Artic Hybrids

[ChicagoNova]

I find it very interesting that all artics are hybrid (diesel-electric propulsion), but all 40 footers are just diesel-powered (except for 20 of them).

[Busjack]

I find it very interesting that all artics are hybrid (diesel-electric propulsion), but all 40 footers are just diesel-powered (except for 20 of them).

Not really. The initial contract for the 1050 was that 20 were to be hybrids to test them. When the 150 hybrid artics were leased, it was said that one reason was that there was only one breakdown on the 10 DE40LFs that had the GM-Allison system (apparently on a trip for the Olympic press entourage).

This isn't much different from when CTA ordered 65 5800s to test low floor, instead of ordering 395 low floor buses in 1995, staying, for the most part, with Flxs it knew.

I'm also sure that the main motivation for the 1050 order was to get rid of the about that number of 4400s, 5300s, and 5800s still remaining, and ordering hybrids would have made that cost 50% more, when they were scrounging for money to exercise the options, anyway. At least Pace was upfront about that motivation when Kirk complained.

[ChicagoNova]

Not really. The initial contract for the 1050 was that 20 were to be hybrids to test them. When the 150 hybrid artics were leased, it was said that one reason was that there was only one breakdown on the 10 DE40LFs that had the GM-Allison system (apparently on a trip for the Olympic press entourage).

This isn't much different from when CTA ordered 65 5800s to test low floor, instead of ordering 395 low floor buses in 1995, staying, for the most part, with Flxs it knew.

I'm also sure that the main motivation for the 1050 order was to get rid of the about that number of 4400s, 5300s, and 5800s still remaining, and ordering hybrids would have made that cost 50% more, when they were scrounging for money to exercise the options, anyway. At least Pace was upfront about that motivation when Kirk complained.

At the same time, something tells me, that if CTA EVER orders anymore new buses in the future, they probably won't be hybrid. I'm not sure.

[jajuan]

At the same time, something tells me, that if CTA EVER orders anymore new buses in the future, they probably won't be hybrid. I'm not sure.

Let's not get overly dramatic. They would have to order something at some point to keep the system going. It just probably won't be anytime in the near future. :lol:

[ChicagoNova]

Let's not get overly dramatic. They would have to order something at some point to keep the system going. It just probably won't be anytime in the near future.

No it won't.

[Busjack]

No it won't.

Well, the budget does say that they will have to think about replacing the Novas starting about 2013. Unless you are foreseeing another 480 bus drop in demand.

I wonder if they will then go back to New Flyer and say "now we are ready to sign that contract you announced in 2008. No price increase, huh?"

[jajuan]

No it won't.

Yes you seem to be forgetting the Novas would be up for retirement starting in three years. Yes CTA is having money problems but it's doubtful they can get very far without doing anything about the Novas.

[ChicagoNova]

Well, the budget does say that they will have to think about replacing the Novas starting about 2013. Unless you are foreseeing another 480 bus drop in demand.

I wonder if they will then go back to New Flyer and say "now we are ready to sign that contract you announced in 2008. No price increase, huh?"

I haven't really forgotten about the Novas that came out beginning in December 2000. Now as for replacing them, I'm kinda wondering what with. Can't tell if the new 40 footers are going to be hybrid or not, but if it were up to me, I would go for New Flyer DE40LFRs. Just my opinion. Not everybody will agree.

[ChicagoNova]

Yes you seem to be forgetting the Novas would be up for retirement starting in three years. Yes CTA is having money problems but it's doubtful there's going they can get very far without doing anything about the Novas.

I haven't really forgotten about the Novas that came out beginning in December 2000. Now as for replacing them, I'm kinda wondering what with. Can't tell if the new 40 footers are going to be hybrid or not, but if it were up to me, I would go for New Flyer DE40LFRs. Just my opinion. Not everybody will agree.

[chitowndude84]

Well, the budget does say that they will have to think about replacing the Novas starting about 2013. Unless you are foreseeing another 480 bus drop in demand.

I wonder if they will then go back to New Flyer and say "now we are ready to sign that contract you announced in 2008. No price increase, huh?"

We can all safely say they won't be calling up NABI to replace them LMAO

YES !! No more water dripping on me when I ride in a artic

[jacksone44]

TerranceMuellner042209.pdfAttached is a presentation that Terrance Muellner (CTA's Chief Mechanical Officer) did on Alternative Fuels last year. Page 10 offers a clue of what could be coming next.

[Busjack]

TerranceMuellner042209.pdfAttached is a presentation that Terrance Muellner (CTA's Chief Mechanical Officer) did on Alternative Fuels last year. Page 10 offers a clue of what could be coming next.

