More Bus Moves

[garmon757]

Who likes to spend a lot of money on rent? 

http://chicagoist.com/2016/05/17/rents_go_up_to_3900_a_month_at_loga.php#photo-1

[Busjack]

16 minutes ago, garmon757 said:

Who likes to spend a lot of money on rent? 

http://chicagoist.com/2016/05/17/rents_go_up_to_3900_a_month_at_loga.php#photo-1

It sure ain't the same view of the L that Elwood Blues had from his flophouse.

[wordguy]

2 hours ago, dann said:

1944 is now on #70; I remember seeing it on #4 last week.

It looks as if 1935 has migrated as well.  It's operating on Grand Avenue as I write.  There may be a few other transplants, too.

[sw4400]

7 hours ago, jajuan said:

 

I gotta agree with BH's last point. With all the new runs coming to south side routes, the #26 in particular since it's relevant to 103rd, they can't just take that many buses from 103rd. Remember something would have to replace those 125 buses you keep holding out for SW. And with those new runs set to come on the south side in addition to the #11 expansion and the ongoing retirements of 6400s, I frankly don't see CTA being able to spare 125 NFs to place in FG. I'm seeing them not going much farther than 45 NFs for FG in the immediate future with so much else going on in bus operations. I also agree with Andre in questioning whose idea it was to consolidate single number blocks of NFs per garage as well as who approved it for much the same reasons as wordguy outlined. The garages do in fact fluctuate bus needs from season to season, and a ridiculous number of swaps would be needed to accommodate those minor and simple fluctuations and keep single contiguous blocks in place, and that's not counting the restrictions TSP will put on 74th and NP NF assignments once those are done to take care of Western Avenue being TSP equipped by the end of the year.

Can FG run with a fleet of less than 175 buses? It seems like a low amount of equipment with routes such as #76, #77, #78, #80, #85, #90, #91, #92, and #152. That's why I think at a minimum 200 buses might be prudent to have.

[BusHunter]

2 hours ago, wordguy said:

It looks as if 1935 has migrated as well.  It's operating on Grand Avenue as I write.  There may be a few other transplants, too.

#1931 has gone to C also. Just for clarity #1965 is still at np.

2 hours ago, sw4400 said:

Can FG run with a fleet of less than 175 buses? It seems like a low amount of equipment with routes such as #76, #77, #78, #80, #85, #90, #91, #92, and #152. That's why I think at a minimum 200 buses might be prudent to have.

Probably not, 230 might be more realistic if most of the equipment were new. 70 #1000's and 150 #7900's would get you close, but they'll probably still end up with at least 30 #6800's. That would put them still at 250.

[wordguy]

4 hours ago, sw4400 said:

Can FG run with a fleet of less than 175 buses? It seems like a low amount of equipment with routes such as #76, #77, #78, #80, #85, #90, #91, #92, and #152. That's why I think at a minimum 200 buses might be prudent to have.

200 wouldn't be nearly enough.  Remember, FG annexed some additional land in order to accommodate reassignment of the #76 there. Long before the 6400s began aging out, FG never operated with less than 235 buses;  and that was after the 2010 service cuts and before the addition of the #76.  I'd assume that FG would require at least 250 buses in order to maintain a normal schedule in addition to a decent spare ratio.  That's especially true, given that some 6400s are likely to continue operating for a while.

[BusHunter]

3 hours ago, wordguy said:

It looks as if 1935 has migrated as well.  It's operating on Grand Avenue as I write.  There may be a few other transplants, too.

#1930 was on the #74 yesterday. #1939 on the #74. #1929 was on the #73 sunday afternoon. These #1900's were a weekend transfer and nobody caught it until today. Your fired, everyone's freakin' fired!! (before hitting the link viewers discretion is advised)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp_gfjwfpJg

[BusHunter]

9 minutes ago, wordguy said:

200 wouldn't be nearly enough.  Remember, FG annexed some additional land in order to accommodate reassignment of the #76 there. Long before the 6400s began aging out, FG never operated with less than 235 buses;  and that was after the 2010 service cuts and before the addition of the #76.  I'd assume that FG would require at least 250 buses in order to maintain a normal schedule in addition to a decent spare ratio.  That's especially true, given that some 6400s are likely to continue operating for a while.

Although they are not really using the annexed land just for the 3rd lot and that belongs to the taxi company that was there.

[BusHunter]

4 hours ago, garmon757 said:

Who likes to spend a lot of money on rent? 

http://chicagoist.com/2016/05/17/rents_go_up_to_3900_a_month_at_loga.php#photo-1

Why would someone ride CTA that can afford to pay 3,900 a month? They claim this is a transit oriented development. Sounds like a Tesla community to me. Maybe they should put in some affordable housing units on the "L" car they have.

