NABI Inspections

[sw4400]

chicagobus.org members:

What do you think will happen to our resident junk buses, the NABI's?

[BusExpert32]

I voted that they will be deemed unsafe. I mean, who would put buses on the road that are capable of "literally" falling apart?

[Busjack]

This poll should be with the caveat that if we can believe what was posted on the CTA Press Release site.

Others have talked about CTA Management hiding something, and the circumstantial evidence, while mostly not sourced, shows that "where there is smoke there [may be] fire" enough to find a "smoking gun."

I won't go into more detail, but ask Perry Masonary rather than Jon Hilkevich about that.

[sw4400]

This poll should be with the caveat that if we can believe what was posted on the CTA Press Release site.

Others have talked about CTA Management hiding something, and the circumstantial evidence, while mostly not sourced, shows that "where there is smoke there [may be] fire" enough to find a "smoking gun."

I won't go into more detail, but ask Perry Masonary rather than Jon Hilkevich about that.

Scary thought, Busjack... but if Gov. Blagojevich can get things done through pay-to-play, what makes you think the CTA brass won't do the same thing("Mr/Ms Inspector, we are short buses and desperately need these back in service, so if you can 'look' the other way and say they are good to go on the road, we'll monitor them 'closely' to make sure these problems don't pop up again. If you do, we'll give you this...(CTA brass member flashes check with large amount to inspector). So are they good to be put back on the road?"

[BusHunter]

I voted that they will be deemed unsafe. I mean, who would put buses on the road that are capable of "literally" falling apart?

I also voted they will be deemed unsafe. How could they ever justify now to there customers that the bus is safe? I never saw such a junk bus in all my life. They almost make the former Seattle #7300's look good. (Although there hangup was the issue of air quality)

[Busjack]

Scary thought, Busjack... but if Gov. Blagojevich can get things done through pay-to-play, what makes you think the CTA brass won't do the same thing("Mr/Ms Inspector, we are short buses and desperately need these back in service, so if you can 'look' the other way and say they are good to go on the road, we'll monitor them 'closely' to make sure these problems don't pop up again. If you do, we'll give you this...(CTA brass member flashes check with large amount to inspector). So are they good to be put back on the road?"

I wasn't referring to fraud on the part of inspectors. Possible, but I would doubt it here, especially if, according to some of us, the point of the inspection was to prepare for some claim on the warranty.

About a month ago, I sent trainman a personal message about my thoughts. I'm not going to share all of that here, but at the time trainman referred to "engine fires, structure problems, etc. Since these could potentially make these buses somewhat of a hazard to be on, CTA probably would not come out and say that they were done with these until it is time they are totally ready to disappear, fearing, perhaps, that people will stay away from riding them and causing new problems." My reply was that "CTA isn't worried about that. In fact, they probably would like to have a few more bus fires so that they can cry that they need more funding."

I concluded:

Now, what do you think would happen if the CTA published a Press Release saying "CTA AWARDS CONTRACT FOR UP TO 900 HYBRID BUSES" (so far so good) "REPLACING 226 RECENTLY PURCHASED DEFECTIVE ONES" (not so good). At least the Sun-Times would do some investigating.

Well, now that cat is partially out of the bag.

Now, in light of that, the smoking guns I meant were:

1. The 150 DE60LFs were supposed to be assigned in a 3 for 4 replacement. They never were.
   
2. Someone with access to a roster started a "what's left of the 7500s thread" and various conclusions were drawn from that.
   
3. FWIW, when I went by the South Shops and reported seeing 4400s, 5300s, and 5800s in the Perry Yard, I saw some NABIs in what was formerly the delivery area near the corner of 77th and Perry. That might lend some credence to #2.
   
4. CTA does not announce that it awarded the contract for up to 900 articulated hybrids, but NF did. The announcement was not similar to NABI's in 2004 that it was the apparent low bidder for the contracts for the 1000s, but that NF had actually been awarded a contract.
   
5. Carole Brown only mentioned exercising the option for 58 in connection with the Stimulus Bill. Did she get them without having to meet the other BRT conditions?
   
