4000-series DE60LF - Updates - Rehabs

[artthouwill]

18 hours ago, Erin Mishkin Jr. said:

Ohh ok

I Think NewFlyerMci,'s issue was that the 58 buses were a reassignment of a WMATA option for articulated buses.  Apparently those buses were to be BRT styled,  but CTA wanted the old style to match the existing order that was in delivery at that time.  While the CTA presser referenced the WMATA order, he couldn't find the original WMATA order nor the option(s) associated with it.

[NewFlyerMCI]

On 2/27/2021 at 6:44 PM, artthouwill said:

I Think NewFlyerMci,'s issue was that the 58 buses were a reassignment of a WMATA option for articulated buses.  Apparently those buses were to be BRT styled,  but CTA wanted the old style to match the existing order that was in delivery at that time.  While the CTA presser referenced the WMATA order, he couldn't find the original WMATA order nor the option(s) associated with it.

And I was never able to find it either. To date, WMATA and CTA have never had the exact same type of artics at the same either, with the closest being the DE60LFAs WMATA has and the DE60LFs CTA had. Furthermore, WMATA has never had a need to purchase artics in such large quantities before (to date, I don't think any order has been made for more than 30 at a time). Scouring old documents, I can never find a procurement order or contract option that stipulates 58 buses either. 

My other issues arises with the styling. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it seems highly improbable that exercising the contract option of another agencies order would including the changing of the styling. For one, that seems like it would involve a new frame, going from the regular #0LF to the #0LFA. Lastly, I can't find any info about this on the WMATA side, and I'm not sure there have been any publicized deals btwn the agencies. 

Now, 4000-4149 is a lease from KCM, but all the info I can find on 4150-4207 was that it was an outright purchase, due to the retirement of the NABIs. And also, the 14 bus contract option that got split btwn Detroit (2) & Baltimore (12)

[artthouwill]

5 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

And I was never able to find it either. To date, WMATA and CTA have never had the exact same type of artics at the same either, with the closest being the DE60LFAs WMATA has and the DE60LFs CTA had. Furthermore, WMATA has never had a need to purchase artics in such large quantities before (to date, I don't think any order has been made for more than 30 at a time). Scouring old documents, I can never find a procurement order or contract option that stipulates 58 buses either. 

My other issues arises with the styling. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it seems highly improbable that exercising the contract option of another agencies order would including the changing of the styling. For one, that seems like it would involve a new frame, going from the regular #0LF to the #0LFA. Lastly, I can't find any info about this on the WMATA side, and I'm not sure there have been any publicized deals btwn the agencies. 

Now, 4000-4149 is a lease from KCM, but all the info I can find on 4150-4207 was that it was an outright purchase, due to the retirement of the NABIs. And also, the 14 bus contract option that got split btwn Detroit (2) & Baltimore (12)

I hear what you are saying.   The only reason WMATA is in this discussion is because the CTA press release mentioned earlier referenced them.  It stated that it was a reassignment.   I fo remember CTA receiving 4000 - 4149 during the NABI fiasco.  Adding 4150 - 4207 got them close to the 225 NABIS CTA had to take out of service.  These buses are now eligible for retirement,  but there doesn't seem to be a replacement plan in place nor a rehab plan at all.

[Shannoncvpi]

11 hours ago, artthouwill said:

I hear what you are saying.   The only reason WMATA is in this discussion is because the CTA press release mentioned earlier referenced them.  It stated that it was a reassignment.   I fo remember CTA receiving 4000 - 4149 during the NABI fiasco.  Adding 4150 - 4207 got them close to the 225 NABIS CTA had to take out of service.  These buses are now eligible for retirement,  but there doesn't seem to be a replacement plan in place nor a rehab plan at all.

They then already rehabbed em so now they are just running em till they blow a motor or tranny do em like they doing the novas letting em kill themselves

[NewFlyerMCI]

13 hours ago, artthouwill said:

I hear what you are saying.   The only reason WMATA is in this discussion is because the CTA press release mentioned earlier referenced them.  It stated that it was a reassignment.   I fo remember CTA receiving 4000 - 4149 during the NABI fiasco.  Adding 4150 - 4207 got them close to the 225 NABIS CTA had to take out of service.  These buses are now eligible for retirement,  but there doesn't seem to be a replacement plan in place nor a rehab plan at all.

I was saying that that reassignment doesn't exist on paper. Or at least any publicly facing paper I've ever found, which is why that press release perplexed me to this day. Only one WMATA artic order since the early 2000s had a contract option and it was for XDE60s purchased after these artics.

[artthouwill]

2 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

I was saying that that reassignment doesn't exist on paper. Or at least any publicly facing paper I've ever found, which is why that press release perplexed me to this day. Only one WMATA artic order since the early 2000s had a contract option and it was for XDE60s purchased after these artics.

It is perplexing.   I wonder if CTA named the wrong agency.  CTA did have a relationship with King County Metro in Seattle  at one time.  Maybe the agency is in Washington state,  not the city.  The presser did spell out the acronym, so they seem adamant about WMATA.  The 4150 - 4207 order came from somewhere.  CTA would have legally put out a RFP for a new order, but not necessarily for a reassignment or piggyback.   As you stated, 4000 - 4149 were leases, thus no options were attached to this. 

