2012 40'/60' Procurement

[Busjack]

I'm thinking the 8000 series is also the likely candidate. One other possiblity I can think of however is 0001-0300 (0.5% chance?)....

Although I have said before that this is a worthless exercise, CTA isn't Boston, with leading zeros. Never had them, and the only 1 and 2 digit buses were reassigned numbers for Evanston in the 70s.

I have my 2 bets, one of which sw considered, but as jajuan pointed out...

[sw4400]

Well buses numbered 4333 and up currently on the roster aren't hybrids, so your personal thought of them assigning fleet numbers based on the bus being a hybrid is already thrown out of whack already anyway...

Actually, if you read this highlighted section of my comment earlier...

My biggest wonder if fleet number for them... If I had to break it down percent-wise and reason(s) why/why not...

• 4400(10% Chance)- I don't really think this number series will be used as 4000-4207, 4300-4399 have been used for Hybrid Articulateds and Clean Diesel Articulateds. CTA pretty much wants the 4000 number block for Articulateds, I believe.

I mention that the 4000's number block has been used for Hybrid Artics and Clean Diesel Artics, referencing that this block of numbers appears destined to be held for Articulateds only(both Hybrid and Clean Diesel), Like CTA did back in the 1970's to present with the Articulated M.A.N buses and NABI Articulated buses(7000-7019, 7100-7224, 7300-7413, 7500-7725), the entire 7000-Series number block was held for Articulated buses. The only exception to the rule was the Compobus(7800), but I always thought of this bus as a Hybrid Ariculated, in the sense not that it was a Diesel-Electric or a Clean Diesel Bus(It used a Cummins engine, perhaps an ISM as the Detroit Series-50 was pretty much discontinued by mid-2000), but it was a Hybrid Articulated because it was not a 40' bus or a 60' bus, but right in the middle at 45'.

Now before I get a reference reminder about the GM Fishbowls, that just occurred to me, but the 7400's were already numbered and on Chicago's streets before the M.A.N Articulated orders started to roll in here around 1979(the Fishbowls in this set came in 1973). This was the only one exception I've seen, but I don't think the CTA would re-number 545 Fishbowls just for the Articulated family coming in.

[jajuan]

Actually, if you read this highlighted section of my comment earlier...

I mention that the 4000's number block has been used for Hybrid Artics and Clean Diesel Artics, referencing that this block of numbers appears destined to be held for Articulateds only(both Hybrid and Clean Diesel), Like CTA did back in the 1970's to present with the Articulated M.A.N buses and NABI Articulated buses(7000-7019, 7100-7224, 7300-7413, 7500-7725), the entire 7000-Series number block was held for Articulated buses. The only exception to the rule was the Compobus(7800), but I always thought of this bus as a Hybrid Ariculated, in the sense not that it was a Diesel-Electric or a Clean Diesel Bus(It used a Cummins engine, perhaps an ISM as the Detroit Series-50 was pretty much discontinued by mid-2000), but it was a Hybrid Articulated because it was not a 40' bus or a 60' bus, but right in the middle at 45'.

Now before I get a reference reminder about the GM Fishbowls, that just occurred to me, but the 7400's were already numbered and on Chicago's streets before the M.A.N Articulated orders started to roll in here around 1979(the Fishbowls in this set came in 1973). This was the only one exception I've seen, but I don't think the CTA would re-number 545 Fishbowls just for the Articulated family coming in.

And all of that only further proves my point that CTA pretty much assigns vehicle fleet numbers at random regardless of engine type or vehicle length when it comes to buses as long as the fleet number is available. About the only true pattern they've held themselves to is they don't use the same numbers for buses and rail cars simultaneously. For example, they are able to use 5300-5714 for railcars because the 5300-series Flxible buses have been gone for four years. And there is even a spark of possibility that they could decide to use 3500-3949 because no railcars occupy those numbers currently. Before you mention the 3200-series cars or highest number 2600-series cars already being revenue vehicles with fleet numbers 3xxx, I remind you that the highest 1000-series NF buses have been 2xxx vehicles at the same time as the now retired 2200-series and soon to be retired 2400-series railcars.