[garmon757]

4 hours ago, Busjack said:

It sure ain't the same view of the L that Elwood Blues had from his flophouse.

Awww hell naw!!!

 

23 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

Why would someone ride CTA that can afford to pay 3,900 a month? They claim this is a transit oriented development. Sounds like a Tesla community to me. Maybe they should put in some affordable housing units on the "L" car they have.

The question is, WHY LOGAN SQUARE?!?!?!? Maybe Emmanuel has something to do with the rent!

[BusHunter]

That's not the safest area either especially at night. If I'm paying money like that I'm living on the gold coast or north shore, where I can at least go out at night and not get shot or something. You realize someone can buy property for half a million and not make those payments. Paying rent at those prices is delusional. People could have so much more for their money. Now you know at least why they build these buildings. To make denero. As long as someone buys it they will continue to make more.

[garmon757]

44 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

That's not the safest area either especially at night. If I'm paying money like that I'm living on the gold coast or north shore, where I can at least go out at night and not get shot or something. You realize someone can buy property for half a million and not make those payments. Paying rent at those prices is delusional. People could have so much more for their money. Now you know at least why they build these buildings. To make denero. As long as someone buys it they will continue to make more.

Welcome to a biased city when it comes to geographical preferences.

[garmon757]

2 hours ago, BusHunter said:

#1930 was on the #74 yesterday. #1939 on the #74. #1929 was on the #73 sunday afternoon. These #1900's were a weekend transfer and nobody caught it until today. Your fired, everyone's freakin' fired!! (before hitting the link viewers discretion is advised)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp_gfjwfpJg

You're fired too for informing us late!!!!

[Busjack]

9 hours ago, BusHunter said:

That's not the safest area either especially at night. If I'm paying money like that I'm living on the gold coast or north shore, where I can at least go out at night and not get shot or something. You realize someone can buy property for half a million and not make those payments. Paying rent at those prices is delusional. People could have so much more for their money. Now you know at least why they build these buildings. To make denero. As long as someone buys it they will continue to make more.

There is a belief that some millennials want to work downtown instead of in Northfield, and would rather take the L than the 626 bus, Skokie Swift and Red Line. It is up to the developers to make those decisions, and if they goofed, the property will be in foreclosure.

If someone wants to build cheap, there is plenty of TOD suitable land in the Washington Park neighborhood. But nobody is building there.

[BusHunter]

#1945 is on the #70 this morning. Sounds like Chicago has all the buses now in the #1929 - #1945 range. #1936 and #1941 have not been in service though since the weekend.

[jajuan]

15 hours ago, sw4400 said:

Can FG run with a fleet of less than 175 buses? It seems like a low amount of equipment with routes such as #76, #77, #78, #80, #85, #90, #91, #92, and #152. That's why I think at a minimum 200 buses might be prudent to have.

My point was the remaining 6400s there aren't going to be retiring all that fast, so for the time being I don't see NFs there getting anywhere close to 100-plus just yet. The current 41 NFs so far seemed to be to replace the worst of the worst 6400s that were there, similar to 74th getting its first 30 NFs years ago because about that many 6000s were beyond repair. Plus don't forget at least 30 6400s have to stay around since CTA used that as justification to repurposing a grant from converting clean diesel artics to hybrids to getting about 30 more electric buses instead.

49 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

#1945 is on the #70 this morning. Sounds like Chicago has all the buses now in the #1929 - #1945 range. #1936 and #1941 have not been in service though since the weekend.

If Chicago got more 1900s, it's hard to see NP being the garage to have all of the Allisons at the end of the swapocalypse as was speculated.

[sw4400]

1 hour ago, jajuan said:

My point was the remaining 6400s there aren't going to be retiring all that fast, so for the time being I don't see NFs there getting anywhere close to 100-plus just yet. The current 41 NFs so far seemed to be to replace the worst of the worst 6400s that were there, similar to 74th getting its first 30 NFs years ago because about that many 6000s were beyond repair. Plus don't forget at least 30 6400s have to stay around since CTA used that as justification to repurposing a grant from converting clean diesel artics to hybrids to getting about 30 more electric buses instead.