[andrethebusman]

We are talking about reassigning "build slots" in the production plan. WMATA had 58 buses that had been put on the planned build schedule, and WMATA gave up these slots to CTA, with NFIL assigning 58 later slots to WMATA instead. There was a similar deal where CTA gave up some production slots to Baltimore MTA which needed the buses sooner than CTA needed the 4300s. In cases like this, the resulting vehicle is not necessarily what was originally on order, though if the change is made soon before production starts, some components might have already be at the builder, so they will be used, but anything not already delivered can be changed.

[artthouwill]

7 hours ago, andrethebusman said:

We are talking about reassigning "build slots" in the production plan. WMATA had 58 buses that had been put on the planned build schedule, and WMATA gave up these slots to CTA, with NFIL assigning 58 later slots to WMATA instead. There was a similar deal where CTA gave up some production slots to Baltimore MTA which needed the buses sooner than CTA needed the 4300s. In cases like this, the resulting vehicle is not necessarily what was originally on order, though if the change is made soon before production starts, some components might have already be at the builder, so they will be used, but anything not already delivered can be changed.

This seems to make perfect sense.  But do you need a contract or something to have build slots?  Are those slots based on a pending notice to proceed? Could it be based on assumed or possible options.  NewFlyerMCI states he couldn't find any RFP, contract, or options for 58 artics that WMATA ever ordered, but CTA said was a reassignment from WMATA.  This seems to be the mystery.  What order did WMATA have to get 58 slots reassigned to CTA and later got their own artics?

[NewFlyerMCI]

11 hours ago, andrethebusman said:

We are talking about reassigning "build slots" in the production plan. WMATA had 58 buses that had been put on the planned build schedule, and WMATA gave up these slots to CTA, with NFIL assigning 58 later slots to WMATA instead. There was a similar deal where CTA gave up some production slots to Baltimore MTA which needed the buses sooner than CTA needed the 4300s. In cases like this, the resulting vehicle is not necessarily what was originally on order, though if the change is made soon before production starts, some components might have already be at the builder, so they will be used, but anything not already delivered can be changed.

 

4 hours ago, artthouwill said:

This seems to make perfect sense.  But do you need a contract or something to have build slots?  Are those slots based on a pending notice to proceed? Could it be based on assumed or possible options.  NewFlyerMCI states he couldn't find any RFP, contract, or options for 58 artics that WMATA ever ordered, but CTA said was a reassignment from WMATA.  This seems to be the mystery.  What order did WMATA have to get 58 slots reassigned to CTA and later got their own artics?

https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/Suburban_Mobility_Authority_for_Regional_Transportation_3001-3002

https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/Maryland_Transit_Administration_11081-11092

https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/Chicago_Transit_Authority_4000-4149

https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/Chicago_Transit_Authority_4300-4332

https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/New_Flyer_Industries_DE60LF

This is all the information I was pretty much able to find. I honestly just have to chalk it up to something of a mistake. Looking back over procurement awards, capital plans and budgets for WMATA, no contract order ever had an option for 58 buses. Now, I'm unsure as to "build slots", I've never heard of those before, but I think in this context, that's how Detroit and Baltimore ended up with the 14 buses CTA couldn't pay for of the 4150-4207 order. All almost all artics CTA has ever had has had something to do with KCM (bar the NABIs really) and that seems to hold true today.

EDIT: The press release was indeed not in error.

https://www.transitchicago.com/file.aspx?DocumentId=2595

Despite all my searching, I was never able to find it, as I was looking for stuff like "2009" and "wmata" in CTA's public records search. It wasn't until I searched "hybrid" and going through all the documents that I found it. I need to look at WMATA's publicly available info again, since either I'm certain no press release ever mentioned a contract option for 58 artics. Outside of that, I believe I can finally be at peace lol

Edited March 3, 2021 by NewFlyerMCI

[andrethebusman]

Build slots are assigned when an order appears likely. Not all are ever used. Orion build list for instance has many vacant serials where firm orders never materialized. NFIL assigns slots a bit later in process, but still before a firm order is placed. Remember that if you order a bus today, it won't show up for nearly a year. But the planning folks at the builder have already assigned it a slot in the production plan. Does not mean it will happen exactly as originally planned. Sometimes orders are moved up to available earlier slots, other times orders get moved back awaiting financing or other problems. In this case, CTA wanted buses faster than NFIL could schedule them at time CTA was ready to make formal order, while WMATA had slots assigned and could wait a while longer. Most likely no money changed hands, just something NFIL negotiated with WMATA.

[andrethebusman]

Reason so many of 4000-4207 at SS is they are having turntables replaced. Major job.

[YoungBusLover]

16 minutes ago, andrethebusman said:

Reason so many of 4000-4207 at SS is they are having turntables replaced. Major job.

So basically the articulated joint?

[andrethebusman]

4119,4167 off list as of 10/9/21

[Erin Mishkin Jr.]