[sw4400]

3500 is a number series I didn't think about, jajuan. That's a possibility that ranks up there with 8000 and 9000 now. Might even be a little higher now...

The New Flyers end at 2029, so there wouldn't have been any cross-fleet intertwining unless the 2000-Series railcars were still in use in 2009. The 2600-Series, like the 2400-Series, keep the railcar family flow of number series continuous. The 2400's end with 2599-2600(railcars usually end with xx-odd, xx-even, with the exception being 3457, which is the official end of the 3200's), the 2600's begin with 2601-2602(all railcars begin xx01-xx02) and end with 3199-3200 and the 3200's begin with 3201-3202. CTA knew the 5300's would be retired long before the 5000's got to their number block, which should be by late Winter/ early Spring 2014 at the latest. I think the CTA avoided the 6000-Series number block for the yet-to-be awarded or built series of railcars for this reason in 2016. I can't think of any other reason, the Flxibles that were in this block were retired a few years back and the NOVA LFS buses in this block will be retired soon, leaving them open for use. I don't think the CTA retired this block from railcar use because of the history of the nostalgic history of the 6000's back in the day, did they? It still doesn't make sense to me that they would skip over this block of numbers to use the 7000's.

[BusHunter]

Well if the #4000 series is artics #5000 and #7000 series is trains it does sound like #8000 or #9000 series is the new nova series numbers. The xcelsiors will probably be three numbers as that is done for small fleets only. They are not going to use existing series like #6000 while those are active.

[Busjack]

Well if the #4000 series is artics #5000 and #7000 series is trains it does sound like #8000 or #9000 series is the new nova series numbers. The xcelsiors will probably be three numbers as that is done for small fleets only.

That assumes that this series is big enough to need a set of thousands for itself. At this point, they could use 2100 or 6000 without encroaching on an obvious live series of fleet numbers. For that matter, who at the time figured that the 2600s would have extended into 3000s, which then were still just recently retired buses?

I suppose one could go back to the original 150 hybrid articulated buses being said to being 600s, until somehow it appeared that they would get more. Then, suddenly they became 4000s.

They are going to need to save a big block when, about 2019, the NFs suddenly become obsolete.

[sw4400]

Well if the #4000 series is artics #5000 and #7000 series is trains it does sound like #8000 or #9000 series is the new nova series numbers. The xcelsiors will probably be three numbers as that is done for small fleets only. They are not going to use existing series like #6000 while those are active.

My thoughts on the Xcelsiors, or XE40 for numbers range...

• 1 & 2(as simple as numbers can come)
• 01 & 02
• 100 & 101

Flying blindly on this guess, but it'll be a low number series for sure. I doubt they'll use a 4-digit number series for these, although they did use 5900-5902 for the New Flyer Fuel Cell buses. Could they just use 2100-2101???

Even going beyond normal numbering realms... what about one or two digits with an "E" in the beginning??? E standing for "Electric"

E1 & E2

E01 & E02

[Busjack]

....

Flying blindly on this guess, but it'll be a low number series for sure. I doubt they'll use a 4-digit number series for these, although they did use 5900-5902 for the New Flyer Fuel Cell buses. Could they just use 2100-2101???

The only real connection is that 5900s were similar to 5800s, just like 4900s were similar to 4400s, but in each case different enough to need a separate designation.

For that matter, 7800 could have been justified in that it was a NABI, like 7500--7725. ugh.

[jajuan]

3500 is a number series I didn't think about, jajuan. That's a possibility that ranks up there with 8000 and 9000 now. Might even be a little higher now...

