New Eldorados?

[Busjack]

Just now, BusHunter said:

Just trying to make a point. It pertains to the subject of getting more seat room. If they had more room maybe the seats would be more comfortable. As far as not being able to use buses like that it sure doesn't stop them from running #215's and #213's with #6377's.

On the last, I don't see why NS has them at all except that apparently H has enough MICIs that it doesn't need them, and in fact that proves my point. Also, as I said before, they would just stick two more rows of seats there, so you don't get any more legroom.

[BusHunter]

While I'm coming up these weird thoughts, what is the difference between a Pace MCI and a double decker Megabus for instance? Seem like they are wasting the luggage space on a MCI bus. Would it be feasible to run double deckers? They can't have a clearance issue on the highway if Megabus don't, and you would think most suburban areas wouldn't have a conflict as long as the vehicles didn't come into the city. Freight and passenger rails for the most part are at grade. The real issue would be do they need the capacity of an artic? Maybe someday soon they might. The #600 before didn't run many passengers but lately I notice since they beefed it up the buses are more fuller. I even had one to capacity one day. One would think an expansion in terms of distance would increase the passenger volume, so maybe an Elgin-Rosemont bus would need greater capacity? If they could get the buses somehow in the city they would greatly benefit on Cubs Roundtrippers for instance as they seem full and they run around 10 buses.

[Busjack]

3 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

While I'm coming up these weird thoughts, what is the difference between a Pace MCI and a double decker Megabus for instance?

So far, the Megabus seems the better death trap.

Relatively speaking, the questions basically are capacity and deboarding time. You probably can also throw in artics, as, for instance Rochester RGRTA rain artics with suburban seating and luggage racks (but other than when the "Can of Worms" interchange between I-490 and I-590 was rebuilt, not for any particular reason). But that would bring up the FG/74 issue that Pace probably does not have the facilities to service them.

[artthouwill]

15 hours ago, BusHunter said:

While I'm coming up these weird thoughts, what is the difference between a Pace MCI and a double decker Megabus for instance? Seem like they are wasting the luggage space on a MCI bus. Would it be feasible to run double deckers? They can't have a clearance issue on the highway if Megabus don't, and you would think most suburban areas wouldn't have a conflict as long as the vehicles didn't come into the city. Freight and passenger rails for the most part are at grade. The real issue would be do they need the capacity of an artic? Maybe someday soon they might. The #600 before didn't run many passengers but lately I notice since they beefed it up the buses are more fuller. I even had one to capacity one day. One would think an expansion in terms of distance would increase the passenger volume, so maybe an Elgin-Rosemont bus would need greater capacity? If they could get the buses somehow in the city they would greatly benefit on Cubs Roundtrippers for instance as they seem full and they run around 10 buses.

The Megabuses I think you are referring to are Vanhool TD 925s.  They can seat 81 passengers. The European model seats more and they are a bit longer.  I believe that Alexander Dennis does transit versions of those,  and I believe that Las Vegas has them on the Strip Routes. The Issue with clearance  isn't so much viaduct as it would be trees.  The MCI D coach is something like 11 ft 5 inches whereas the TD model is 13 ft tall.  There are a few areas in the burbs where there are viaduct issues with taller vehicles.   Even those north side Red Line and UP North viaducts create challenges for those MCI D series coaches as well as the Prevost X3 -45 coach. 

 

[Busjack]

7 hours ago, artthouwill said:

TD model is 13 ft tall.

No, >14.*This has been discussed many times before with respect to viaduct clearances.

*Source: 4.4 meters is 14.4 ft.

 

7 hours ago, artthouwill said:

There are a few areas in the burbs where there are viaduct issues with taller vehicles.

BusHunter's assumption was based on expressway routes, although there could be a problem going from the Park and Ride to the expressway. While I assume that I-90  is bring rebuilt with adequate clearance, there might be a question whether it can get under the canopy in Rosemont.

[artthouwill]

2 hours ago, Busjack said:

No, >14.*This has been discussed many times before with respect to viaduct clearances.

*Source: 4.4 meters is 14.4 ft.

 

BusHunter's assumption was based on expressway routes, although there could be a problem going from the Park and Ride to the expressway. While I assume that I-90  is bring rebuilt with adequate clearance, there might be a question whether it can get under the canopy in Rosemont.

You quoted an Alexander Dennis spec sheet.  I said the TD model, which is a VanHool coach, is 13 ft tall.  According to the VanHool spec sheet, it is exactly 13 ft 1/16 inches tall.

