences for the investors than the bonds, in that the investors can deduct depreciation. The Traxis article also discusses some reasons why financing was through a lease and not bonds.

The news reports on the credit crisis basically said that some insurance companies guarantee the leases. A couple of CTA's were guaranteed by AIG, and thus CTA is now required to get a new insurer. Apparently there were different arrangements with this one. Other leases apparently were guaranteed by other companies, and apparently are not affected for now (what a lot of qualifers). See the end of the "Leased Equipment" topic for more links. Obviously, the credit crisis would have an effect on future deals, either because credit is harder to get or one has to fish elsewhere for a guarantor.

Also, sw, remember that I asked daerah if the babying was just during a shake out period. We'll know at some point, but I doubt that CTA intends to use hundreds of buses that it has to keep in the shop on a recurring basis. The DE60LF should have proved itself in Seattle and elsewhere by now (remember, this order is not on the CTA spec., but the Seattle one), and, again the Traxis article says:

Ok I think I may have been thinking of savings that Huberman was hyping up on the fuel side of things when the deal was first announced given these are hybrids. I did get it right though on CTA being able to get the buses faster than if they bought the buses directly. We'd probably be waiting a couple more years with the way the capital issue is going in the General Assembly. I'm with sw though on it possibly being overkill the way Kedzie maintenance personnel are directed to do inspections as soon as the operator pulls in ad before he can get clearance to pass possession on to other personnel for prep for reassignment. You're right when you say that you'd think these buses would have proven themselves from their use in Seattle.

[BusHunter]

One question I've always had with the #4000 piggyback order, was that Seattle ordered 500 of a possible 715 buses. That would leave 215 buses up for grabs. How come CTA only grabbed 150 not 215. This new info about 58 BRT's being ordered does put the number up to 208. Maybe that was the plan all along. Also I couldn't help noticing that the #7800 compobus had CLASS doors in the rear as well. I've never had the opportunity to physically see the doors in operation, but they appear to be wide and if they opened the same way as the #4000's opened wouldn't that have pozed a red flag against ordering these types of doors on the bigger type buses.

[Busjack]

One question I've always had with the #4000 piggyback order, was that Seattle ordered 500 of a possible 715 buses. That would leave 215 buses up for grabs. How come CTA only grabbed 150 not 215. This new info about 58 BRT's being ordered does put the number up to 208. Maybe that was the plan all along. ...

The issue always was the financing, and the lease was for 150. We believe, but don't know for sure, that grants are paying for the 58 mystery buses.

I thought you were going to ask the other question--how CTA can still be ordering option buses, but your math did answer that one. But no one (at least here) knew about the BRT grant at the time the lease idea was floated by CTA staff (a year ago, now).

[nflyer22]

The lease, while a like a car lease in some sense, isn't to save money (since the buses will be fully depreciated by the end of the lease), but to get the money now. Again, see the Traxis article.

However, CTA could have used bonds just as well as a lease (which is what NICTD is using to pay for its 300 series cars). As frequently noted here, and in the CTA budget, certain other things (such as L lines and Nova buses) are also subject to leases, but those are after the fact. Maybe leases have better tax consequences for the investors than the bonds, in that the investors can deduct depreciation. The Traxis article also discusses some reasons why financing was through a lease and not bonds.

The news reports on the credit crisis basically said that some insurance companies guarantee the leases. A couple of CTA's were guaranteed by AIG, and thus CTA is now required to get a new insurer. Apparently there were different arrangements with this one. Other leases apparently were guaranteed by other companies, and apparently are not affected for now (what a lot of qualifers). See the end of the "Leased Equipment" topic for more links. Obviously, the credit crisis would have an effect on future deals, either because credit is harder to get or one has to fish elsewhere for a guarantor.

Okay, thanks for the big clear up; I was wondering about that for quite some time. :)

[artthouwill]

If true, then CTA will be getting "X" number of DE60LFR's exclusively for BRT. Which makes sense... it'd be a pain in the a## to paint them exclusively for the service then say, in a few years pull them for regular service, or a sudden need for extra BRT buses for whatever reason.

As far as babying the DE60LF's, I guess it's ok for... say 150 or so. But when you have 900(presuming the CTA procures all orders that are in limbo at this point), that'll take time to do and really slow service. Let's say 40 DE60LF's return to Kedzie from a day shift(for this example: shift is from 8a-4:30p), those 40 are now out of service until the inspection is done. Now lets say that 20 or so of those have something small wrong(i.e a little scratch along the rear paint, a unusual engine noise, but no "Check Engine" light or alarm comes on, or a burned out brake light). In these examples, are you saying the CTA will cease operating these buses until they are fixed? IMO, that's a little overkill, and if this is the case, why are we leasing these vehicles? Wait for some capital funds, then buy them. How many on this board baby their Toyotas or Chevys or whatever you drive/driven when it was brand new, and if the slightest scratch or engine noise came up without a warning light, you'd cease driving until it was fixed?

One thing about car leases (and I don't know if they apply here) is that the vehicles have to be RETURNED at a certain time (end of lease period). There could be penalties for excessive mileage (put these buses on short routes), damage, or anything beyond normal wear and tear. Leased vehicles must hold some resale value to be sold at the end of the leasse. Who would buy used artic hybrid buses that are 10 years old or older? Maybe there is a market to purchase used buses at a cheap rate as a stop gap for 3- 5 years until funding becomes available to purchase new equipment.