6. This announcement came after a board meeting. Coincidence?
   

So was CTA acting just as a matter of luck (bad that the 7500s fell apart, good that the 4000s were coming) or predetermination? If predetermined, it probably doesn't matter, except in the short term, what the inspectors find. I'll leave that at that.

[Guest]

I believe CTA will assess which buses may be certified as safe to contnue operating. Buses that are unsafe would susbsequently be scrapped. But I think when you look at the overall picture the main problem is the Low Floor design. This type of bus in my opinion never really was a good idea and this isnt just with NABIs, this isnt just CTA, transit systems around the country are also experiencing thses same types of defects. Any low floor bus, no matter what manufacturer has to be operated more delicate than a standard high floor bus. Because of the suspensions, the lower profile wheels and tires now used, braking systems and so on. I think many here would agree with me on this. Now the New Flyer standards and artics starting to are experience problems of their own and in a couple of years were going to see this safety recall again with NF. I blame all these problems on the Low Floor design. Low Floor buses dont work! We need to go back to the high floor bus design!.

[trainman8119]

I voted that, at least for a short time, you will see some back. I don't think you'll

see all 200 buses gone, but I am sure there will be a few bad, few good, and a

few so-so.

I get a kick out of everyone out there pinning their hopes on the economic stimulus

package. You turn on the news, and it looks like all the beggars downtown with their

Starbucks coffee cups....EVERYONE IS LINING UP WITH THEIR HANDS OUT (country wide)

...and on top of it, thinks their crisis is worse than the others. I can't fathom that CTA, Metra,

and Pace are counting on such a big chunk of money coming from the feds on this.

Even with the home son in the White House, he has a whole country to be concerned

with, NOT JUST CHICAGO.

I listed a number of questions about this in the first post. Sure does sound like a beautiful

manufactured way to emphasize the need for added funding (for these agencies to waste). The only problem with this thought process, is that it involves purchasing new equipment...

if the new stuff continues to be manufactured like the new stuff we have now, I'm all

in favor keeping the old stuff and fixing it !!!!!

[RailBus63]

Assuming that CTA doesn't act like the organization equivalent of a bratty kid who holds his breath and stamps his feet until he gets what he wants -

The buses will be inspected - those with no issues would return to service, while the buses with serious cracks will be sidelined. CTA would then likely attempt to get NABI to pay to repair all of the buses and perhaps warranty them for the remainder of the 12-year service life. For the sake of Chicago's bus riders, I would hope they don't keep them out of service just to prove a point.

[trainman8119]

Assuming that CTA doesn't act like the organization equivalent of a bratty kid who holds his breath and stamps his feet until he gets what he wants -

Next to the above definition in the dictionary are pictures of the CTA and Metra logos !!!!

[wordguy]

I believe CTA will assess which buses may be certified as safe to contnue operating. Buses that are unsafe would susbsequently be scrapped. But I think when you look at the overall picture the main problem is the Low Floor design. This type of bus in my opinion never really was a good idea and this isnt just with NABIs, this isnt just CTA, transit systems around the country are also experiencing thses same types of defects. Any low floor bus, no matter what manufacturer has to be operated more delicate than a standard high floor bus. Because of the suspensions, the lower profile wheels and tires now used, braking systems and so on. I think many here would agree with me on this. Now the New Flyer standards and artics starting to are experience problems of their own and in a couple of years were going to see this safety recall again with NF. I blame all these problems on the Low Floor design. Low Floor buses dont work! We need to go back to the high floor bus design!.

Maybe so. The fact that the CTA's first low-floors, the 5800s, were retired after 13 years, would seem to support your position. All the more so, considering that the 6000s, which arrived at the same time, are continuing to operate. However, there seem to be major problems unique to the low-floor artics as previous posters have stated.

But there are probably some tradeoffs to consider. First of all, is it safe to assume that wheelchair ramps are more dependable and cheaper to maintain than lifts? Also, the low-floors provide the benefit of shorter dwell times loading and unloading wheelchairs. So the question is, does the cost of what may be a shorter service life for a standard low-floor outweigh the benefits?