Except that page 10 refers to the 140 artic contract that has been in limbo, and the current budget has no indication of exercising it. All it supports is that, like the 20 DE40LFs, CTA might be interested in a few small scale trials.

Also, ChicagoNova assumes too much in assuming that 40 foot Novas would be replaced by 40 foot buses.

[ChicagoNova]

Except that page 10 refers to the 140 artic contract that has been in limbo, and the current budget has no indication of exercising it. All it supports is that, like the 20 DE40LFs, CTA might be interested in a few small scale trials.

Also, ChicagoNova assumes too much in assuming that 40 foot Novas would be replaced by 40 foot buses.

Not really, Busjack. 40 footers being replaced by 40 footers is my first thought. Of course some 40 footers might be replaced by 60 footers as well, but I still remember hearing about every 3 40 footers being replaced by every 2 60 footers, meaning we may have a bit more artics running around; more routes seeing artics.

[jajuan]

Well considering there's already been a recent scale back I really don't see anywhere else artics can go. Plus some or the routes they've gone to depending on day of the week don't need them all day (a couple of examples, I don't really see the need for 12 and 82 to be exclusively artic all or most of the day on a Saturday when at quite a number of times they can run close to empty but 6 and 14 may get away with it though not by much with 14 having gotten by with 1000s only when weekends were still done only with 40 footers). So I really don't by into the 3 for 4 or 2 for 3 artic to 40 foot tradeoff anymore not that I did to begin with.

[Busjack]

... So I really don't by into the 3 for 4 or 2 for 3 artic to 40 foot tradeoff anymore not that I did to begin with.

My original thought was that if they were taking equipment off the system because they had to take employees off the system, and it still takes an integral number of driver to operate a bus, it still would seem to make sense to replace 40 footers with 60 footers if the buses are still crowded. However, given the CTA report that bus ridership is down, and since that was a January report, that was before the cutbacks, no one knows. Certainly no one knows if service levels will rebound any time before the Novas would start to be eligible for replacement, either. I was just saying that one can't assume what would be needed in 2013, especially since CTA has sent us in various wrong directions before (i.e., did Huberman know when the pressed for the bus lease in late 2007 that the NABIs would bite it in 2009, and hence b.s.ed the board and us on the 3 for 4 replacement, which ChicagoNova remembered).

[chgofan78]

Well considering there's already been a recent scale back I really don't see anywhere else artics can go. Plus some or the routes they've gone to depending on day of the week don't need them all day (a couple of examples, I don't really see the need for 12 and 82 to be exclusively artic all or most of the day on a Saturday when at quite a number of times they can run close to empty but 6 and 14 may get away with it though not by much with 14 having gotten by with 1000s only when weekends were still done only with 40 footers). So I really don't by into the 3 for 4 or 2 for 3 artic to 40 foot tradeoff anymore not that I did to begin with.

One can only imagine how things would be if the NABIs didn't bite the dust. The CTA would have had over 350 artics in their possession. I think every garage would have artics assigned to them and probably half of weekend service over the system would be artics.

[jajuan]

My original thought was that if they were taking equipment off the system because they had to take employees off the system, and it still takes an integral number of driver to operate a bus, it still would seem to make sense to replace 40 footers with 60 footers if the buses are still crowded. However, given the CTA report that bus ridership is down, and since that was a January report, that was before the cutbacks, no one knows. Certainly no one knows if service levels will rebound any time before the Novas would start to be eligible for replacement, either. I was just saying that one can't assume what would be needed in 2013, especially since CTA has sent us in various wrong directions before (i.e., did Huberman know when the pressed for the bus lease in late 2007 that the NABIs would bite it in 2009, and hence b.s.ed the board and us on the 3 for 4 replacement, which ChicagoNova remembered).

Well I don't think we were necessarily b.s.ed about anything as far as the original intent of the artic hybrids are concerned in that how the NABI situation played out, they really became a major headache for them a year later with the high maintenance times and increasing number of maintenance visits before the ultimate failure leading to their removal and there were actual real plans to use them for the now defunct BRT plan. And you're right that we don't know what the needs will be as far as replacements for Novas. My point is having needed to streamline service I don't see an efficient use for more artics when there is fumbling on what to do with what's already here.

[Busjack]

Well I don't think we were necessarily b.s.ed about anything as far as the original intent of the artic hybrids are concerned in that how the NABI situation played out, they really became a major headache for them a year later with the high maintenance times and increasing number of maintenance visits before the ultimate failure leading to their removal and there were actual real plans to use them for the now defunct BRT plan. ...

