7900-series Nova LFS - Updates

[sw4400]

The surprising final piece of the 8100 block is still missing..... #8199. I wonder if it'll show up soon or has already. Or will the first few 8200's show up before it?

[andrethebusman]

Back in the 1960's a Canadian trolley bus (Calgary I think) was "hit by a line pole" - literally. During a snowstorm, a car had run into the pole, snapping it off, but it was still hanging from the wires, with the wind blowing it out into the street. The trolley bus came along and just as it was passing, a strong gust of wind blow the pole into the bus's path, busting out the windshield. So never say never...

[sw4400]

21 minutes ago, andrethebusman said:

Back in the 1960's a Canadian trolley bus (Calgary I think) was "hit by a line pole" - literally. During a snowstorm, a car had run into the pole, snapping it off, but it was still hanging from the wires, with the wind blowing it out into the street. The trolley bus came along and just as it was passing, a strong gust of wind blow the pole into the bus's path, busting out the windshield. So never say never...

It ultimately depends on severity of the damage(it is probably reparable depending on condition of bus frame, which is either good or ok and not compromised by the accident). How many of these buses (if any) returned to action after whatever put them out(all are GM Fishbowls)

#9062
#951X

#XXXX(Front End is totaled, no way of seeing number of bus)

#9712

#XXXX(Front End is totaled.... left front wheel has tire, so this should be another bus)

[BusHunter]

6 hours ago, sw4400 said:

The surprising final piece of the 8100 block is still missing..... #8199. I wonder if it'll show up soon or has already. Or will the first few 8200's show up before it?

#8199 isn't here yet afaik, but #8196-98 is. None of those have gone out of south shops yet. After what happened to #8194, they are probably taking extra special precautions and running it through a few more tests. They wouldn't want a new bus to self combust on them. That wouldn't be no good for anybody!! In a way they got caught with their pants down, setting a new bus out fairly quickly. I think #8194 and #8195 were the fastest if you look at my #7900 list. Barely a week and it's in service, when 3 weeks is normal. If they would have drove it around a little maybe they would have caught that defect at south shops, but the buses were supposed to be inspected before release. So I don't know if you can blame south shops or not on that one. CTA would probably rather blame Novabus than itself. The auto and bus companies are pretty good at fixing warranty stuff if it's indeed covered. Someone I know didn't like the seat in their car. They said it had worn prematurely. It was new under warranty. The guy goes to the dealer and they replaced it, no sweat. No wonder some people trade their cars in every 3 years.

[Busjack]

6 hours ago, BusHunter said:

warranty

There are warranties in the specs. How do you think CTA eventually got NABI to pay?. That bis was probably nowhere near final acceptance.

[artthouwill]

9 hours ago, sw4400 said:

It ultimately depends on severity of the damage(it is probably reparable depending on condition of bus frame, which is either good or ok and not compromised by the accident). How many of these buses (if any) returned to action after whatever put them out(all are GM Fishbowls)

#9062
#951X

#XXXX(Front End is totaled, no way of seeing number of bus)

#9712

#XXXX(Front End is totaled.... left front wheel has tire, so this should be another bus)

The two totaled front end buses are both 9600 series,  the last one  also ending in a 9, possibly 9759 .  The standee windows give the series away. 

[BusHunter]

2 hours ago, Busjack said:

There are warranties in the specs. How do you think CTA eventually got NABI to pay?. That bis was probably nowhere near final acceptance.

It's not that easy. They had to take nabi to court because that was a major problem. That had a potential to bankrupt the company. A warranty is not going to help you there. Only a court case.

[Busjack]

8 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

It's not that easy. They had to take nabi to court because that was a major problem. That had a potential to bankrupt the company. A warranty is not going to help you there. Only a court case.

If they are bankrupt, nothing does any good.

Also you mixed your chickens and eggs, You don't have a court case unless there is a warranty. Otherwise, caveat emptor.

The distinctions you might have been trying to make is whether a seller voluntarily or involuntarily honors its warranties, and whether the remedy is repair or compensation. Remember, NABI offered to repair the vehicles, and CTA would not let them, and besides, NABi sued CTA for the balance due; CTA merely counterclaimed.