Will the 30 Novas last until those buses come in though? Currently, the "newest" ones are 14 years old. They haven't had any mid-life rehabs, just touch-ups as needed. Would the CTA sink any money for a life extending rehab on 30 14-year old buses just to get them to last 2-3 more years? BusHunter reported #6784 being stuck out of gear and not able to move(trans failure?). Nothing any Bus Operator or the Supervisor tried got it going again. These 2nd-Gen Novas(6709-6883) have to be north of 500,000 miles now. Transmissions are going to need to be replaced/rebuilt as well as major engine components(or the air brakes could fail like #6573, a 1st Gen Nova though nonetheless, did while operating on the #152), otherwise the bus may fail at any given time on a route, stranding riders until the next bus and putting it out of service until the parts are acquired to make the bus road-capable again.

[BusHunter]

1 hour ago, sw4400 said:

Will the 30 Novas last until those buses come in though? Currently, the "newest" ones are 14 years old. They haven't had any mid-life rehabs, just touch-ups as needed. Would the CTA sink any money for a life extending rehab on 30 14-year old buses just to get them to last 2-3 more years? BusHunter reported #6784 being stuck out of gear and not able to move(trans failure?). Nothing any Bus Operator or the Supervisor tried got it going again. These 2nd-Gen Novas(6709-6883) have to be north of 500,000 miles now. Transmissions are going to need to be replaced/rebuilt as well as major engine components(or the air brakes could fail like #6573, a 1st Gen Nova though nonetheless, did while operating on the #152), otherwise the bus may fail at any given time on a route, stranding riders until the next bus and putting it out of service until the parts are acquired to make the bus road-capable again.

Well #6814 which was at the rodeo had 415K, back in Sept '14. On average the buses seem to be doing 33K a year. Doing the math would put that bus around 465K today and we can assume the higher ones have a few less miles, maybe some more and the lower ones more. Like #6550 which was around in 4/2001 is probably pushing 500K as we speak. Keeping those around another 3 or more years, depending on when the electrics show up could add 100K to those totals. One thing that is positive is that if they only ran those in the rush, they would probably be lucky to do a third of their miles. So possibly they might still get away with no bus exceeding 600K.

[BusHunter]

3 hours ago, jajuan said:

My point was the remaining 6400s there aren't going to be retiring all that fast, so for the time being I don't see NFs there getting anywhere close to 100-plus just yet. The current 41 NFs so far seemed to be to replace the worst of the worst 6400s that were there, similar to 74th getting its first 30 NFs years ago because about that many 6000s were beyond repair. Plus don't forget at least 30 6400s have to stay around since CTA used that as justification to repurposing a grant from converting clean diesel artics to hybrids to getting about 30 more electric buses instead.

If Chicago got more 1900s, it's hard to see NP being the garage to have all of the Allisons at the end of the swapocalypse as was speculated.

Only thing with the #1900's not going to np is why did chicago get the #1750's and the low #1800's? I'm still not convinced np won't be getting the #1900's. When we see #1947 or #1961 or #1965 going to Chicago then maybe I'll agree with you on that statement.

[wordguy]

4 hours ago, sw4400 said:

Will the 30 Novas last until those buses come in though? Currently, the "newest" ones are 14 years old. They haven't had any mid-life rehabs, just touch-ups as needed. Would the CTA sink any money for a life extending rehab on 30 14-year old buses just to get them to last 2-3 more years? BusHunter reported #6784 being stuck out of gear and not able to move(trans failure?). Nothing any Bus Operator or the Supervisor tried got it going again. These 2nd-Gen Novas(6709-6883) have to be north of 500,000 miles now. Transmissions are going to need to be replaced/rebuilt as well as major engine components(or the air brakes could fail like #6573, a 1st Gen Nova though nonetheless, did while operating on the #152), otherwise the bus may fail at any given time on a route, stranding riders until the next bus and putting it out of service until the parts are acquired to make the bus road-capable again.

Unless FG receives more NFs,  it looks to me as if the number of old Novas needed for continuing service might be more like 85. (125 new Novas & 41 NFs = 166.)  85 old Novas would bring FG's roster total to 251.  I don't believe FG could maintain normal schedules with any less.  Hopefully, as BH suggested in a recent post, most of the oldies could be limited to rush-hour service.

[jajuan]

3 hours ago, BusHunter said:

Only thing with the #1900's not going to np is why did chicago get the #1750's and the low #1800's? I'm still not convinced np won't be getting the #1900's. When we see #1947 or #1961 or #1965 going to Chicago then maybe I'll agree with you on that statement.