As for the Alexanders, they are also offered in 3.9m and 4.2m heights in the U.S. as well.

[MetroShadow]

4 hours ago, Busjack said:

No, >14.*This has been discussed many times before with respect to viaduct clearances.

*Source: 4.4 meters is 14.4 ft.

 

BusHunter's assumption was based on expressway routes, although there could be a problem going from the Park and Ride to the expressway. While I assume that I-90  is bring rebuilt with adequate clearance, there might be a question whether it can get under the canopy in Rosemont.

I think the main question is, if/when they reconstruct the transit center, would the height be raised to fit taller buses…

[Busjack]

5 hours ago, MetroShadow said:

I think the main question is, if/when they reconstruct the transit center, would the height be raised to fit taller buses…

Considering that CTA owns it, I wouldn't bet on it.  Then one would then have to determine if the warehouse Pace intends to rent in East Dundee is tall enough. Anyway, it looks like we have gone too far off into the realm of fantasy.

[Busjack]

Press Release that the CNG buses will enter service this summer (not last Feb.)    although the fueling station is complete.

I supposed  one can infer what one wants from "and those savings will rise as other garages are converted to CNG operations in the future."

[BusHunter]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

Press Release that the CNG buses will enter service this summer (not last Feb.)    although the fueling station is complete.

I supposed  one can infer what one wants from "and those savings will rise as other garages are converted to CNG operations in the future."

Yeah, that last statement does raise questions. When south is complete with CNG equipment, and they do go to other garages, it sounds like it will be not with new buses as most of the up to 416 contract has been executed. This leads me to suspect possibly a CNG conversion is in the pipeline of existing buses. While that may sound like fantasy, DART claims it has retrofitted it's entire fleet to CNG, but granted they have purchased CNG buses new as well. I guess it basically comes down to is a conversion economically viable. I found a link that states all the north american TA's that provide eco friendly buses. 2 interesting things on the list, Santa Cruz, CA claims to still have diesel buses. Now who was it that told me Cali was exclusively CNG? 2nd I find it interesting that Indygo will purchase 21 all electric buses, received by the end of 2015, so they should already have them. This will make them the all electric fleet leader, maybe until CTA gets theirs. They do also state Pace has 108 solar shelters, which is interesting in itself. Here's the link

http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2015/Pages/150416_Earth-Day.aspx

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, BusHunter said:

it sounds like it will be not with new buses as most of the up to 416 contract has been executed. This leads me to suspect possibly a CNG conversion is in the pipeline of existing buses.

That's irrelevant, as the CNG buses are under a separate contract (410784) for the base order of 91 and options up to a total of 250. So, theoretically Pace can order another 159 CNGs on that contract.

[jajuan]

1 hour ago, BusHunter said:

Yeah, that last statement does raise questions. When south is complete with CNG equipment, and they do go to other garages, it sounds like it will be not with new buses as most of the up to 416 contract has been executed. This leads me to suspect possibly a CNG conversion is in the pipeline of existing buses. While that may sound like fantasy, DART claims it has retrofitted it's entire fleet to CNG, but granted they have purchased CNG buses new as well. I guess it basically comes down to is a conversion economically viable. I found a link that states all the north american TA's that provide eco friendly buses. 2 interesting things on the list, Santa Cruz, CA claims to still have diesel buses. Now who was it that told me Cali was exclusively CNG? 2nd I find it interesting that Indygo will purchase 21 all electric buses, received by the end of 2015, so they should already have them. This will make them the all electric fleet leader, maybe until CTA gets theirs. They do also state Pace has 108 solar shelters, which is interesting in itself. Here's the link

http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2015/Pages/150416_Earth-Day.aspx

Don't remember who gave the statement about Cali being exclusively CNG, but it would be more relevant to new bus purchases considering SF MUNI also still has diesel buses on its roster. California's TAs new bus purchases are almost exclusively for CNG buses per California's stricter fuel emission regulations. The exception to that trend is SF MUNI whose recent purchases have been hybrids as more of its diesels retire. Even still, beyond San Francisco California TA bus fleets are indeed overwhelmingly CNG overall with a shrinking diesel fleet in those few cities that still have totally diesel powered buses.

[BusHunter]

32 minutes ago, Busjack said:

That's irrelevant, as the CNG buses are under a separate contract (410784) for the base order of 91 and options up to a total of 250. So, theoretically Pace can order another 159 CNGs on that contract.