1 minute ago, andrethebusman said:

4119,4167 off list as of 10/9/21

wonder if its the same for 4082 and 4175 too

 

39 minutes ago, andrethebusman said:

Reason so many of 4000-4207 at SS is they are having turntables replaced. Major job.

Mhm now i get it. glad they making sure the 7542 thing never ever happens again by working on the joint when the buses reach 12-13 years old as the oldest are about to turn 13

[Policeman]

1 minute ago, Erin Mishkin Jr. said:

wonder if its the same for 4082 and 4175 too

 

4082 no. 4175 possibly.

[Erin Mishkin Jr.]

Just now, Policeman said:

4082 no. 4175 possibly.

oh so that means they gonna repair 4082

[Policeman]

7 minutes ago, Erin Mishkin Jr. said:

oh so that means they gonna repair 4082

It's not nvm

[andrethebusman]

11 minutes ago, Policeman said:

4082 no. 4175 possibly.

These two still on list, so not retired. Yet.

[YoungBusLover]

Add #4195 to the oos list, was involved in accident and has similar damage on the front end that #4082 has.

[Policeman]

4000 inactive list as of 1/6: 4000 - 12/20, 4009 -12/29, 4016 - 12/10, 4017 - 11/16, 4018 N/A, 4024 11/23, 4025 - 11/20, 4027 - 12/30, 4029 - 7/15, 4030 - 12/29, 4031 - 12/13, 4032 11/9, 4033 - 12/1, 4036 - 10/28, 4037 - 12/24, 4039 - 8/20, 4047 - 11/3, 4052 8/20, 4063 - 12/26, 4067 12/28, 4068 12/27, 4072 - 8/13, 4074 - 11/29, 4077 - 8/8, 4079 12/27, 4080 8/31, 4081 12/31, 4083 11/1, 4084 N/A, 4087 12/28, 4090 - 12/19, 4096 - N/A, 4097 12/7, 4107 - 12/28, 4108 - 12/13, 4118 - 11/28, 4124 - 12/23, 4130 - 12/28, 4132 N/A, 4136 12/22, 4138 12/29, 4140 - 12/28, 4150 - 12/1, 4153 - 12/31, 4163 12/11, 4166 - 12/30, 4174-4176/4184-4185 N/A, 4187 9/9, 4189 - 12/5, 4193 - 11/16, 4194 - 11/22, 4195 - 9/29 (Retired), 4197 - 11/3, 4198 - 11/1 and 4205 - 11/11 

[Mr.NewFlyer1051]

7 hours ago, Policeman said:

4000 inactive list as of 1/6: 4000 - 12/20, 4009 -12/29, 4016 - 12/10, 4017 - 11/16, 4018 N/A, 4024 11/23, 4025 - 11/20, 4027 - 12/30, 4029 - 7/15, 4030 - 12/29, 4031 - 12/13, 4032 11/9, 4033 - 12/1, 4036 - 10/28, 4037 - 12/24, 4039 - 8/20, 4047 - 11/3, 4052 8/20, 4063 - 12/26, 4067 12/28, 4068 12/27, 4072 - 8/13, 4074 - 11/29, 4077 - 8/8, 4079 12/27, 4080 8/31, 4081 12/31, 4083 11/1, 4084 N/A, 4087 12/28, 4090 - 12/19, 4096 - N/A, 4097 12/7, 4107 - 12/28, 4108 - 12/13, 4118 - 11/28, 4124 - 12/23, 4130 - 12/28, 4132 N/A, 4136 12/22, 4138 12/29, 4140 - 12/28, 4150 - 12/1, 4153 - 12/31, 4163 12/11, 4166 - 12/30, 4174-4176/4184-4185 N/A, 4187 9/9, 4189 - 12/5, 4193 - 11/16, 4194 - 11/22, 4195 - 9/29 (Retired), 4197 - 11/3, 4198 - 11/1 and 4205 - 11/11 

half of these are K’s buses but can you confirm 4195 is retired?

[Policeman]

2 hours ago, Mr.NewFlyer1051 said:

half of these are K’s buses but can you confirm 4195 is retired?

Someone said it was retired and where did the bus even crash at

[YoungBusLover]

On 1/6/2022 at 10:49 AM, Policeman said:

Someone said it was retired and where did the bus even crash at

This was the last known date it was active.

1 (103rd) J14 9/29/2021, 6:09 AM  9/29/2021, 12:12 PM J14 -111

[YoungBusLover]

5 hours ago, Mr.NewFlyer1051 said:

half of these are K’s buses but can you confirm 4195 is retired?

From what I saw up close in the boneyard it is on LTH/LH and for now you can presume it retired for now. It has similar damage that #4082,#4119, and #4167 has.

[Mr.NewFlyer1051]

2 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

From what I saw up close in the boneyard it is on LTH/LH and for now you can presume it retired for now. It has similar damage that #4082,#4119, and #4167 has.

well this is the first time i’m hearing about 4195 i doubt they’ll fix it that frame is way beyond bent 

P.S: peep the bunny next to 4082?