6400-series Nova LFS - Updates & Retirements

[Busjack]

Similar exercise this afternoon at 3:40. Similar result: 191 buses on the street

FG pm.xls

[BusHunter]

9 hours ago, Busjack said:

Getting back to my point that 130 buses on the computer does not mean CTA has to replace 130 more buses, but the question was what is peak demand, I took a snapshot of math's tracker at 8:00 am., and copied it into a spreadsheet (see attachment) to left the number of rows in Excel tell me how many items there are.

Anyway it shows

 29 1000s
 97 6400s
 66 8200s
________
192

Ghost buses not counted, of course.

Note only 97 6400s on the street, not 130. If we now assume 40 NFs and 125 8200 after the current deliveries are completed, FG is only 27 short, and, coincidence, CTA is saying it is getting 27 electrics. If we are assuming a normal 15% spare ratio, 220 buses are needed.Exercising the option for 25 would pretty much take care of that.

FG allotment.xls

Now, if CTA has to expand the fleet, say for the south side improvements, the question basically is whether it accelerates the procurement to replace the 1000s, or (more likely) gets options assigned from somewhere else.

Yeah but CTA doesn't run a normal spare ratio. it runs an excessive one especially in rail. I did a fg count similar to yours and it showed about 100 spares at the garage, so I assume 100 buses is the spare ratio. Now that the buses are newer maybe that can be shrunk but you still need an excessive spare ratio for the older buses. no way are they going to retire 60 buses off that 100 bus spare ratio. If FG has any chance at all to eliminate the #6400's, CTA needs to order up to #8349 then maybe just maybe they could do it.

They have to be careful cause once they cut, then service cannot expand. It's like in medicine once you sever a nerve fiber, there is no way to generate life into it. Basically then they are screwed.

[garmon757]

I'm assuming that #6461 is heading to South Shops because I've spotted it on Ashland/Elston heading southbound while being towed.

[sw4400]

2 hours ago, garmon757 said:

I'm assuming that #6461 is heading to South Shops because I've spotted it on Ashland/Elston heading southbound while being towed.

I remember #6461 because of the brakes..... they sounded like a Mack Truck when being applied.... long roar as the brakes are applied. I can't find a video clip to demonstrate it, but if you've heard those brakes on them roaring as they slow to a stop, same sound on #6461.

[wordguy]

10 hours ago, Busjack said:

Similar exercise this afternoon at 3:40. Similar result: 191 buses on the street

FG pm.xls

Won't overall fleet requirements increase after Labor Day once the school year begins?  If so, I'd assume that the AM rush would require well over 200 buses on the street from FG.

Regarding FG's fleet roster,  with a decent spare ratio to account for the older equipment, they would possibly need at least 250 buses.

Assuming no additional New Flyers, here's how that roster might pan out:  125 8200s, 41 1000s, & at least 84 6400s.

Just wondering if there's still a garage or two that might have more NFs than they really need.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Busjack]

11 hours ago, BusHunter said:

Yeah but CTA doesn't run a normal spare ratio. it runs an excessive one especially in rail. I did a fg count similar to yours and it showed about 100 spares at the garage, so I assume 100 buses is the spare ratio.

As you said, is excessive, and thus does not have to be retained once all the unreliable buses are sent out. Since you essentially agree with my numbers, there is no reason to retain 100 pieces of junk.

The whole point of getting new buses is to cut maintenance costs.

[Busjack]

6 hours ago, wordguy said:

Won't overall fleet requirements increase after Labor Day once the school year begins?  If so, I'd assume that the AM rush would require well over 200 buses on the street from FG.

Only if school trips coincide with rush hour trips (instead of say, interlined with them). In any event, that doesn't seem to justify a surplus of 100 at just one garage.

The spare ratio should cover that, just like somehow they come up with buses when a stretch of the L is down. Assuming a spare ratio of 15%, that's 280 buses around a system of 1870. Of course, even worse at FG.

I was going to load all of maths22's tracker into Excel, but then remembered we have to wait 3 weeks.

