7500-series NABI 60-LFW - Retirements

[BusExpert32]

from the way #7552's middle looks, i think this might be the bus that forced the NABI's out of service

I thought it was #7542 from 103rd Garage. (At least, according to busfan.)

[Busjack]

i have some pictures of the NABI's waiting for inspection at 103rd St. Garage

The main thing this proves, unlike the other set of pictures, is that some that were not in 103rd's numbering range are now there sitting.

Also, several are getting their pictures before summer, but probably not in the way intended.

Finally, I don't think that the "incident bus" would just be sitting in the yard. You have to preserve evidence.

[Busjack]

Hilkevitch, for a change, says something that seems to make sense on this topic (on page 2).

[dann]

Hilkevitch, for a change, says something that seems to make sense on this topic (on page 2).

It's gotten to where NABI and the CTA deserve to equally split the blame for this fiasco: NABI, for not thoroughly testing the prototypes of these buses before putting them on the market, and the CTA for taking a gamble on an unproven bus model.

[wordguy]

It's gotten to where NABI and the CTA deserve to equally split the blame for this fiasco: NABI, for not thoroughly testing the prototypes of these buses before putting them on the market, and the CTA for taking a gamble on an unproven bus model.

Actually, a prototype was field-tested in Altoona, PA. Busjack posted a copy of the field test log several months ago. The Altoona test revealed problems with the prototype, which included premature wear of the bushings around the articulated joint, axle-cracks, faulty turbo-chargers, and numerous other defects. If my memory serves me, the CTA made no attempt to halt production of the vehicles; at the time the field test was completed only a few production models had been delivered.

I believe that none of the prototype bus's defects were considered a safety risk at the time. Evidently no one considered the possibility that the problems found NEAR the articulated joint during the Altoona test could ultimately help lead to the FAILURE of the joint --- a definite safety issue by the CTA's own admission.

Was stopping production even considered? Would there have been legal penalties for doing so? I do remember that the CTA desperately needed new artics at the time, so I guess the idea of restarting the bidding process wasn't in the cards. In hindsight, ---yeah I know, it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback --- it just seemed to be an awfully risky act of faith, expecting NABI's warranty work to fix the problems.

All I know is this: reading that field-test log a few years after the fact was, for me, a true "hand-slaps-the-forehead" moment.

[Busjack]

Was stopping production even considered? Would there have been legal penalties for doing so? I do remember that the CTA desperately needed new artics at the time, so I guess the idea of restarting the bidding process wasn't in the cards.

Since the contract was contingent on passing Altoona testing (as all FTA funded contracts are), it could have been canceled without penalty if CTA found that it had not passed.

Your last sentence quoted above probably is the real reason.

[MetroShadow]

Since the contract was contingent on passing Altoona testing (as all FTA funded contracts are), it could have been canceled without penalty if CTA found that it had not passed.

Your last sentence quoted above probably is the real reason.

But were the 7300's in that bad of shape that the 7500's, NABI's or otherwise, could've waited until we knew what happened with that prototype (or if any other vendor wanted to bid)?

[Mr.Transit]

OC Transport in Ottawa is having problems with a defective fastening device in the front and back portions of their new 60ft buses from New Flyer...41 of the 48 buses were pulled from service last week. Buyer beware.

[jajuan]

OC Transport in Ottawa is having problems with a defective fastening device in the front and back portions of their new 60ft buses from New Flyer...41 of the 48 buses were pulled from service last week. Buyer beware.

The situation is not quite the same in that CTA at least piggybacked an order on a model that was at least showing SOME prior performance as opposed to the NABI artics which had NO real prior road performance beyond a prototype.

[Busjack]

But were the 7300's in that bad of shape that the 7500's, NABI's or otherwise, could've waited until we knew what happened with that prototype (or if any other vendor wanted to bid)?

One really doesn't know (except for the few that quickly went to the Perry Yard, such as 7380 that had an engine fire and a Quizno's Toasted advertisement on it; other engine fires were reported resulting in people getting the hot foot).

However, considering that you were by then dealing with 20 year old buses with very creaky lifts and the like, I wouldn't have put much money on them lasting long.

But we did document that CTA had knowledge of the New Flyer demonstrator, so we can't presume that they didn't bid.