The New Flyers end at 2029, so there wouldn't have been any cross-fleet intertwining unless the 2000-Series railcars were still in use in 2009. The 2600-Series, like the 2400-Series, keep the railcar family flow of number series continuous. The 2400's end with 2599-2600(railcars usually end with xx-odd, xx-even, with the exception being 3457, which is the official end of the 3200's), the 2600's begin with 2601-2602(all railcars begin xx01-xx02) and end with 3199-3200 and the 3200's begin with 3201-3202. CTA knew the 5300's would be retired long before the 5000's got to their number block, which should be by late Winter/ early Spring 2014 at the latest. I think the CTA avoided the 6000-Series number block for the yet-to-be awarded or built series of railcars for this reason in 2016. I can't think of any other reason, the Flxibles that were in this block were retired a few years back and the NOVA LFS buses in this block will be retired soon, leaving them open for use. I don't think the CTA retired this block from railcar use because of the history of the nostalgic history of the 6000's back in the day, did they? It still doesn't make sense to me that they would skip over this block of numbers to use the 7000's.

Read back. I already made the point that bus numbers and rail car numbers don't cross each other. In fact, I mentioned it's about the only pattern that CTA has held to in assigning fleet numbers to its revenue vehicles. And I know that rail cars begin with xx01-xx02 in the respective series. That final point is one that Busjack had to remind you of a couple times as I recall. And the Flx-6000s were retired because they were long past their FTA useful service life and also in part because CTA could no longer afford the service levels to keep them around. The current NOVA buses are being retired because those are about at the end of their FTA service lives. Neither model's retirement has anything to do with CTA needing the number blocks for something else. 3500-3999 and the entire block of 7000s, 8000s and 9000s are currently available for use, with 7000-whatever number of rail cars to be received in the next rail order going to that block of cars when CTA starts receiving delivery in the next few years.

[jajuan]

My thoughts on the Xcelsiors, or XE40 for numbers range...

• 1 & 2(as simple as numbers can come)
• 01 & 02
• 100 & 101

Flying blindly on this guess, but it'll be a low number series for sure. I doubt they'll use a 4-digit number series for these, although they did use 5900-5902 for the New Flyer Fuel Cell buses. Could they just use 2100-2101???

Even going beyond normal numbering realms... what about one or two digits with an "E" in the beginning??? E standing for "Electric"

E1 & E2

E01 & E02

The only real connection is that 5900s were similar to 5800s, just like 4900s were similar to 4400s, but in each case different enough to need a separate designation.

For that matter, 7800 could have been justified in that it was a NABI, like 7500--7725. ugh.

Which goes to show that again fleet number assignments hold to no real pattern outside of not letting active bus numbers cross the number or an active rail car with that same number and the that them holding to three digits for small experimental orders holds to no real precedent in the history of them assigning fleet numbers. Technically speaking the 5800s were themselves an experiment in a way, an experiment in the use of low floor buses on Chicago streets, and those go assigned a four digit number. Now the entire bus fleet is comprised of low floor model buses.

[Busjack]

Which goes to show that again fleet number assignments hold to no real pattern outside of not letting active bus numbers cross the number or an active rail car with that same number and the that them holding to three digits for small experimental orders holds to no real precedent in the history of them assigning fleet numbers. Technically speaking the 5800s were themselves an experiment in a way, an experiment in the use of low floor buses on Chicago streets, and those go assigned a four digit number. Now the entire bus fleet is comprised of low floor model buses.

Probably could say that the only recent justification for low numbers is a short series, in that the 500 series Optimas weren't technically experimental, but they certainly weren't going to go over 125. In this case, even 45 turned out to be looney.

On the other hand, having in hand options for 58 DE60LFs "shovel ready" when the Stimulus Plan was announced indicated that someone in CTA knew that the count was going to go over 200 when the 600s suddenly became 4000s, instead of 600-749.

Of course, if you want to get into the bizarre of historical numbers, it was splitting the old Flyers between 9800s and 1600s, apparently based only on if they had 2 by 2 or 2 by 1 seating, even though both series could have fit between 9800 and 9999.