[BusHunter]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

As you said, is excessive, and thus does not have to be retained once all the unreliable buses are sent out. Since you essentially agree with my numbers, there is no reason to retain 100 pieces of junk.

The whole point of getting new buses is to cut maintenance costs.

Tell that to rosemont yard. They must love the 80's cause everything they run is from then. Do they need at least 60 more spares than they had with the blinker door  #2200's? The cars are newer than 1969 so I dont get it. What really needs checking is what is the spare ratio at chicago with mostly new buses then we can get an idea of the fg spare ratio post #8324 or #8349.

[Busjack]

39 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

Tell that to rosemont yard. They must love the 80's cause everything they run is from then. Do they need at least 60 more spares than they had with the blinker door  #2200's? The cars are newer than 1969 so I dont get it. What really needs checking is what is the spare ratio at chicago with mostly new buses then we can get an idea of the fg spare ratio post #8324 or #8349.

If what Rosemont yard has is in such good shape, why, for instance, a crash was caused because a defective set that was out of service got away because its control cable was full of water? How about all the alerts sw posts about mechanical difficulties on the Blue Line?

Maybe there is a distinction in that the base order for the 7000s was upped to 490, but again, the question  is how many cars are needed to maintain rush hour service. I think it takes something like 43 trains according to the Blue Line schedule, which would be 344 cars, not 400. Maybe they are planning for more if the Eisenhower project is completed.

Update: Wasn't it you who argued, until about into the 5700s, that 5000s were going to the Orange Line? Then why is the number of 2600s closer to 500 than 350?

I guess  you can't face that CTA is bloated, and its answer to unreliable equipment is to keep more of it.

 

[BusHunter]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

If what Rosemont yard has is in such good shape, why, for instance, a crash was caused because a defective set that was out of service got away because its control cable was full of water? How about all the alerts sw posts about mechanical difficulties on the Blue Line?

Maybe there is a distinction in that the base order for the 7000s was upped to 490, but again, the question  is how many cars are needed to maintain rush hour service. I think it takes something like 43 trains according to the Blue Line schedule, which would be 344 cars, not 400. Maybe they are planning for more if the Eisenhower project is completed.

Update: Wasn't it you who argued, until about into the 5700s, that 5000s were going to the Orange Line? Then why is the number of 2600s closer to 500 than 350?

I guess  you can't face that CTA is bloated, and its answer to unreliable equipment is to keep more of it.

 

Well my whole response was based on you saying that getting new equipment reduces  maintenance. Believe me if you went to rosemont yard you wouldn't  even know cta has 5000's. Now if they did perhaps the forest pk ghost train would have never happened. But increasing the runs with 2600's gives them even more chance for an operational defect. 

I cant help it if you are trying to pin something  on me but lets remember those are your words and not mine nor do they reflect my viewpoints at all.

[Busjack]

2 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

Well my whole response was based on you saying that getting new equipment reduces  maintenance. Believe me if you went to rosemont yard you wouldn't  even know cta has 5000's.

 Again you are misconstruing what I said to suit your own aims. Obviously, the Blue Line did not get new equipment. So it has a bigger reserve of junk.

Now, if I were running CTA, the 5000s would have gone only to the Blue Line (as first announced) and the Red Line, as being the two heaviest, and the Blue Line having 2200s to replace. However, I am not in charge.

[andrethebusman]

The L is overloaded with cars because they decided to keep enough cars on hand to run the Red Line extension to Roseland, which would probably need six more trainsets, at least. However, this is more wishful thinking than real forecasting. With luck, we might see the extension by 2030 or 2040.

[Busjack]

21 minutes ago, jajuan said:

.. I haven't seen him draw too many conclusions beyond that on that front. In fact, I believe that's all I've seen him say on that front. ...

As I noted in the post containing my first spreadsheet on this topic:

If we now assume 40 NFs and 125 8200 after the current deliveries are completed, FG is only 27 short, and, coincidence, CTA is saying it is getting 27 electrics. If we are assuming a normal 15% spare ratio, 220 buses are needed.Exercising the option for 25 would pretty much take care of that.