Which gets me to something I have been sitting on for a while. I'm not sure about your antecedents, but it was the 58 DE60LFs+ that were supposed to be used for the defunct BRT.

Now, the CTA has also noted that it was WMATA options that were used to buy the 58 with stimulus money, not King County Metro options.

Since the BRTs were supposed to have special branding, is that an indication that they would have been something other than the flat faced buses the 58 turned out to be? We will never know, and thus, given our past inability to psychoanalyze the CTA, I'm not going to go much further there.*

As far as predicting 3 years in the future, not only will I not bet on funding or passenger demand, but also not on technology, which basically was the premise for this thread. I don't know what the technology will be in 3 years, but, if something like (1) the Designline test in New York gets the 8 mpg claimed while CTA hybrids get 3.6, or (2) Daimler is successful in its Mercedes S Class becoming a hybrid with a lithium ion battery the same size as a normal car battery, anything is possible. Just like the tin can bus is now out of style, the ones with large battery packs on the top may soon also well be.

_________________

*Except to say that there were rumors here about the upcoming demise of the NABIs about 6 months before 7542 split in Feb. 2009, and when that finally was reported, it was reported that Huberman was negotiating with the feds, again, starting about Sept. 2008. Hence, what he knew in Nov. 2007 isn't that farfetched of a question.

+ Goof subsequently caught by jajuan corrected.

[jajuan]

Which gets me to something I have been sitting on for a while. I'm not sure about your antecedents, but it was the 58 DE60LFs that were supposed to be used for the defunct BRT.

Now, the CTA has also noted that it was WMATA options that were used to buy the 58 with stimulus money, not King County Metro options.

Since the BRTs were supposed to have special branding, is that an indication that they would have been something other than the flat faced buses the 58 turned out to be? We will never know, and thus, given our past inability to psychoanalyze the CTA, I'm not going to go much further there.*

As far as predicting 3 years in the future, not only will I not bet on funding or passenger demand, but also not on technology, which basically was the premise for this thread. I don't know what the technology will be in 3 years, but, if something like (1) the Designline test in New York gets the 8 mpg claimed while CTA hybrids get 3.6, or (2) Daimler is successful in its Mercedes S Class becoming a hybrid with a lithium ion battery the same size as a normal car battery, anything is possible. Just like the tin can bus is now out of style, the ones with large battery packs on the top may soon also well be.

_________________

*Except to say that there were rumors here about the upcoming demise of the NABIs about 6 months before 7542 split in Feb. 2009, and when that finally was reported, it was reported that Huberman was negotiating with the feds, again, starting about Sept. 2008. Hence, what he knew in Nov. 2007 isn't that farfetched of a question.

Yes it was the stimulus 58 that were meant for BRT and if I recall, originally those were the only additional artics CTA initially was going to get which is what I was referring to by 'original intent' as far as the hybrid artics are concerned. And given we're talking about a span of 10 months between Nov. 2007 and Sept. 2008 which is plenty of time for anything to occur, I'd say it's pushing it unless you want to suggest he was deliberately putting the public at risk. On that particular issue, I look at Huberman negotiating pulling those lemons that public safety was being looked at.

[Busjack]

... I'd say it's pushing it unless you want to suggest he was deliberately putting the public at risk. On that particular issue, I look at Huberman negotiating pulling those lemons that public safety was being looked at.

The question is how much risk. Obviously they were willing to negotiate, but not disclose those negotiations to the public, until one cracked, and Rodriguez then had little choice. One could argue that on the basis of public risk, Kruesi's crew should never have "conditionally accepted" them in 2003-2005, to begin with, in that the Altoona test at least set off a warning bell, but not a sufficient one to get CTA to tell NABI to stop production until the problems were addressed, instead of CTA taking the buses but withholding final payment.

[jajuan]

The question is how much risk. Obviously they were willing to negotiate, but not disclose those negotiations to the public, until one cracked, and Rodriguez then had little choice. One could argue that on the basis of public risk, Kruesi's crew should never have "conditionally accepted" them in 2003-2005, to begin with, in that the Altoona test at least set off a warning bell, but not a sufficient one to get CTA to tell NABI to stop production until the problems were addressed, instead of CTA taking the buses but withholding final payment.

Perhaps. That's assuming that it can be definitively said it was known one could crack and crack so badly. Trust me you get no disagreement that Kruesi never should have approved contract on such a little tested vehicle. And problem is if there was suspicion of risk, there was little those after Kruesi could really do until an adequate number of artics were around to replace the NABIs. There still were so few of them here even by the time of the NABIs being pulled. So think about how much their hands were tied in Sept 2008 let alone Feb of the year before.