[BusHunter]

1 minute ago, Busjack said:

 

The distinctions you might have been trying to make is whether a seller voluntarily or involuntarily honors its warranties, and whether the remedy is repair or compensation.

That's what I was saying. Even with a warranty, sometimes they are not going to acknowledge the repair especially if it means major bucks.

[Busjack]

Just now, BusHunter said:

That's what I was saying. Even with a warranty, sometimes they are not going to acknowledge the repair especially if it means major bucks.

Then you demand compensation. But the only basis of compensation is warranty.

Nobody sued Bombardier, even though it delivered some defective goods, but they fixed them. Can't assume that Nova Bus would be any different.

[sw4400]

Doing a internet recall search yielded very little for Nova Bus in the model year 2015, but something from model year 2014 caught my eye and makes me wonder if, even if the problem was fixed then, could it have inadvertently reoccurred in the 2015 models? It does fit the incident of 8194...

2014-06-30(Published by NHTSA on 2014-06-30)

Recall Summary:Nova Bus is recalling certain model year 2010-2014 LFS transit buses manufactured June 2010 to June 2014. In the affected vehicles, the terminal on the postive alternator cable may fracture causing the cable to arc to other components.

Hazard:Arcing of the alternator cable may result in an engine compartment fire.

Remedy:Nova Bus will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the terminal and replace it if it is damaged, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin in late August 2014. Owners may contact Nova Bus customer service at 1-450-472-6410. Nova Bus' number for this recall is CR3201.

Additional Info:Owners may also contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.safercar.gov.

NHTSA Source:http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/recalls/recallresults.cfm?start=1&SearchType=QuickSearch&rcl_ID=14V381000

There were reported "dead" buses in the 7900-Series that suddenly died and wouldn't restart that I've seen here and there in the topic.

[BusHunter]

2 hours ago, Busjack said:

Then you demand compensation. But the only basis of compensation is warranty.

Nobody sued Bombardier, even though it delivered some defective goods, but they fixed them. Can't assume that Nova Bus would be any different.

No probably not, especially with a possible 25 buses yet to be ordered. They stand to make more profits off the 25 buses if CTA does order them. A measly couple grand repair isn't going to hurt them. 

Bombardier is a big company, about the biggest in rail and they are in airline industry as well, so they have plenty of money, but if CTA said these #5000's are unrepairable and needed replacements, they would at least go to court over it. Because then you are basically saying they built the equipment for free and that doesn't fly on a company's bottom line. That's where the nabi situation comes in. If you are saying the bus has frame defects then basically that will require a new bus for free or in nabi's case the repairs would be so expensive they would have difficulty paying for it. Things like frame damage can ruin a company or tarnish it's rep. Look at what happened to grumman (bus division) They actually sold the company because they feared the 870's would tarnish their image.

 

[Busjack]

51 minutes ago, sw4400 said:

2014-06-30(Published by NHTSA on 2014-06-30)

This is nothing new,  and you seem to revel in finding defects in everything, and presume that Nova doesn't comply with recall notices.

Why don't you go down to South Shops and get the info firsthand?

[garmon757]

Just spotted #8196 on #74 while en route on the Brown Line. Also, it's a ghost bus. 

[sw4400]

10 hours ago, Busjack said:

This is nothing new,  and you seem to revel in finding defects in everything, and presume that Nova doesn't comply with recall notices.

Why don't you go down to South Shops and get the info firsthand?

Where did I say they don't comply with recalls, or even said that this is a recall? I used a recall when I was searching around for a possible reason as to what caused the engine fire and found a recall from the 2014 models(of which we do have some) that does sound like it might have caused the compartment fire in the engine of #8194. Recalls happen with lots of products from time to time..... The alternator cables do transfer energy to power the bus, if a cable split and arcing occurred on another nearby plastic/rubber component.... there's a possible cause of the fire. It's a possible theory as to what happened. I'm not going to go down to South Shops to investigate this, but I am entitled to share a opinion on a thesis as to what might have caused the fire on a bus with less than 900 miles on it that was only about a week into service.

[Busjack]

7 hours ago, sw4400 said:

Where did I say they don't comply with recalls, or even said that this is a recall?