Now, if CTA has to expand the fleet, say for the south side improvements, the question basically is whether it accelerates the procurement to replace the 1000s, or (more likely) gets options assigned from somewhere else.

My quote from the 2016-20 capital plan would tend to negate my last paragraph, but undoubtedly the out years may be amended. Nonethless, from that capital plan, it does not appear that the 6400s will be around after the budgeted 50 buses are delivered.

[jajuan]

3 minutes ago, Busjack said:

As I noted in the post containing my first spreadsheet on this topic:

If we now assume 40 NFs and 125 8200 after the current deliveries are completed, FG is only 27 short, and, coincidence, CTA is saying it is getting 27 electrics. If we are assuming a normal 15% spare ratio, 220 buses are needed.Exercising the option for 25 would pretty much take care of that.

Now, if CTA has to expand the fleet, say for the south side improvements, the question basically is whether it accelerates the procurement to replace the 1000s, or (more likely) gets options assigned from somewhere else.

My quote from the 2016-20 capital plan would tend to negate my last paragraph, but undoubtedly the out years may be amended. Nonethless, from that capital plan, it does not appear that the 6400s will be around after the contemplated 50 buses are delivered.

Pretty much all I remember observing you say consistently. The main thing is the portion of your quote where you say "If we are assuming a normal 15% spare ratio, 220 buses are needed. Exercising the option for 25 would pretty much take care of that." It gets down to the point that I was trying to make that both you are actually in agreement on a very key point in terms of how long any remaining 6400s need to survive and what's needed to take the rest of them out in the coming year and a half to two years it may be before getting the additional electric buses. So again I'm not really understanding the debate BH is still having with you on this.

[BusHunter]

All i can say is what you saying is fg is going to go below 200 buses. I have not seen that yet in my lifetime so i dont knoww what to tell you.

[Busjack]

21 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

All i can say is what you saying is fg is going to go below 200 buses. I have not seen that yet in my lifetime so i dont knoww what to tell you.

No, if you read what I typed and jajuan highlighted, I said 220 with a usual spare ratio, which would be about 30, not 100.

Now, talking about territory creep, as Andre has with respect to 103, if 220 buses leaves FG underutilized and C overextended, maybe FG should take over 74-Fullerton. I'm not making any representations about that though. Also 77th wasn't under about 370 until the shifts to 103rd, now it is 273 according to the Garage Rosters page.

47 minutes ago, jajuan said:

It gets down to the point that I was trying to make that both you are actually in agreement on a very key point in terms of how long any remaining 6400s need to survive and what's needed to take the rest of them out in the coming year and a half to two years it may be before getting the additional electric buses. So again I'm not really understanding the debate BH is still having with you on this.

Yeah, BH, I don't know what you are arguing about either, unless there is some basis for your apparent opinion that CTA will keep about 70 6400s more than it needs.

[andrethebusman]

A bit of trivia - CTA indicates 6539 and 6728 were at one point planned to go to Fresh Moves to replace the Flxibles. Unknown if this happened, all indications are it did not. Fresh Moves now has a BlueBird pusher.

[BusHunter]

5 hours ago, Busjack said:

 

Yeah, BH, I don't know what you are arguing about either, unless there is some basis for your apparent opinion that CTA will keep about 70 6400s more than it needs.

huh??? It's in the budget. CTA states they will retain 65 #6400's. Do i have to go and cite the page? Basically my argument or I would use the term debate as I'm not mad at you, is that CTA will retain #6400's and you say no they won't. Now where are your references? Because I know where mine are. Jajuan seems to agree with you based on no evidence, so I don't know who's passing out the Kool Aid but it must be good!!

[Busjack]

30 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

huh??? It's in the budget. CTA states they will retain 65 #6400's. Do i have to go and cite the page? Basically my argument or I would use the term debate as I'm not mad at you, is that CTA will retain #6400's and you say no they won't. Now where are your references? Because I know where mine are. Jajuan seems to agree with you based on no evidence, so I don't know who's passing out the Kool Aid but it must be good!!

