4000-series DE60LF - Updates - Rehabs

[YoungBusLover]

4 hours ago, cta5658 said:

How about the X28, is that still in the codes even though the route was axed in the decrowding in 2012?

Yup its still there. 

[Sam92]

12 hours ago, NewFlyerMCI said:

Also, 54B/79 (and to a lesser extent, 54B/67) is a solid transfer block, especially since many of those riders are probably headed north of midway. Removing the 54B from Ford City, you could probably justify sending the 67 to Midway (only 5 more blocks than the 47) but probably not the 79 (8 more blocks, and a bunch more lights). Also, Midway terminal is definitely at capacity w/o some shuffling around.

 

On 1/11/2022 at 4:39 PM, artthouwill said:

This extension to Ford City would definitely save traveling time as opposed to sitting in Cicero Ave traffic.   Those Pace routes could return to Ford City since there would be a rail transfer there.  However I think cutting the 54B back to Midway station wouldn't be wise.  There are still people along Cicero between 59th and 67rh that need to travel in both directions and there is a shopping area along the west side of Cicero in Bedford Park starting from Walmart.

I don't know if CTA has picked a preferred routing along the CN tracks or above Cicero Ave.

Well by bringing alternate 54s down to midway you still retain a connection from ford city to the main Cicero trunk. These shopping areas you're talking about I was gonna handle by placing an Orange line stop at 73rd (Bedford park shopping), 67th (for the hotels) and 63rd. With stops that close you can pretty much still get the coverage of what 54B would leave behind but still save time on a faster mode of transportation. Anyone that wants to go further north on cicero could just take orange and transfer to the 54 at midway. OR you could bring back X54 but on an all-day and weekend service included basis

 

 

[artthouwill]

36 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

 

Well by bringing alternate 54s down to midway you still retain a connection from ford city to the main Cicero trunk. These shopping areas you're talking about I was gonna handle by placing an Orange line stop at 73rd (Bedford park shopping), 67th (for the hotels) and 63rd. With stops that close you can pretty much still get the coverage of what 54B would leave behind but still save time on a faster mode of transportation. Anyone that wants to go further north on cicero could just take orange and transfer to the 54 at midway. OR you could bring back X54 but on an all-day and weekend service included basis

 

 

I could be wrong,  but I don't think CTA ever intended to have any stops between Midway and Ford City on an extended Orange Line.   I never thought there would be any stops between Midway and Ford City.  I definitely think 63rd wouldn't qualify for a station unless it was at or below grade along the RR tracks due to proximity if planes taking off and landing.     This makes the preferred route even more important as those tracks couldn't be routed over Cicero before 65th at the earliest.

[Tcmetro]

The alternatives analysis from 2009-10 called for a non-stop extension to 76th & Cicero with a provision for a future station at 67th and the rail corridor.

[NewFlyerMCI]

2 hours ago, artthouwill said:

I could be wrong,  but I don't think CTA ever intended to have any stops between Midway and Ford City on an extended Orange Line.   I never thought there would be any stops between Midway and Ford City.  I definitely think 63rd wouldn't qualify for a station unless it was at or below grade along the RR tracks due to proximity if planes taking off and landing.     This makes the preferred route even more important as those tracks couldn't be routed over Cicero before 65th at the earliest.

Yeah, I was under the same impression

[Sam92]

On 1/13/2022 at 9:40 AM, artthouwill said:

I could be wrong,  but I don't think CTA ever intended to have any stops between Midway and Ford City on an extended Orange Line.   I never thought there would be any stops between Midway and Ford City.  I definitely think 63rd wouldn't qualify for a station unless it was at or below grade along the RR tracks due to proximity if planes taking off and landing.     This makes the preferred route even more important as those tracks couldn't be routed over Cicero before 65th at the earliest.

 

On 1/13/2022 at 12:14 PM, NewFlyerMCI said:

Yeah, I was under the same impression

 

On 1/13/2022 at 10:47 AM, Tcmetro said:

The alternatives analysis from 2009-10 called for a non-stop extension to 76th & Cicero with a provision for a future station at 67th and the rail corridor.