[MT0851]

Maybe so. The fact that the CTA's first low-floors, the 5800s, were retired after 13 years, would seem to support your position. All the more so, considering that the 6000s, which arrived at the same time, are continuing to operate. However, there seem to be major problems unique to the low-floor artics as previous posters have stated.

But there are probably some tradeoffs to consider. First of all, is it safe to assume that wheelchair ramps are more dependable and cheaper to maintain than lifts? Also, the low-floors provide the benefit of shorter dwell times loading and unloading wheelchairs. So the question is, does the cost of what may be a shorter service life for a standard low-floor outweigh the benefits?

Well up here in Canada, we have D40LFs that were built in 1991 that are still running. In fact, the majority of the D40LFs in Canada that were built before 1996 are still running. Look at Edmonton and Calgary, both have huge fleets of old D40LFs with the oldest ones being built in 1993. Out in Edmonton and Calgary they both face much more horrendous winter conditions than Chicago does. Vancouver Translink also has a huge fleet of D40LFs and they first started getting them in 1995. They aren't going anywhere just yet either.

Mississauga Transit got the first production model D60LFs in 1997 and they ran without any major problems everyday up until their retirement last year. If you're wondering why they were retired at the age of 11 it's because Mississauga Transit now runs on a 11-12 year replacement program for buses. Unlike most TA's, Mississauga Transit does not rebuild their buses, we just have a preventative maintenance program.

I believe that low floors also increase route reliability. As you don't have to worry about seniors, disabled people, strollers and buggies taking a long time to get on which reduces dwell times which increases the reliability of routes.

I believe that if you do not have a proper maintenance program, the buses are just not going to last, easy as that. If a bus fails I blame it on transit's maintenance, not on the manufacturer. Unless of course the bus is brand spanking new.

But I think when you look at the overall picture the main problem is the Low Floor design. This type of bus in my opinion never really was a good idea and this isnt just with NABIs, this isnt just CTA, transit systems around the country are also experiencing thses same types of defects. Any low floor bus, no matter what manufacturer has to be operated more delicate than a standard high floor bus. Because of the suspensions, the lower profile wheels and tires now used, braking systems and so on. I think many here would agree with me on this. Now the New Flyer standards and artics starting to are experience problems of their own and in a couple of years were going to see this safety recall again with NF. I blame all these problems on the Low Floor design. Low Floor buses dont work! We need to go back to the high floor bus design!

Refer to the post above.

[cta 5555]

Thats right cta 5750 low floor buses do not work. Not alot of people that are on here are not drivers. So there dont get to be one them for 8 to 10 hours at a time. I know when i get a low floor ie flyer i can tell when i get off at the end of the day i had a low floor. High floor buses ride much better and are safer to me.

[Guest]

Maybe so. The fact that the CTA's first low-floors, the 5800s, were retired after 13 years, would seem to support your position. All the more so, considering that the 6000s, which arrived at the same time, are continuing to operate. However, there seem to be major problems unique to the low-floor artics as previous posters have stated.

But there are probably some tradeoffs to consider. First of all, is it safe to assume that wheelchair ramps are more dependable and cheaper to maintain than lifts? Also, the low-floors provide the benefit of shorter dwell times loading and unloading wheelchairs. So the question is, does the cost of what may be a shorter service life for a standard low-floor outweigh the benefits?

Correct, there are pros and cons to consider with the low floor buses. The buses are good when it comes to wheelchair lift operation, I will it credit for that. But I know we would all agree on one thing Safety! that outweighs anything else to a bus. High floor buses can take more abuse on city streets and freeways than low floor buses. In my opinion low floor buses are better suited for light duty such as airport or shuttle operations. I dont think the use of low floor buses in city transit service was ever a good idea. I think were finding this out the hard way.

[dann]

chicagobus.org members:

What do you think will happen to our resident junk buses, the NABI's?