[jajuan]

Probably could say that the only recent justification for low numbers is a short series, in that the 500 series Optimas weren't technically experimental, but they certainly weren't going to go over 125. In this case, even 45 turned out to be looney.

On the other hand, having in hand options for 58 DE60LFs "shovel ready" when the Stimulus Plan was announced indicated that someone in CTA knew that the count was going to go over 200 when the 600s suddenly became 4000s, instead of 600-749.

Of course, if you want to get into the bizarre of historical numbers, it was splitting the old Flyers between 9800s and 1600s, apparently based only on if they had 2 by 2 or 2 by 1 seating, even though both series could have fit between 9800 and 9999.

That last point is one of the reasons I say CTA holds to no set pattern in assigning fleet numbers. That was just plain crazy in how they broke down the D901s.

[artthouwill]

I am going to go out on a limb and guess (for the sheer fun of it) that the new Novas start at 2100. Considering this is a small order for 40 ft transits (even though more could be ordered), you still have 6000s, 8000s, and 9000s available to replace the New Flyers in a few years.

There is also the question of the two electrics from New Flyer, which could receive a 3 digit number (100s) or 2030 and 2031.

[sw4400]

I am going to go out on a limb and guess (for the sheer fun of it) that the new Novas start at 2100. Considering this is a small order for 40 ft transits (even though more could be ordered), you still have 6000s, 8000s, and 9000s available to replace the New Flyers in a few years.

There is also the question of the two electrics from New Flyer, which could receive a 3 digit number (100s) or 2030 and 2031.

I had my picks until jajuan reminded me of a another series I didn't even think of(thank you so much for messing with my head there, jajuan!!! ). But these are my picks(all we can do is guess for the sheer fun of it and see what is chosen when the prototype NOVA and the two New Flyer XE40's come in next month)...

NOVA LFS Series II

• 3500-3799(300) 3500-3949(450)(I like the idea, but it's not my top choice... #2)
• 8000-8299(300) 8000-8449(450)(This is still my #1 choice for the NOVA LFS)
• 9000-9299(300) 9000-9449(450)(It would be hard to see them jump over these two sets for the 9000's... #3)

New Flyer XE40

• 1 & 2(Too simple, IMO... #4)
• 01 & 02(Never seen CTA use a series beginning with 0, but these are test buses... #2)
• 101 & 102(This one stands out for me... #1)
• 2101-2102(This is a feasible option, but not in my top picks... #3)
• Same number options for sets 1-2, except with an "E" in front of the numbers to denote "Electric" buses.

[jajuan]

I had my picks until jajuan reminded me of a another series I didn't even think of(thank you so much for messing with my head there, jajuan!!! )..

What? Are you saying I made you forget something? Sorry.

[geneking7320]

It's been a while since I asked,

any hints on who is building the 60ft buses?

Or did I miss the announcement?

[sw4400]

It's been a while since I asked,

any hints on who is building the 60ft buses?

Or did I miss the announcement?

You didn't miss anything, geneking7320. There currently is no order placed for any more 60' buses. If they did place an order, I'd bet on New Flyer getting it, due to their already reputable status in the articulated market(NovaBus is just entering this market, making their first articulated a few years ago). If they went with Nova for any articulateds, they would be the longest in CTA history, measuring end to end at 62'.

[BusHunter]

You didn't miss anything, geneking7320. There currently is no order placed for any more 60' buses. If they did place an order, I'd bet on New Flyer getting it, due to their already reputable status in the articulated market(NovaBus is just entering this market, making their first articulated a few years ago). If they went with Nova for any articulateds, they would be the longest in CTA history, measuring end to end at 62'.

Yes, but CTA is going to be executing an order with Nova bus next year and if they do wish on only purchasing 50 artics, like it says in the budget, it might be a good test to try out a small number of Nova artics. I believe they want to order clean diesels. I don't know if Nova makes hybrid buses. If the Ashland BRT ever gets off the ground floor maybe they will order more artics in the future.