You're right. I was suggesting adding those stations in though because I was suggesting getting rid of 54B which would take away a local service between that and midway. Also since the generators you guys pointed out are clustered at 73rd (shopping center), 67th (hotels) I figured by doing half mile spacing, the eliminated stops from taking away 54B wouldn't hurt so bad since on top of at most having to walk 2-3 extra blocks you're trading a bus that at most run 17 min in the rush for a train that can move twice the speed and waaaaay better frequency. Then by reviving X54 and making it 7 days a week we keep a connection from south Cicero to Cicero trunk line and also establish a short term permanent crosstown travel route which could help start encouraging more ridership along with job access. Someone from Cicero and Madison can now look for a job in beford park with 2 faster service. 

[Policeman]

4105 has a new driver shield (The same thing as the new 2021-2022 XDE40s that the mta has)

[Busjack]

19 hours ago, busfan2847 said:

I thought the 4000 were already done. It was announced in 2017.

https://www.transitchicago.com/mayor-emanuel-cta-continue-major-bus-fleet-modernization-program-by-announcing-plans-to-overhaul-more-than-200-hybrid-articulated-buses/

 

14 hours ago, Master58 said:

4099 is the only one that was rehabbed.  

 

14 hours ago, Bus1883 said:

I don’t think it was rehabbed, it just has the same lighting the #1000s have 

Hey folks, there is a topic for this!

You mean nobody saw Rahm in a pit with a wrench??

I think @YoungBusLover has the explanation for this:

15 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

...We already have a surplus of artics that aren't really used in service while the other chunk is sidelined for maintenance. 

In short, not worth doing.

[Busjack]

11 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

I'm not sure if it was cost saving measure done by CTA or New Flyer themselves but the #4000 and #4300s artics may have a similar Carbon Steel frame which is possibly another factor to add in as to why so many are sidelined as well. 

While I said it was a Seattle spec., you're correct that Huberman similarly cheapened the 4000s. A review of my search for "carbon steel" also turned up this Press Release (which also had the 3 for  4 lie):

Quote

The bus has a smaller engine than traditional articulated buses. It uses the same low-emission engine that is used in CTA’s newest 40-foot buses. The engines have additional emissions technology – a diesel particulate filter – that removes soot as the exhaust passes through the exhaust system. The buses are 1,000 pounds lighter than their original design by using the smaller engine and a carbon steel frame that replaces a stainless steel frame.

 

[YoungBusLover]

2 hours ago, Busjack said:

While I said it was a Seattle spec., you're correct that Huberman similarly cheapened the 4000s. A review of my search for "carbon steel" also turned up this Press Release (which also had the 3 for  4 lie):

 

Now it's all coming back full circle now, in retrospect he was wise to go that route but now the agency is stuck in purgatory in regards to the next fleet.   

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

Now it's all coming back full circle now, in retrospect he was wise to go that route but now the agency is stuck in purgatory in regards to the next fleet.   

In the case of artics, maybe not, given at least the 67 purchased for the Dan Ryan Red Line rebuild, but of questionable need now, and CTA's inability to use artics on routes such as 79.

Back around 2008, they said that they bought the 4000s to replace 4 6000s with 3 4000s, and while that may have made sense for routes like 9, 49, and 77, people on this board said FG and 74th didn't have the lifts to service them.

At that time, CTA was also blowing money on fuel because it had committed to futures contracts just before the 2008 crash. Their chief financial officer said fuel was on budget at $3.08/gal. when it was going for something like $1.75.

Obviously, the current budget items to rehab 100 artics, but get 208 electric artics is motivated by the 208 4000s falling apart.

[YoungBusLover]

16 minutes ago, Busjack said:

In the case of artics, maybe not, given at least the 67 purchased for the Dan Ryan Red Line rebuild, but of questionable need now, and CTA's inability to use artics on routes such as 79.

Back around 2008, they said that they bought the 4000s to replace 4 6000s with 3 4000s, and while that may have made sense for routes like 9, 49, and 77, people on this board said FG and 74th didn't have the lifts to service them.

At that time, CTA was also blowing money on fuel because it had committed to futures contracts just before the 2008 crash. Their chief financial officer said fuel was on budget at $3.08/gal. when it was going for something like $1.75.