Maybe in the car market these cars are the "certified" used vehicles because they were once lease vehicles.

[Busjack]

One thing about car leases (and I don't know if they apply here) is that the vehicles have to be RETURNED at a certain time (end of lease period). There could be penalties for excessive mileage (put these buses on short routes), damage, or anything beyond normal wear and tear. Leased vehicles must hold some resale value to be sold at the end of the leasse. Who would buy used artic hybrid buses that are 10 years old or older? Maybe there is a market to purchase used buses at a cheap rate as a stop gap for 3- 5 years until funding becomes available to purchase new equipment.

Maybe in the car market these cars are the "certified" used vehicles because they were once lease vehicles.

Doesn't apply here. Also, often doesn't apply to cars, as you can buy them at the end of the lease for the residual value.

This is strictly a finance deal, and while Traxis says it has a property interest in the buses until paid, I agree that no one would want a repossessed bus.

For that matter, the Green Line and NovaBuses are leased. No indication that they will revert to other than the CTA after they are paid off.

[ryanbytes]

I rode 4004 today on 151 Sheridan. I dumped some pictures and a couple bad movies onto my Flickr.

[cta5658]

just asking, which garage'll be last to get the New flyer artics

[geneking7320]

Has anyone ridden a 4000 over very bumpy streets yet?

I'm wondering if the articulation area is as noisy on these buses as on the NABIs.

Gene King

[Busjack]

I rode 4004 today on 151 Sheridan. I dumped some pictures and a couple bad movies onto my Flickr.

Again, very good pictures, and also an indicating that the trial is "branching out."

I see it also has the "151 SHERIDAN BELMONT/" sign we all love to hate. This report sort of indicates that the signs are preloaded at the factory.

[Busjack]

just asking, which garage'll be last to get the New flyer artics

Depends on your definition of "last," since the number isn't even definite. Maybe you are asking about 4149? Anyway, since BusAngel says he doesn't have the list, we can't help you.

It used to be predictable that 74th was the last to get anything, but that broke down with 1731. However, one can guess that NP and A are the least likely (NP because it has NABIs and basically just LSD routes and A until such time as X49 goes BRT).

103 is up in the air in my mind, since while Jeffery was announced as being part of the BRT project, it is not clear that these 150 leased buses are; indications, including from daerah are that those will be part of the mystery 58.

Since Kedzie is definite, good bets are still C and 77. Because of Ashland and 63, I would still put money on 74 after that and, similarly, because of 77 and 81 wouldn't rule out FG.

[ryanbytes]

Has anyone ridden a 4000 over very bumpy streets yet?

I'm wondering if the articulation area is as noisy on these buses as on the NABIs.

Gene King

On 4004 the ride in the trailer seemed as bumpy as a NABI but the floor panel in the articulation area was quiet on every bump. The floor area isn't one big round floor panel like it is in a NABI. The circular area is made up of a number of different floor panels. There's a picture of that area on my Flickr.

[Busjack]

There's a picture of that area on my Flickr.

Also looks like someone left a very dirty footprint. :D

[ryanbytes]

Also looks like someone left a very dirty footprint.

Guilty! :lol:

[jajuan]

Spotted 4009 deadheading westbound on Van Buren while waiting for a 29 State. Apparently it was heading to start a 134 trip. It was good to finally see a 4000 upclose. Compared to an 800, the engine on these are super quiet.

[sw4400]

However, one can guess that NP and A are the least likely (NP because it has NABIs and basically just LSD routes and A until such time as X49 goes BRT).

Not entirely possible, Busjack(Although I'll go with you about Archer until BRT Service begins). Remember that the CTA wants to, in addition to retiring the TMC's, Flxible 5300's(both of which are just about done)5800-Series New Flyer D40LF's, and half the Flxible 6000's, start the overdue work on the NABI 60-LFW issues. That'll probably require a small batch of these buses being taken out of service and either going to South Shops, the Detroit Diesel factory where the 6000's and 5800's underwent their mid-life overhaul, or back to NABI HQ in Anniston, AL for repairs. While small groups of NABI's are circulated out of service for repairs, some of the incoming DE60LF's from New Flyer will be required to keep enough "Accordian Style" Buses on the routes that need/require them. These routes are out of North Park, Kedzie, 77th St., and 103rd St. Garages. As far as BRT's go, daerah's comment about possible "New Look" buses for BRT service while not provable at this time, makes the most sense for the CTA. A small group of DE60LFR's as the BRT buses is a logical idea, rather than paint them in their own 'special' livery, then have to change that if BRT service doesn't pan out, or if they retire the bus from BRT service. Since the 5300's are just about gone, they can start the BRT service buses out with #5000 and work up from there until they have enough for that service, since there are enough numbers soon to be available for the current 4000-Series DE60LF's to use(4000 up to 4899).

[santran]

Today I noticed a posting on the dry erase board in the train room at North Park that said "new artics coming to NP next week."

[Kevin]

Before the speculation gets out of control, Kedzie is only receiving a small number of 4000s (probably 12). There will then be a NP/103 split. As always, this information is subject to change.

[Guest]

Today I noticed a posting on the dry erase board in the train room at North Park that said "new artics coming to NP next week."

Saw #4006 in front of CTA HQ yesterday. Why does it have a different upper rear end door?