[/

They should be returned to NABI. For buses to deteriorate that quickly is the fault of the manufacturer and I hope the CTA sues NABI.

[MT0851]

Correct, there are pros and cons to consider with the low floor buses. The buses are good when it comes to wheelchair lift operation, I will it credit for that. But I know we would all agree on one thing Safety! that outweighs anything else to a bus. High floor buses can take more abuse on city streets than low floor buses. In my opinion low floor buses are better suited for light duty such as airport or shuttle operations. I dont think the use of low floor buses in city transit service is a good idea.

Begin rant

How do you know high floor buses can take more abuse than low floor buses? Maybe they can last a few years longer, but fact is buses in the states aren't going to last for 25 years. I don't believe you're a mechanic or a structural specialist and neither am I, but look at the post above I made about the older D40LFs (1991-1996) in Canada that you have seemed to have overlooked. Look at Calgary's and Edmonton's D40LFs for an example which date from 1993-1994. They're still in service after 15-16 years of service. They go through harsh winter conditions too (worse than what Chicago gets) and they're still trucking.

Honestly, do you think for one second that all these TA's would be buying craploads of low floor buses if they aren't going to be safe for use on city streets? Look at the D40LF for example which has been in production since 1991 and god knows how many NFI has sold and it's without a doubt the most popular low floor bus on the market today.

Do you think low floors would be in such widespread use if they weren't safe? Do you think they would've passed the Altoona testing if there weren't? I sure the hell don't.

Fact is, low floors are tested and proven, so leave it at that.

End rant

Thats right cta 5750 low floor buses do not work. Not alot of people that are on here are not drivers. So there dont get to be one them for 8 to 10 hours at a time. I know when i get a low floor ie flyer i can tell when i get off at the end of the day i had a low floor. High floor buses ride much better and are safer to me.

Now I don't speak for every single Mississauga Transit operator, but most prefer the D40LF/Rs over the Orion Vs. Especially the newest ones that have armrests, those Recaro seats are nice. Not like you really feel the bumps though either, unless of course you drive with your seat all the way down, even then it's not so bad. On the other hand a lot dislike the Orion VIs and VIIs though, but those are lemons anyway and you guys don't have any so it don't matter. :P

[Guest]

:lol:

Begin rant

How do you know high floor buses can take more abuse than low floor buses? Maybe they can last a few years longer, but fact is buses in the states aren't going to last for 25 years. I don't believe you're a mechanic or a structural specialist and neither am I, but look at the post above I made about the older D40LFs (1991-1996) in Canada that you have seemed to have overlooked. Look at Calgary's and Edmonton's D40LFs for an example which date from 1993-1994. They're still in service after 15-16 years of service. They go through harsh winter conditions too (worse than what Chicago gets) and they're still trucking.

Honestly, do you think for one second that all these TA's would be buying craploads of low floor buses if they aren't going to be safe for use on city streets? Look at the D40LF for example which has been in production since 1991 and god knows how many NFI has sold and it's without a doubt the most popular low floor bus on the market today.

Do you think low floors would be in such widespread use if they weren't safe? Do you think they would've passed the Altoona testing if there weren't? I sure the hell don't.

Fact is, low floors are tested and proven, so leave it at that.

End rant

Now I don't speak for every single Mississauga Transit operator, but most prefer the D40LF/Rs over the Orion Vs. Especially the newest ones that have armrests, those Recaro seats are nice. Not like you really feel the bumps though either, unless of course you drive with your seat all the way down, even then it's not so bad. On the other hand a lot dislike the Orion VIs and VIIs though, but those are lemons anyway and you guys don't have any so it don't matter.