Obviously, the current budget items to rehab 100 artics, but get 208 electric artics is motivated by the 208 4000s falling 

Yeah I remember the smoking mirrors that they were sending in regards to the replacement of #6000s and eventually #7500s. It makes sense when you explain it in that regard. Rather than investing in FG and 74th since 2008 to at least accommodate the facilities with 60 foot lifts among other components money theoretically was wasted in the long run that potentially could of been used somewhere else. Different times though have probably shifted my opinion a bit though. It's never to late the right the ship to all 7 garages accommodated with 60 foot lifts.

[Sam92]

2 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

Yeah I remember the smoking mirrors that they were sending in regards to the replacement of #6000s and eventually #7500s. It makes sense when you explain it in that regard. Rather than investing in FG and 74th since 2008 to at least accommodate the facilities with 60 foot lifts among other components money theoretically was wasted in the long run that potentially could of been used somewhere else. Different times though have probably shifted my opinion a bit though. It's never to late the right the ship to all 7 garages accommodated with 60 foot lifts.

Personally the monkey wrench is not having an 8th garage. I still say that 77th didn't work with artics because outside of 79, they couldn't convert whole lines to artics which is what SHOULD be done when artics are used. You'd either have to abolish the 250 bus limit or move work somewhere to make them work on say 4, 79 and 2 BUT there's no one that can take on 1, 24, 31, 43, 51, 52a, 53a to make that accomodation 

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, Sam92 said:

Personally the monkey wrench is not having an 8th garage. I still say that 77th didn't work with artics because outside of 79, they couldn't convert whole lines to artics which is what SHOULD be done when artics are used. You'd either have to abolish the 250 bus limit or move work somewhere to make them work on say 4, 79 and 2 BUT there's no one that can take on 1, 24, 31, 43, 51, 52a, 53a to make that accomodation 

77th could house 450 buses, but with 74th and 103rd being under 200 buses each, they moved some bus routes to those garages to even stuff out.

79 didn't work because they (at least on a couple of occasions) didn't convert the whole line and the artic would get bunched behind a 40-footer.

Anyway, the whole garage situation is to be reappraised as part of the electric transition plan, and 77, NP, and FG will undoubtedly need to be replaced, but CTA has been saying that for about 25 years, off and on.

[artthouwill]

33 minutes ago, Busjack said:

77th could house 450 buses, but with 74th and 103rd being under 200 buses each, they moved some bus routes to those garages to even stuff out.

79 didn't work because they (at least on a couple of occasions) didn't convert the whole line and the artic would get bunched behind a 40-footer.

Anyway, the whole garage situation is to be reappraised as part of the electric transition plan, and 77, NP, and FG will undoubtedly need to be replaced, but CTA has been saying that for about 25 years, off and on.

Who owns the former Beverly garage ?  If it's still CTA property ( which would be great,  but I kinda doubt that) it would be the perfect temporary garage while 77th is rebuilt  and then possibly 74th getting retrofitted or artics.  I could also envision 901 W North Ave being a temporary garage while North Park and FG get rebuilds.  

While the CTA could use an 8th garage, the city has been very slow to identify and competently bid to purchase a site while the amount of sites diminishes.  For instance,  38th and California is a better for a CTA garage than a "migrant tent camp."   There's vacant land on the former LeClaire Courts housing project at 44th and Cicero.  Certainly some land in Lincoln Yards could have been set aside for a CTA garage.

[YoungBusLover]

1 hour ago, artthouwill said:

Who owns the former Beverly garage ?  If it's still CTA property ( which would be great,  but I kinda doubt that) it would be the perfect temporary garage while 77th is rebuilt  and then possibly 74th getting retrofitted or artics.  I could also envision 901 W North Ave being a temporary garage while North Park and FG get rebuilds.  

While the CTA could use an 8th garage, the city has been very slow to identify and competently bid to purchase a site while the amount of sites diminishes.  For instance,  38th and California is a better for a CTA garage than a "migrant tent camp."   There's vacant land on the former LeClaire Courts housing project at 44th and Cicero.  Certainly some land in Lincoln Yards could have been set aside for a CTA garage.

I'm not sure what the max was back in the 80s for Beverly Garage but realistically they could house 200-220 buses at best with a few modifications of the plotted land around it. I believe the CTA still owns the property while sharing it with CDOT.

[strictures]

9 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

I'm not sure what the max was back in the 80s for Beverly Garage but realistically they could house 200-220 buses at best with a few modifications of the plotted land around it. I believe the CTA still owns the property while sharing it with CDOT.