You sure said there was something on the NHTSA site from 2014 and wondered if it was still an issue. So, if you weren't implying that there was an unaddressed defect, there was no reason for the post.

[garmon757]

Keep it down a notch gentlemen. Carry on. 

[sw4400]

2 hours ago, garmon757 said:

Keep it down a notch gentlemen. Carry on. 

Thank you @garmon757.  

[jajuan]

2 hours ago, sw4400 said:

Thank you @garmon757.  

Actually he was making that request of both of you. And sw you were skirting back that territory of implying that Nova might be pulling another NABI with that post even if you don't think you were. You do seem pretty fixated on these recalls that were either already apparently resolved or taken out of context.

[BusHunter]

1 hour ago, jajuan said:

Actually he was making that request of both of you. And sw you were skirting back that territory of implying that Nova might be pulling another NABI with that post even if you don't think you were. You do seem pretty fixated on these recalls that were either already apparently resolved or taken out of context.

I wouldn't say he was totally off base. The engine harness did catch fire from a short or arc. Whether that could have happened from an alternator we don't know, but we can suspect it's something similar to that because it's electrical. If the harness is defective, it makes us wonder what about the other wiring in the bus? CTA just needs to keep a watch on the electrical because they have already got their red flag warning with #8194. Maybe they have even discovered a new flaw. Granted this is one of 300 buses, but if it happens again it's going to look bad for Novabus.

[jajuan]

38 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

I wouldn't say he was totally off base. The engine harness did catch fire from a short or arc. Whether that could have happened from an alternator we don't know, but we can suspect it's something similar to that because it's electrical. If the harness is defective, it makes us wonder what about the other wiring in the bus? CTA just needs to keep a watch on the electrical because they have already got their red flag warning with #8194. Maybe they have even discovered a new flaw. Granted this is one of 300 buses, but if it happens again it's going to look bad for Novabus.

And that's just the thing that you want to avoid is creating the unsubstantiated impression that Nova is creating buses with flaws that aren't being addressed because there is a tendency on here since the NABI fiasco to immediately latch on to a company's mishaps, go flying off on some unfounded tangent, and ignore that said company has either resolved that mishap or is in the process of doing so. Simply put this ain't another NABI and we need to stop looking for some connection that implies another NABI is on the horizon. We also need to remember that while yes we all have a freedom to express opinions and ideas here, we still need to stay mindful that the forum as a whole and Kevin and his two moderators Garmon and MetroShadow in particular can be held accountable to unsubstantiated conclusions implied or explicitly given that diminishes a company's reputation. We still have to be responsible with speech rights. Plus I think it needs to be stated and perhaps repeated that we don't even know beyond a reasonable doubt that the wiring issue was the official cause of the fire. Sure another member before sw brought up the possibility but that's not officially stated anywhere as of yet. So I agree with Busjack on this that if there was no intent to imply Nova isn't addressing a defect that turned up during the production cycle, the post wasn't necessary. 

[garmon757]

@jajuan You're absolutely correct about us being accountable for any unsubstantiated posts that can extremely backfire towards us. See, I don't mind anybody getting into further details when it comes to trying to make a point but it is everybody responsibly to make sure that certain points, no matter if it's wrong or right, remains civiled. The last thing that I want to see is you guys throwing knives at each other mouths as in making the topic worse. 

@sw4400 The best I can say is be careful what you find on the Internet. I'm not saying the your previous posts are wrong but at the same time, I'm not saying that they're right. I'm not deleting them because I do find this very interesting. 

@BusHunter If you can help sw by finding more information about the faults on behalf of the electrical wires and engine harness then that would be great. 

@Busjack Be nice to sw! 

With all being said, can I please enjoy my 25 minute BNSF express ride to Downers Grove so I can get a new backpack and a gaming mouse from Fry's!  

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

2 hours ago, garmon757 said:

@jajuan You're absolutely correct about us being accountable for any unsubstantiated posts that can extremely backfire towards us. See, I don't mind anybody getting into further details when it comes to trying to make a point but it is everybody responsibly to make sure that certain points, no matter if it's wrong or right, remains civiled. The last thing that I want to see is you guys throwing knives at each other mouths as in making the topic worse. 