I didn't know the CNG contract had options, so technically they could do another garage. NW has 126 buses in it's garage. They've hinted they have wanted to build a new nw garage with a CNG facility, so that sounds like where they might go next if it ever gets built. Only problem is they would have to run 40 foot buses exclusively unless they drew up an eldorko CNG bid contract for smaller ones. West makes a good case too as it's mostly all 40 foot buses. If something happens to the NW garage project, I would suspect they could go there. There's no clearance issue with CNG's? Chicago has alot of viaducts.

[Busjack]

I was thinking more SW, as SW has become the FG of Pace, and NW has 84 new buses and is getting the Pulse ones and whatever is allocated to the I-90 project. I suppose they could bust up a fleet, like the 6600s by the 2600s, but wouldn't bet on it.

The clearance issue would be about the same as hybrids (need over 11 feet).

[BusHunter]

1 minute ago, Busjack said:

I was thinking more SW, as SW has become the FG of Pace, and NW has 84 new buses and is getting the Pulse ones and whatever is allocated to the I-90 project.

The clearance issue would be about the same as hybrids (need over 11 feet).

SW hasn't been mentioned, I always think of north as the fg of pace, at least sw has the #2800's. I don't know if two south side garages would fly as that's unbalanced. At least I can say for sure it's probably not north. It will be hard to make another garage completely CNG, but they could always alter the Pulse buses to run on CNG especially if they are only wrapped Pulse buses. I suspect the first buses anyway may only be wraps. We should have had heard of a bus contract for Pulse by now and we haven't and isn't that supposed to be in service by 2017? Pace is slowly getting alot on their plate to deal with, with the I-90 project and Pulse and the CNG buses and CNG expansion and this so far ghost (NW) garage.

[Busjack]

3 hours ago, BusHunter said:

they could always alter the Pulse buses to run on CNG especially if they are only wrapped Pulse buses. I suspect the first buses anyway may only be wraps. We should have had heard of a bus contract for Pulse by now and we haven't and isn't that supposed to be in service by 2017

The pictures on the Pulse page don't have a gas tank on the roof, and basically those can go under the existing 416 bus contract, since the only thing that seems different is the charging ports. Besides that, Pace has never announced the exercise of options. I bet those buses have already been ordered.

[BusHunter]

Here's an article on the Pace CNG's that goes into more detail on what they intend to improve in Markham as well as the economic figures of going with CNG. It is kind of interesting, for 50K a bus extra they intend to save 1 million in operation dollars. That actually sounds good. I wonder why CTA doesn't get on that bandwagon, but they have had problems with propane and explosive gases before. It's one way to go alternative fuels though and not break the bank or budget.

http://www.fleetsandfuels.com/fuels/cng/2016/4/pace-opts-for-cng-to-serve-chicagoland/

 

[Busjack]

2 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

Here's an article on the Pace CNG's that goes into more detail on what they intend to improve in Markham as well as the economic figures of going with CNG. It is kind of interesting, for 50K a bus extra they intend to save 1 million in operation dollars. That actually sounds good. I wonder why CTA doesn't get on that bandwagon, but they have had problems with propane and explosive gases before. It's one way to go alternative fuels though and not break the bank or budget.

http://www.fleetsandfuels.com/fuels/cng/2016/4/pace-opts-for-cng-to-serve-chicagoland/

 

Surprisingly, there's a lot more there than in the Pace press releases, including a picture of 15514 at the fueling station, and that Ozinga is providing the fueling station.

On the CTA issue, I think we previously discussed the low viaduct problem, and CNG is more volatile than propane.As pointed out various times by Pace, one has to retrofit the garages, including getting rid of all open flames (note the reference to a new water heater).

The other thing mentioned here and by Pace is "The new buses will replace the remaining diesels at Pace South Division." I wonder if that includes the 6379s. I was figuring that 91 would only cover the local buses.

[RJL6000]

On 9/15/2014 at 7:42 PM, ctrabs74 said:

 

I would hope that those are not the destination signs PACE is going with. I've never been a fan of TwinVision signs, but that's just me.

Those are not the destination signs that PACE is going with. Those signs were/are specific to the prototype #15500. I took a look at #15514 that's in the link to a more recent post. According to that picture, PACE is going with the exact same Luminator Horizon signs (with the full-line rear destination sign) that came with all of the ElDorado buses numbered #6377 and above. (This includes the production #15500, as well.)