The perfect place for an eighth garage would be to buy & tear down all the slums north of Howard St. just east of the L yard & build a new Limits garage there.  The the 22, 36, 96, 97,  136, 147, 151, 155 & the Evanston 200s wouldn't have those long dead heads from North Park or Forest Glen.

[Busjack]

10 hours ago, YoungBusLover said:

I'm not sure what the max was back in the 80s for Beverly Garage but realistically they could house 200-220 buses at best with a few modifications of the plotted land around it. I believe the CTA still owns the property while sharing it with CDOT.

 

CTA owns it, but as indicated by the vehicles in the picture, it is the non-revenue vehicle facility. There must have been something wrong with it, as it was comparatively new (built around 1949) when it was replaced by 103rd. Otherwise, the reason that Jeffrey buses had to move from 77th doesn't seem enough to justify 103rd, especially since closing Beverly hurt coverage on routes such as 49A, 52A, and 53A.

At one time, 77 had routes 6, 27, 28, and 29, so there's plenty of room there (between the 1902 and 1907 barns, about 450, as I said above).

[artthouwill]

49 minutes ago, strictures said:

The perfect place for an eighth garage would be to buy & tear down all the slums north of Howard St. just east of the L yard & build a new Limits garage there.  The the 22, 36, 96, 97,  136, 147, 151, 155 & the Evanston 200s wouldn't have those long dead heads from North Park or Forest Glen.

It's one thing if you're advocating for a replacement garage for North Park,  but not sure if it works for an 8th garage.   But it's probably never going to happen. 

What I will say is that perhaps CTA should figure out a long-term plan for how many articulated buses it actually needs.   Then they can figure out where they make the most sense.   It's amazing that artics can work on Clark and not on 79th Street.  

[Busjack]

4 hours ago, artthouwill said:

What I will say is that perhaps CTA should figure out a long-term plan for how many articulated buses it actually needs.   Then they can figure out where they make the most sense. 

That seems to be the problem inherent in the 2024 budget. Aside from not amending the plan for the 7000s (CTA is not ordering 846 7000s plus 546 9000s), the capital plan assumes 1-1 replacements, especially on the 4000s and 4300s: 208 equivalent electric buses and rehab 100 buses. Similarly, on the 40-foot front, they are saying 500 Novas and 430 rehabs (actually that now is a decrease because the base order is now said to replace 6400s instead of 1000s, but there were only something like 10 6400s running near  the end, and 70 electric buses are also mentioned).

However, the last sentence indicates that CTA's historic practice has been to retire fewer buses than indicated, unless the decision is made to terminate a series, such as the New Looks in 1995. For instance, it was assumed that the 6400s would replace the MAN Americanas, but some lasted until replaced by NABIs (mostly assigned to K and 79th).

But, to get back to your point, instead of assuming 1-1, CTA should figure out where artics work and how many are needed to cover those routes. I don't know if the 42% spare ratio that was in the roster @andrethebusman99 posted in 2018 is still the case, but that would indicate that at that time, CTA had 80 excess artics (assuming a normal 16% spare ratio).

Edited October 26, 2023 by Busjack
redid numbers after finding original post

[Sam92]

8 hours ago, artthouwill said:

It's one thing if you're advocating for a replacement garage for North Park,  but not sure if it works for an 8th garage.   But it's probably never going to happen. 

What I will say is that perhaps CTA should figure out a long-term plan for how many articulated buses it actually needs.   Then they can figure out where they make the most sense.   It's amazing that artics can work on Clark and not on 79th Street.  

 

5 hours ago, Busjack said:

That seems to be the problem inherent in the 2024 budget. Aside from not amending the plan for the 7000s (CTA is not ordering 846 7000s plus 546 9000s), the capital plan assumes 1-1 replacements, especially on the 4000s and 4300s: 208 equivalent electric buses and rehab 100 buses. Similarly, on the 40-foot front, they are saying 500 Novas and 430 rehabs (actually that now is a decrease because the base order is now said to replace 6400s instead of 1000s, but there were only something like 10 6400s running near  the end, and 70 electric buses are also mentioned).