Yes, cite the page.

I've cited my references. You chose to ignore them.

[BusHunter]

9 hours ago, Busjack said:

Yes, cite the page.

I've cited my references. You chose to ignore them.

Where?

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, BusHunter said:

Where?

If that isn't a nonresponsive answer, I don't know what is.

You were bluffing about

11 hours ago, BusHunter said:

It's in the budget. CTA states they will retain 65 #6400's.

and you know it, or you would have cited the page. I cited that what I got from the budget was on page 70.

In fact, I know you  are bluffing. I did a control F in the pdf of the 2016 budget for 65, and while there are 65s, not in connection with 64 or Nova.

The only 6400 found using Control-F is on page 65:

In addition, CTA also exercised a contract option to purchase an additional 125 buses, for a total of 425 new buses. The new buses will replace the oldest vehicles in the fleet – the Nova 6400-series buses, which were purchased from 2000-2002.

Next time, don't play this game.

 

[BusHunter]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

If that isn't a nonresponsive answer, I don't know what is.

You were bluffing about

and you know it, or you would have cited the page. I cited that what I got from the budget was on page 70.

In fact, I know you  are bluffing. I did a control F in the pdf of the 2016 budget for 65, and while there are 65s, not in connection with 64 or Nova.

The only 6400 found using Control-F is on page 65:

In addition, CTA also exercised a contract option to purchase an additional 125 buses, for a total of 425 new buses. The new buses will replace the oldest vehicles in the fleet – the Nova 6400-series buses, which were purchased from 2000-2002.

Next time, don't play this game.

 

What are you talking about? I said where is your reference and your off talking about my reference. I looked in the budget last night and while it doesn't  directly state it. It can be inferred that there will be 71 #6400 buses in service. I cant put up the link now but if you look under the 2016 budget topic i talk about this very thing. But I did read it said 65 but 71 is close to 65, no? The direct quote your looking for goes like this from memory. "CTA will have a fleet that is 85 percent new or rehabbed " now I remarked over there that if you count the artics, you need around 71 buses to make the 15 percent. So like speedy gonzalez would say "you think you may have caught me but you don't" 

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, BusHunter said:

What are you talking about? I said where is your reference and your off talking about my reference. I looked in the budget last night and while it doesn't  directly state it. It can be inferred that there will be 71 #6400 buses in service. I cant put up the link now but if you look under the 2016 budget topic i talk about this very thing. But I did read it said 65 but 71 is close to 65, no? The direct quote your looking for goes like this from memory. "CTA will have a fleet that is 85 percent new or rehabbed " now I remarked over there that if you count the artics, you need around 71 buses to make the 15 percent. So like speedy gonzalez would say "you think you may have caught me but you don't" 

I'm not going to bother much more with this. Maybe 15% not rehabbed means something, but doesn't mean the budget said "we are keeping 65 or 71 Novas."

But as you did previously copy from where jajuan and I quoted the budget, it did say that CTA was planning on getting 50 electric or clean diesel buses to replace diesel buses that are 12  years or older--i.e. the Novas (page  70). Unless you are willing to say that your 65 is statistically insignificant compared to 50*, especially out of a fleet of 1870 buses, that ends this diversion.

____________

*It certainly isn't keeping about 100, based on Andre's "there are about 130 in the computer." on which you previously relied and maybe 30 20 more deliveries to go to hit 425 7900s.

[BusHunter]

To use a line you would say. "If you are not in the vehicle procurement section or a fleet manager  then you have no credibility to say what will happen". So I'll just walk away believing that. At least I did have a concrete source where your source is a what if scenario. Bottom line is if you dont have apples to sell you cant very well sell them can you. When I see it i will believe it but what you speak of has never happened before.

 

 

 

[Busjack]

8 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

At least I did have a concrete source where your source is a what if scenario

Both untrue, which ends this discussion.