[BusHunter]

I guess CTA is correct to stay away from natural gas or propane. I've been looking at some CNG fires on the net and basically it seems like once on fire the bus is dangerous to be around. The CNG tanks on the roof seem to have a cookoff time to when they'll explode and the fire dept seems to not really want to approach it too closely as a safety for their men. This one video below is especially troubling. The bus actually becomes a flamethrower incinerating anything in it's path. If this were to happen at a garage it has the potential to wipe out the whole garage, fleet and structure. The buses sound ok as long as their not on fire. I would recommend built in fire suppression, but that would probably be costly. Maybe in the engine areas and wheel wells, that would seem the most likely place a fire would start.

http://www.hazmatnation.com/cng-bus-fire-cng-vehicle-response-raw-video/#sthash.0P7r95ru.dpbs 

 

[Busjack]

5 hours ago, BusHunter said:

I've been looking at some CNG fires on the net and basically it seems like once on fire the bus is dangerous to be around.

Of course a site like that is going to overemphasize.*

There was a story last week about a car striking an LA bus and catching fire. While the KTLA video shows that the car fire burned the bus, there isn't any report of the bus exploding.

_______

*Is there a website for all the rear wheel well fires?

 

[BusHunter]

They claim there's a safety valve on the roof for the cng. But if everyone is so scared to approach it and put out the fire the safety burns away leaving it exposed. Same thing with a car fire eventually the gas tank explodes. 

On another site a fireman said "well the bus is lost so there is no reason to jeopardise my men" so I take it that the mentality is going to be the same among first responders.

[Busjack]

12 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

On another site a fireman said "well the bus is lost so there is no reason to jeopardise my men" so I take it that the mentality is going to be the same among first responders.

I don't think 5750 is going to agree with firemen won't do their job. Heck, they even poured water on 4333, which certainly was a lost cause once the CFD got there.

Like I said, the LA area has been CNG going back 20 years. If there are that many conflagrations that the LAFD won't touch, they should be easy to find. As this story points out, the 2 police officers didn't hesitate running toward the burning MB, even though it was impaled on a CNG bus.

Also, don't forget, CTA was using buses with hydrogen tanks on the roof. Can you spell Hindenburg?  Somehow, those 3 buses didn't become that.

[BusHunter]

2 hours ago, Busjack said:

I don't think 5750 is going to agree with firemen won't do their job. Heck, they even poured water on 4333, which certainly was a lost cause once the CFD got there.

Like I said, the LA area has been CNG going back 20 years. If there are that many conflagrations that the LAFD won't touch, they should be easy to find. As this story points out, the 2 police officers didn't hesitate running toward the burning MB, even though it was impaled on a CNG bus.

Also, don't forget, CTA was using buses with hydrogen tanks on the roof. Can you spell Hindenburg?  Somehow, those 3 buses didn't become that.

I never said they weren't doing their job, but they are trained what to do in a hazmat situation. If that is to sit by and not take unnecessary risks, so be it. #4333 is a bad comparison because it is not a cng bus. Look up the cng bus fire in illinois, there was one where the operator tried to put out the bus herself was unsuccessful, yet the bus was lost due to fire.

2 police officers may not be trained properly what to do in a hazmat situation unlike the FD. Show me a story where firemen rush in to save a bus. They would only do that if there was someone inside it. That's not the vibe I'm getting reading these stories.

Are you telling me you're going to compare the hindenburg's tank to one in a bus? That's like 100 times the size of a buses tank. That's like me comparing my auto's gas tank to one in a 747.

[Busjack]

13 hours ago, BusHunter said:

On another site a fireman said "well the bus is lost so there is no reason to jeopardise my men" so I take it that the mentality is going to be the same among first responders.

 

10 hours ago, BusHunter said:

never said they weren't doing their job, but they are trained what to do in a hazmat situation.

If the first one isn't saying that they aren't doing their jobs, it sure isn't saying anything else.

10 hours ago, BusHunter said:

#4333 is a bad comparison because it is not a cng bus

The 120 gallons of diesel could have blown, too. Not as volatile as CNG, but it can blow.

10 hours ago, BusHunter said:

That's like me comparing my auto's gas tank to one in a 747.

Remember what I just said above about 120 gallons of diesel fuel. And the MB's gas tank sure did a number on the LA bus--but that bus DID NOT explode.

Here's something else to consider: The major private garbage haulers around here (Advance, Groot, Waste Management, and, as mentioned in the cited article, Ozinga) use CNG trucks. Have there been mass explosions?

I'm convinced that you and sw relish predicting disasters. Yet neither one of you predicted the Forest Park or O'Hare ones in advance.