However, the last sentence indicates that CTA's historic practice has been to retire fewer buses than indicated, unless the decision is made to terminate a series, such as the New Looks in 1995. For instance, it was assumed that the 6400s would replace the MAN Americanas, but some lasted until replaced by NABIs (mostly assigned to K and 79th).

But, to get back to your point, instead of assuming 1-1, CTA should figure out where artics work and how many are needed to cover those routes. I don't know if the 42% spare ratio that was in the roster @andrethebusman99 posted in 2018 is still the case, but that would indicate that at that time, CTA had 80 excess artics (assuming a normal 16% spare ratio).

 

22 hours ago, Busjack said:

77th could house 450 buses, but with 74th and 103rd being under 200 buses each, they moved some bus routes to those garages to even stuff out.

79 didn't work because they (at least on a couple of occasions) didn't convert the whole line and the artic would get bunched behind a 40-footer.

Anyway, the whole garage situation is to be reappraised as part of the electric transition plan, and 77, NP, and FG will undoubtedly need to be replaced, but CTA has been saying that for about 25 years, off and on.

Imo they have the space to make 77th all artic. BUT run system wise they're at capacity; they have the least amount of routes but a lot of the routes they have are heavy and thus require a lot of "labor" and since each garage has only room for up to 1000 runs you still need to open a new garage to make space for that unless you instate 5 digit run numbers. 

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, Sam92 said:

 

 

Imo they have the space to make 77th all artic. BUT run system wise they're at capacity; they have the least amount of routes but a lot of the routes they have are heavy and thus require a lot of "labor" and since each garage has only room for up to 1000 runs you still need to open a new garage to make space for that unless you instate 5 digit run numbers. 

I'm sure the run numbers don't dictate anything. One can always put another digit in the run box, or, for instance, assign 7 and V run numbers to 77th/Vincennes.

What does make a difference is the length of the block (time or distance between when the bus leaves the garage), which the electrification consultants' say governs whether garage charging is sufficient or remote chargers are needed. The consultants preferred garage charging, but CTA seems to be headed in the other direction, by announcing a grant for 6 chargers at 95th, even though that's 3 miles from 103/Stony Island. On the other hand, if a transit authority has to shorten blocks, the consultants say more buses are needed.

Back to the articulated bus issue, NF announced that it increased the number of batteries in its 60-foot buses.

[andrethebusman99]

16 hours ago, Busjack said:

CTA owns it, but as indicated by the vehicles in the picture, it is the non-revenue vehicle facility. There must have been something wrong with it, as it was comparatively new (built around 1949) when it was replaced by 103rd. Otherwise, the reason that Jeffrey buses had to move from 77th doesn't seem enough to justify 103rd, especially since closing Beverly hurt coverage on routes such as 49A, 52A, and 53A.

At one time, 77 had routes 6, 27, 28, and 29, so there's plenty of room there (between the 1902 and 1907 barns, about 450, as I said above).

Beverly was too small. Buses were parked on Loomis for years, later on the driveway between building and Vincennes south of 103rd and (until 95 and 100 were moved to 77th) things degenerated to parking ON Vincennes at night until at least one car rear ended a parked bus.

[andrethebusman99]

Just now, andrethebusman99 said:

Beverly was too small. Buses were parked on Loomis for years, later on the driveway between building and Vincennes south of 103rd and (until 95 and 100 were moved to 77th) things degenerated to parking ON Vincennes at night until at least one car rear ended a parked bus.

Only place worse was 52nd where buses were regularly parked on Cottage in front of the Armory. After annex roof caved in from snow, part of 6 went to 77th and the whole place closed not long after.

[Busjack]

11 hours ago, andrethebusman99 said:

Only place worse was 52nd where buses were regularly parked on Cottage in front of the Armory. After annex roof caved in from snow, part of 6 went to 77th and the whole place closed not long after.

Which gets us back to the subject. I didn't live in Hyde Park long enough to see the roof collapse, but it didn't seem coincidental that the garage closed just about when Jeffery went artic.

The roster from 2018 you posted said that K was the most over capacity, and I asked at the time how it could house artics in that situation, and the only answer given here was that some were in the employees' parking lot. The (I assume unofficial) roster recently posted by @YoungBusLover seems to have K under control, but it sure looks like C now can't take any, and apparently they didn't work when they were on 66.