[Nabi60SFW9620]

So CTA is officially retiring the NABI Articulateds? The only problem with that is. The FTA requires that buses stay operable for a minimum of 12 years or the TA has to repay the FTA for buses retired before the 12 years of age. So basically CTA will have to repay the FTA for 226 2003 NABI Articulated buses. There are no excuses. No exeptions. Even with this particular problem. CTA is still going to have to reimburse the FTA for those buses. I think it would be cheaper to have them sent to NABI for inspection and repairs then put them back into service. Since theres also a penalty charge for buses retired earlier then 12 years. And the FTA will not accept any excuses for retiring these buses at only 6 years of age. So it wouldnt surprise me if CTA had a fare increase as the result to retiring the NABI 60LFWs this year.

[Busjack]

So CTA is officially retiring the NABI Articulateds? The only problem with that is. The FTA requires that buses stay operable for a minimum of 12 years or the TA has to repay the FTA for buses retired before the 12 years of age. So basically CTA will have to repay the FTA for 226 2003 NABI Articulated buses. There are no excuses. No exeptions. Even with this particular problem. CTA is still going to have to reimburse the FTA for those buses. I think it would be cheaper to have them sent to NABI for inspection and repairs then put them back into service. Since theres also a penalty charge for buses retired earlier then 12 years. And the FTA will not accept any excuses for retiring these buses at only 6 years of age. So it wouldnt surprise me if CTA had a fare increase as the result to retiring the NABI 60LFWs this year.

Except you missed at least two points:

• CTA hasn't officially retired the NABIs yet. Read up a couple of posts, and especially the Tribune article.
  
• The replacement buses will not be paid for by federal money. It comes either from the lease (and while we don't know what funds will be used to pay the lease, they won't be federal) or the state capital bill. So, the situation is like when NYC replaced the Grumman Flxs with RTSs and sold the Grummans to N.J. As long as federal funds were not used for the replacements, no problem.
  

I had thought as you did before, but now am convinced otherwise. The only thing of which I am still convinced is that garage foremen can't make that decision (as some "I told you so" claimed); it will be up the the CTA Board to rubber stamp what management decides, as implied by the ctattattler.

Also, with the erratic way government agencies are acting lately, I wouldn't accept your or another poster's assertions about what the FTA will do or not do. There are such things as waivers, but other than that, I'm not going into that further with the other guy.

[Guest]

Ill tell you what a disappointment this was. These Nabis are good looking buses, its too bad they didnt last. Who knows what the fate will be, but one thing's for sure, we wont look at these buses the same again not that we ever did. These buses will either have to be retired or be placed back in service but in some kind of light duty which at CTA really dosent exist. If CTA is going to hold on to these vehicles a little longer, NABI is going to have to get their act together on rebuilding the buses and making sure the problems that were encountered when they were delivered do not happen again. Rockford Mass Transit has had a host of problems with their Nabis since they were delivered in 2007. Once again, like Ive always said the Low Floor concept does not work in the mass transit field. I say keep them in airport or shuttle service where they belong and bring the high floor buses back. It seems the biggest gripe with the low floor buses is the suspensions, duh!.

[Nabi60SFW9620]

I also think Low Floor buses are bad for the transit market. There are other methods that could have been invented but unfortunetely there are not. And now every manufacturer except NABI discontinued their high floor buses. I dont know how NABI Low Floor Articulated buses are with the floors. But I know New Flyers Low Floor Articulateds. Right after the handicapped seats in the front the floor is an extra inch higher so the floor ramps up one inch after the front handicapped seats. And the elevated section is the same height. And right now. I am soo glad Baltimore MTA got the bid for 30 hybrid Articulateds as New Flyer DE60LFRs and not NABI 60LFWs. BTW. I hope the NABI BRT Articulated will never encounter these issues as WMATA purchased 22 of them. I did read New Flyer may possibly discontinue the old style end caps year or 2 from now. So MARTA, MBTA, CTA, KC Metro and SEPTA will not be happy about that. Since those 5 TAs like the old style better then the restyled.