@sw4400 The best I can say is be careful what you find on the Internet. I'm not saying the your previous posts are wrong but at the same time, I'm not saying that they're right. I'm not deleting them because I do find this very interesting. 

@BusHunter If you can help sw by finding more information about the faults on behalf of the electrical wires and engine harness then that would be great. 

@Busjack Be nice to sw! 

With all being said, can I please enjoy my 25 minute BNSF express ride to Downers Grove so I can get a new backpack and a gaming mouse from Fry's!  

Please let the man enjoy his ride.  And Fry's is a good store. I've been there many times.

Anyways, it sucks because even though the incident involving the new Novas may not actually be Nova's fault, it's easy to assume that it could be, and it might actually be Nova who messed up. We need more sources of course. As I've said before, they're nice buses, and I want them to succeed, or at least have their problems remedied by Nova or CTA.

[Busjack]

6 hours ago, jajuan said:

...moderators .... in particular can be held accountable to unsubstantiated conclusions implied or explicitly given that diminishes a company's reputation.

I've said stuff about "product defamation" before, but you stated this much better.

6 hours ago, jajuan said:

And that's just the thing that you want to avoid is creating the unsubstantiated impression that Nova is creating buses with flaws that aren't being addressed because there is a tendency on here since the NABI fiasco to immediately latch on to a company's mishaps, go flying off on some unfounded tangent, and ignore that said company has either resolved that mishap or is in the process of doing so.

Again, this better amplifies what I was trying to say.

In the NABI  case, until Carter (in his first stint) announced that CTA was pulling them, all we knew was (1) there was a newspaper article that CTA was withholding payment (2) they rattled, and (3) some were put on long term hold. CTA then called in engineers to inspect the buses, and then invoked its rights under the contract.

Similarly, here all we know (assumedly) is that there was a bus fire. My comment about "why don't you go to South Shops" was directed to the same thing--someone in bus engineering or maintenance will have to inspect that bus. Then, if there was defective workmanship, the vendor will have to deal with it under the warranty. Garmon has posted seeing a Prevost truck, and the reason it was there is obvious, based on its delivery and warranty obligations.

Pulling up a 1-1/2 year old NHTSA document and then giving an "opinion" on "cause" not only bypasses the necessary inspection to find the real cause, but implies that the manufacturer knowingly continued to use a part it knew was defective in a bus it recently assembled, which would be criminal. That's the kind of trouble GM got into when it didn't promptly recall the ignition switches.

[sw4400]

8 hours ago, garmon757 said:

@jajuan You're absolutely correct about us being accountable for any unsubstantiated posts that can extremely backfire towards us. See, I don't mind anybody getting into further details when it comes to trying to make a point but it is everybody responsibly to make sure that certain points, no matter if it's wrong or right, remains civiled. The last thing that I want to see is you guys throwing knives at each other mouths as in making the topic worse. 

@sw4400 The best I can say is be careful what you find on the Internet. I'm not saying the your previous posts are wrong but at the same time, I'm not saying that they're right. I'm not deleting them because I do find this very interesting. 

@BusHunter If you can help sw by finding more information about the faults on behalf of the electrical wires and engine harness then that would be great. 

@Busjack Be nice to sw! 

With all being said, can I please enjoy my 25 minute BNSF express ride to Downers Grove so I can get a new backpack and a gaming mouse from Fry's!  

@garmon757, I didn't mean to "tow the line", so-to-speak.... I found something that might have some merit and brought it out to the open just as a focal point of something electrical that could've gone awry.... no way implying anything about Nova as a whole.... they make great buses as their 2000-2002 fleet that remains with the CTA can attest.... they've been through hell and back and are still chugging along to this day(well, about half anyway). I do not want to get anyone in trouble in any way.... I could've probably mentioned the theory without it, but I wanted something to backup mentioning about a wire possibly causing the fire, and the tie in to reports I seen on this forum(maybe here or under the breakdown thread) about random 7900-Series Novas cutting out totally and not restarting has merit to the possibility of something related to electrical. But to clarify the most important statement here.... I am in no way implying Nova Bus has anything to do with this or has bad buses..... stuff like this happens with lots of new vehicles.

That being said, I hope you got yourself a nice backpack and a gaming mouse(any maybe a few good games to go with that)... but only if the Price Is Right!!!