Well Chicago is perfect testing grounds for low floor buses. Our proven history of high floor buses, they lasted much longer than our low floor bus fleet is lasting now. Yes, youre right Im not a mechanic but I am an experienced bus operator and thats all the expertise you need. The bus operator is the real expert in what works and what dosent, were the one driving the equipment from three to as much as ten hours. I have many years experience driving low floor buses including the Nabi buses Im operating currently. Ive driven CTAs first low floor buses, they rode terrible. Driving them on city streets or freeway operations they werent pleasant, you felt every bump and pothole. Maybe for Edmonton and Calgary they might be successful. But this is Chicago, these are real testing grounds. Altoona! give me a break! :lol:

[MT0851]

Well Chicago is perfect testing grounds for low floor buses. Our proven history of high floor buses, they lasted much longer than our low floor bus fleet is lasting now. Yes, youre right Im not a mechanic but I am an experienced bus operator and thats all the expertise you need. The bus operator is the real expert in what works and what dosent, were the one driving the equipment from three to as much as ten hours. I have many years experience driving low floor buses including the Nabi buses Im operating currently. Ive driven CTAs first low floor buses, they rode terrible. Driving them on city streets or freeway operations they werent pleasant, you felt every bump and pothole. Maybe for Edmonton and Calgary they might be successful. But this is Chicago, these are real testing grounds. Altoona! give me a break!

Haha, we'll see in a decade from now.

Our D40LFs from 2003 are holding up well at 6 years and drive and ride pretty well, they're doing good considering they're halfway through their life now.

[speedracer1407]

Well Chicago is perfect testing grounds for low floor buses. Our proven history of high floor buses, they lasted much longer than our low floor bus fleet is lasting now. Yes, youre right Im not a mechanic but I am an experienced bus operator and thats all the expertise you need. The bus operator is the real expert in what works and what dosent, were the one driving the equipment from three to as much as ten hours. I have many years experience driving low floor buses including the Nabi buses Im operating currently. Ive driven CTAs first low floor buses, they rode terrible. Driving them on city streets or freeway operations they werent pleasant, you felt every bump and pothole. Maybe for Edmonton and Calgary they might be successful. But this is Chicago, these are real testing grounds. Altoona! give me a break!

While I don't doubt your experience as an operator, it's not very reasonable to make assumptions about engineering and design when all you have is anecdotal evidence. I'm not trying to be a "prove it!" nazi, but noticing a difference in ride quality between various buses designed by different manufacturers in different decades is not "all the experience" you, or anyone else, needs to make assumptions about inherent deficiencies in a bus's design.

Perhaps it makes intuitive sense that a low-floor bus has less room for adequate suspension travel. I intuit the same thing. But intuition is far from adequate experience.

And consider this: the TMCs (as an example) were designed at a time when GM still had loads of capital to throw around and when labor was cheaper. As a result, it's equally intuitive to assume that the CTA's TMCs were a bit over-engineered; that is, engineered to exacting specification rather than engineered to a cost. In such a hypothetical case, the direct result could be a longer-lasting bus that feels more solid and softer-riding to the operator.

[twyztdmynd]

I believe CTA will assess which buses may be certified as safe to contnue operating. Buses that are unsafe would susbsequently be scrapped.

I agree with 5750. Look mat the 80's Grummans. A quick audit then back on the road.

[santran]

Well I will say this, I have been a driver for almost 15 years and I will take a NF low floor any day of the week. When I used to get a high floor my day was so long..waiting for the awful lift and for people who just need more time. I can not say I feel any different from driving one or the other, I just like my life to run a little smooth.

If CTA would take care of there equipment, and let me tell you they do not at all. 4033 today and already body damage. Things would last a lot longer and look good going down the street too!!

[sw4400]

If CTA would take care of there equipment, and let me tell you they do not at all. 4033 today and already body damage. Things would last a lot longer and look good going down the street too!!

Body damage??? These buses are leased!!! I remember back when they first started arriving, the CTA wouldn't re-send them back out without doing a complete inspection. Have they stopped doing this practice now?

[MT0851]

Body damage??? These buses are leased!!! I remember back when they first started arriving, the CTA wouldn't re-send them back out without doing a complete inspection. Have they stopped doing this practice now?

It doesn't matter as the fact is these buses aren't going to be going back to NFI. Plus body damage is common in the transit industry and is usually fixed easy enough (all depends on the severity), after all that's why TA's have body shops and bodymen.