[artthouwill]

I believe the main reason there is such an influx of low floor buses in the transit market has to do with cost of a high floor bus with a lift.. I'm sure there is a higher cost associated with having a hydraulic lift installed in these buses. Add to that the fact that the lifts should be cycled everyday to make sure they function properly. You really have a problem if a lift gets stuck with a lift passenger on board the bus. Even if there isn't a "lift" person aboard, the bus is disabled if the lift gets stuck while in operation, but the situation would be worse with a wheelchair passenger on board already. With a low floor bus, if the ramp doesn't come out automatically, you can manually pull it out and fold it back in. Also, the cycle time is much faster with a low floor.

You could blame ADA "fanatics" who insisted that they have access to public transportation as opposed to dial-a=ride and paratransit services, but it is what it is. Basically low floor buses are a cost saving measure that allows transit agencies to comply with ADA.

For the most part, highway motorcoaches will still be your high floor buses, but VanHool with its doubledecker low floor buses put this in a different light.

[Nabi60SFW9620]

Low Floor buses actually cost more then high floor. Baltimore payed $275,000 per coach for the NABI 416s and $328,000 per coach for the Neoplan AN440LFs. And the Neoplans have had frames crack on them. And so did 2 of their New Flyer D40LFs. The reason Low Floor buses were invented is that it makes for easier boarding. And to me the way they should have been invented is having a ramp that goes up 3-6" inbetween the front wheel wells. And have a step for the rear door depending on the height of the floor in the low section. So low floor buses wouldnt have frame problems. Including the problems CTA faced with the NABI 60LFWs.

[artthouwill]

Low Floor buses actually cost more then high floor. Baltimore payed $275,000 per coach for the NABI 416s and $328,000 per coach for the Neoplan AN440LFs. And the Neoplans have had frames crack on them. And so did 2 of their New Flyer D40LFs. The reason Low Floor buses were invented is that it makes for easier boarding. And to me the way they should have been invented is having a ramp that goes up 3-6" inbetween the front wheel wells. And have a step for the rear door depending on the height of the floor in the low section. So low floor buses wouldnt have frame problems. Including the problems CTA faced with the NABI 60LFWs.

What would the true cost be when you factor in parts for the hydraulic lifts, maintainence when said lift fails, especially with a lift pax aboard the bus. REmember, you have to stock parts for 12 years (the life of the bus), so while the initial cost for a LF may be higher, in the end I believe it is a cost savings.

[Guest]

I believe the main reason there is such an influx of low floor buses in the transit market has to do with cost of a high floor bus with a lift.. I'm sure there is a higher cost associated with having a hydraulic lift installed in these buses. Add to that the fact that the lifts should be cycled everyday to make sure they function properly. You really have a problem if a lift gets stuck with a lift passenger on board the bus. Even if there isn't a "lift" person aboard, the bus is disabled if the lift gets stuck while in operation, but the situation would be worse with a wheelchair passenger on board already. With a low floor bus, if the ramp doesn't come out automatically, you can manually pull it out and fold it back in. Also, the cycle time is much faster with a low floor.

You could blame ADA "fanatics" who insisted that they have access to public transportation as opposed to dial-a=ride and paratransit services, but it is what it is. Basically low floor buses are a cost saving measure that allows transit agencies to comply with ADA.

For the most part, highway motorcoaches will still be your high floor buses, but VanHool with its doubledecker low floor buses put this in a different light.

Theres no doubt from a transit agency standpoint that low floor buses have an advantage over high floors as far as lift maintenance is concerned, but at what cost? Bad suspensions and articulated buses breaking apart. I think its safe to say this is the reason behind the CTA NABI artic fiasco. Unfortunately it will come down to a catastrophic failure of one of these types of buses for transit agencies and manufacturers as well as riders to open their eyes.

[wordguy]

Theres no doubt from a transit agency standpoint that low floor buses have an advantage over high floors as far as lift maintenance is concerned, but at what cost? Bad suspensions and articulated buses breaking apart. I think its safe to say this is the reason behind the CTA NABI artic fiasco. Unfortunately it will come down to a catastrophic failure of one of these types of buses for transit agencies and manufacturers as well as riders to open their eyes.

I'm wondering if there are other transit agencies that have had more experience with low-floor artics than the CTA, especially in the snow-belt where pavement conditions are more challenging. I think it would be interesting to know.