I'm partially being a bit facetious in that statement because they're already showing themselves to have made some rear end backwards moves that's caused some unnecessary swap moves beyond the moves they already need to do to consolidate fleet numbers in contiguous blocks like having had 103rd consolidated only to send more NFs to FG and thus pull more buses from 77th with a possibility that there may still be more on the way to FG. So basically they've already proven wordguy's point about a simple move transfer of five buses to another garage instantly needing to initiate moves at three or more other garages instead of it being between just two as would mostly be the case.The moving of 1750s as well as some Allison 1900s to Chicago appears to be more of that drift into backward thinking. Even if the supposition that NP is going to be the garage to have the Allisons eventually turns out to be correct, Garmon and I already discussed yesterday that it's still going to take backwards thinking swaps because of the fact of NP having a large number of the the 1700s and Chicago having a larger number of the the Allison buses.

 

[wordguy]

9 hours ago, BusHunter said:

Only thing with the #1900's not going to np is why did chicago get the #1750's and the low #1800's? I'm still not convinced np won't be getting the #1900's. When we see #1947 or #1961 or #1965 going to Chicago then maybe I'll agree with you on that statement.

If my memory serves me, temporary moves have been made during past swapocolypses.  Unless the CTA doesn't follow through with this single-series-per-garage numbering scheme,  the 1750s will probably move on to North Park.

 

6 hours ago, jajuan said:

I'm partially being a bit facetious in that statement because they're already showing themselves to have made some rear end backwards moves that's caused some unnecessary swap moves beyond the moves they already need to do to consolidate fleet numbers in contiguous blocks like having had 103rd consolidated only to send more NFs to FG and thus pull more buses from 77th with a possibility that there may still be more on the way to FG. So basically they've already proven wordguy's point about a simple move transfer of five buses to another garage instantly needing to initiate moves at three or more other garages instead of it being between just two as would mostly be the case.The moving of 1750s as well as some Allison 1900s to Chicago appears to be more of that drift into backward thinking. Even if the supposition that NP is going to be the garage to have the Allisons eventually turns out to be correct, Garmon and I already discussed yesterday that it's still going to take backwards thinking swaps because of the fact of NP having a large number of the the 1700s and Chicago having a larger number of the the Allison buses.

 

10-4 on the backward thinking,  probably regarding the 1750s.  But who knows for sure.  Logically it does make sense that Chicago would keep the Allisons.  C would probably need most of the low-1900 non-Allisons, too.

[BusHunter]

Regardless this is going to end up North Park and Chicago as the last two garages who need to swap, so they might as well get both type of buses there #1700's and #1900's. Then they can just do a two garage swap. 

You know how in rail they have bloated fleets. If somehow with the buses they could have a bloated fleet, they could actually make the garages stable so they wouldn't have to swap each pick. Back in the day fleets were more stable. They have land at least at Fg, chicago, 74th, 77th, 103rd that they could use. Only at Kedzie and NP they might have crowded related issues. But this would require they buy more buses or keep more.

[jajuan]

9 hours ago, BusHunter said:

Regardless this is going to end up North Park and Chicago as the last two garages who need to swap, so they might as well get both type of buses there #1700's and #1900's. Then they can just do a two garage swap. 

You know how in rail they have bloated fleets. If somehow with the buses they could have a bloated fleet, they could actually make the garages stable so they wouldn't have to swap each pick. Back in the day fleets were more stable. They have land at least at Fg, chicago, 74th, 77th, 103rd that they could use. Only at Kedzie and NP they might have crowded related issues. But this would require they buy more buses or keep more.

In NP's case when it comes to the space issue, its layout and the fact that it has the most artics among the artic garages probably come into play as it's rated capacity is 440 standard size buses. Its 129 artics take up the space of about 193 standards. It has 155 actual standards on average so that's 348 buses worth of space it would use if all buses were parked. It should theoretically still have space for 92 more buses, but if you're saying space is a problem for them like at Kedzie then the layout of land use currently must be part of the issue. Though I think a big part of stability issue among garage assignments is in part from CTA closing and scrapping Archer and leaving the remaining seven garages to carry on the slack. Yes there was a service cut at the time, but there were still some heavy routes from Archer for the other garages to swallow in and the stabilization of operating funds since then have caused some increases back from those cuts ranging from shrinking headway times to restoration of routes and route portions that further strain capacities at garages. Without those factors, Archer's closing has had CTA trying to find the right balance of deadhead distance against capacity usage for assigned routes among the remaining garages.

[BusHunter]

Basically then it comes down to reassigning some routes then from Kedzie to other places. Then they might actually be able to maintain a bloated fleet, but your correct they do need another garage. I don't see why they couldn't just assign more to 77th, if it has a 400 bus capacity, why not use the space? (They already seem to be doing that in a limited fashion.) Then if you take from 74th you could ripple down the extra space to take away from Kedzie, then possibly you could bloat all the garages because Kedzie wouldn't have as many routes assigned.