[Busjack]

...I don't know if Nova makes hybrid buses. If the Ashland BRT ever gets off the ground floor maybe they will order more artics in the future.

Their brochure says that the 62.0' foot bus comes in both ULSD and hybrid, and both Allison (parallel) or BAE (series).*

All we can say is that the official word was that that procurement was ongoing and the answer in the revised specs was that 3 different contracts could be awarded. So far only one (for 40 foot buses) has.

___________

*Apparently, NF is using the BAE HDS300 first (article).

[Guest ctafan630]

If the CTA has used 3 digit numbers for buses before, what is preventing them from using 5 digits?

Personally, it is a slim possibilty that would occur, but nonethe less it could happen especially if the rail system is expanded and more L cars are needed.

[Busjack]

If the CTA has used 3 digit numbers for buses before, what is preventing them from using 5 digits?

Personally, it is a slim possibilty that would occur, but nonethe less it could happen especially if the rail system is expanded and more L cars are needed.

It would imply that CTA has at least 6000 pieces of equipment (if one assumes holes in numbering sequence) while in current history, it hasn't more than about 3600 in passenger service. Even with conceivably the rail fleet going from the prior 1190 cars to maybe around 1600 if all the 7000s options were exercised (which I doubt), there would be only about 3400 pieces.

CTA seems to be among the transit authorities that recycle their numbers, as opposed to those that have a year-based system. LA's 5 digit numbers seem to be to distinguish vehicles given to contractors from those operated directly.

[sw4400]

Yes, but CTA is going to be executing an order with Nova bus next year and if they do wish on only purchasing 50 artics, like it says in the budget, it might be a good test to try out a small number of Nova artics. I believe they want to order clean diesels. I don't know if Nova makes hybrid buses. If the Ashland BRT ever gets off the ground floor maybe they will order more artics in the future.

It would be interesting to see a 62' Nova Articulated in CTA's fleet... longest the CTA ever had...

1979 and 1983 M.A.N Articulated- 55'

1982 M.A.N Articulated(ex. Seattle)- 60'

2003 NABI 60-LFW- 60'

20?? Nova Articulated- 62'

Only time will tell if Nova is in CTA's Articulated future...

[sw4400]

It would imply that CTA has at least 6000 pieces of equipment (if one assumes holes in numbering sequence) while in current history, it hasn't more than about 3600 in passenger service. Even with conceivably the rail fleet going from the prior 1190 cars to maybe around 1600 if all the 7000s options were exercised (which I doubt), there would be only about 3400 pieces.

CTA seems to be among the transit authorities that recycle their numbers, as opposed to those that have a year-based system. LA's 5 digit numbers seem to be to distinguish vehicles given to contractors from those operated directly.

I agree, Busjack. I don't think the CTA will use 5-digits for their buses. Three or four digits tops.

[ChicagoNova]

Nova Bus does actually make hybrid artics. Here's an example: http://youtu.be/8AziouAbLuI

[sw4400]

Nova Bus does actually make hybrid artics. Here's an example: http://youtu.be/8AziouAbLuI

I'm not doubting they make artics, both clean diesel and hybrid. But I think the CTA might err on the side of caution after the NABI fiasco when they bought 60' buses in 2003, when NABI was just starting to come into the articulated market(wiki source). The LFS articulated bus has only been around for four years(2009, wiki source, as opposed to the New Flyer 60LF models, which have been around since 1995 and despite some model changes, have been pretty much the same design(wiki source). I would look for the CTA to award any future articulated contracts to New Flyer, at least for a couple more years until they see how the Nova Articulateds age in the markets they are in over time.

And to a certain member who might view the sources and question them because they are wikis, I'm fully aware of this, but I don't know if the respective manufacturers put the history of their fleets on their web pages. At least they are sources...