True, the low-floors might be subjected to more structural stress than high-floors and not be as durable --- they may be done after 12 years as opposed to 14+ for a high-floor --- but I still believe that the CTA's NABIs represent an extreme case. Remember, the NABI prototype flunked the Altoona field test, unlike the New Flyers. It turned out to be "the canary in the coal mine".

[cta 5555]

But yet i dont see any low floor bus last very long.Look at the 5800s, Same ages as the 6000s. Look whats not running anymore, Look whats running with about 95% of the buses that were order in 1995. If the 5800s were made as good as the 6000s. Dont u think there be about 60 or so less 6000s on the road right now.

[rmadisonwi]

D40LFs of the same vintage are still running strong at other transit agencies (particularly in Canada, where some of the oldest D40LFs are still in service).

I wouldn't be surprised if the 5800 vs. 6000 retirement had more to do with the quality of the rebuild vs. the quality of the original construction.

[Busjack]

I'm wondering if there are other transit agencies that have had more experience with low-floor artics than the CTA, especially in the snow-belt where pavement conditions are more challenging. I think it would be interesting to know.

Ottawa, Ontario was mentioned yesterday as going back to 2001. Also, mentioned a couple of days ago was that their brand new ones have a manufacturing defect.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 5800 vs. 6000 retirement had more to do with the quality of the rebuild vs. the quality of the original construction.

CTA PR said that the 5800s got new powertrains and were essentially rebuilt at Bus and Truck. While they also reported that the 6000s were getting some work at Inland DDA, $7.3 million was spent to rehab about 60 NFs, while, $12.8 million was spent on the Inland contract. If that covered most the the 6000s, that fleet was 5 times as large (about 300 buses remaining today accounting to Bus Hunter).*

By the way, in speaking about comparables, there were the reports that NYC quit buying artics when NF dropped the high floor one, not to return to the issue until Orion demonstrated a Citaro. We know that NYC MTA has higher standards after the Grumman Flxible incident.

Maybe the real answer lies in that Europe has been using low floor buses, including "bendy" ones for about 5 to 10 years longer than in the U.S. Anyone have info on those?

_____________

*It was real fun tracing these on Google, since the urls changed when CTA redesigned its website, from the days when we had the "name that tune" discussion.

[Nabi60SFW9620]

I did hear in February that NABI is at risk of going out of business. Which I was informed at the Motor Trend Auto show in Baltimore MD one Saturday. I basically wish that CTA didnt get 7501-7726 from NABI. To me either New Flyer D60LFs or Neoplan AN460HFs would have been a better choice then NABI 60LFWs.

[Busjack]

I did hear in February that NABI is at risk of going out of business. Which I was informed at the Motor Trend Auto show in Baltimore MD one Saturday. I basically wish that CTA didnt get 7501-7726 from NABI. To me either New Flyer D60LFs or Neoplan AN460HFs would have been a better choice then NABI 60LFWs.

I guess that "at risk" "and heard" aren't the same as "actually." Wonder what LA and NJ would do then (hypothetically speaking)?

There is the stimulus plan, but, on the other hand, Cerberus usually isn't in it for the long haul, and look at its Chrysler LLC unit.

Considering that Neoplan USA folded shortly thereafter (reported 2006), CTA would have been in worse shape if there were now a major warranty issue, unless the warranty were backed by the actual Neoplan and insurance. IIRC, Neoplan USA licensed an older Neoplan model, but didn't have much other connection with the German firm itself.

[MT0851]

Ottawa, Ontario was mentioned yesterday as going back to 2001. Also, mentioned a couple of days ago was that their brand new ones have a manufacturing defect.

Mississauga Transit has the longest experience with low floor artics, going back to 1997. We've never had any serious problems with them that caused the fleet to be grounded. Also for wordguy, here in Mississauga we have worse winter conditions than you guys down in Chicago.

We also had the same exact problem with our D60LFRs that Ottawa is currently experiencing. MT's fleet wasn't grounded or pulled off the road though. Mechanics inspected the hole fleet as they came back to the garage after ending service and any sheared bolts were replaced on the spot.

I doubt the CTA's will experience the same problem seeing as the problem appeared on Mississauga's units last summer and you guys didin't get your DE60LFs till October.

Also for the record, the problem with the bolt leads all the way back to ATG, the manufacturer of the joint for NFI artics.