1000-series D40LF - Updates & Retirements

[jajuan]

#1717 is rehabbed while on #60. More rear LED problems... I wonder if Kevin is going to published some rehabbed NF's on the photo page???

Iffy since they still look the same except for a few differences in external markings.

[garmon757]

Iffy since they still look the same except for a few differences in external markings.

Yeah, you're right even though for some odd reason, #1717 wasn't showing any display on the rear LED sign before it got rehabbed.

[Busjack]

Yeah, you're right even though for some odd reason, #1717 wasn't showing any display on the rear LED sign before it got rehabbed.

Which probably indicates the reason for not having a gallery. By now we know what an 8 year old NF looks like, and from what you and BusHunter have indicated, the only difference is the "don't turn in front of the bus" sticker.

Now, a picture of a 700 (upcoming) or a LFS Artic (likely not coming) would be something.

[jajuan]

Which probably indicates the reason for not having a gallery. By now we know what an 8 year old NF looks like, and from what you and BusHunter have indicated, the only difference is the "don't turn in front of the bus" sticker.

Now, a picture of a 700 (upcoming) or a LFS Artic (likely not coming) would be something.

True. But let's remember that not all NFs are 8 years old. Given delivery cover 2006 through 2009, the youngest ones are just barely making 5 years in age.

[Busjack]

True. But let's remember that not all NFs are 8 years old. Given delivery cover 2006 through 2009, the youngest ones are just barely making 5 years in age.

My general point was only on appearance.

However, the "only 5 years" makes me question the reports here that CTA is gung ho on rehabbing options 3 and 4 (1630 and up). I guess to substantiate that, I would have to deconstruct the lists, since they are by garage rather than absolute fleet number.

[garmon757]

Which probably indicates the reason for not having a gallery. By now we know what an 8 year old NF looks like, and from what you and BusHunter have indicated, the only difference is the "don't turn in front of the bus" sticker.

Now, a picture of a 700 (upcoming) or a LFS Artic (likely not coming) would be something.

Indeed I agree. I only mentioned it because of the new LED lighting and #1260 and #1548 having new security cameras by Apollo.

[Busjack]

Indeed I agree. I only mentioned it because of the new LED lighting and #1260 and #1548 having new security cameras by Apollo.

But then, essentially one would need galleries of that, whatever the new Clever Device is, and every other tidbit.

I suppose you could consolidate that somewhere in this thread, such as like you or BusHunter did with the garage list. However, I guess you weren't implying 1030 pictures of rears with the no right turn stickers.

[garmon757]

But then, essentially one would need galleries of that, whatever the new Clever Device is, and every other tidbit.

I suppose you could consolidate that somewhere in this thread, such as like you or BusHunter did with the garage list. However, I guess you weren't implying 1030 pictures of rears with the no right turn stickers.

Oh no. Who got time to see technically 1027 of them??? Just the new features. Now it would've been interesting if some had Gemini seats but good luck with that.

[BusHunter]

#1987's out on the #79 released from south shops.

[jajuan]

My general point was only on appearance.

However, the "only 5 years" makes me question the reports here that CTA is gung ho on rehabbing options 3 and 4 (1630 and up). I guess to substantiate that, I would have to deconstruct the lists, since they are by garage rather than absolute fleet number.

Well in light of the reports of numerous buses from the 1630 and up bunch, including some of the Allison buses (1930 and up) which especially fall in that "only 5 years" category, being listed as rehabbed it would seem that part of it is also moot.

[Busjack]

Well in light of the reports of numerous buses from the 1630 and up bunch, including some of the Allison buses (1930 and up) which especially fall in that "only 5 years" category, being listed as rehabbed it would seem that part of it is also moot.

Undoubtedly true, but gets them into the "everything will then become obsolete and once," cited by CTA about 12 years ago for stringing out the options on the 6400s, and more recently cited by Metra a week ago, unless the assumption is that a rehab after 5 years is going to last at least 7, or somehow 1630+ are going to get a 3/4 life rehab.

[jajuan]

Undoubtedly true, but gets them into the "everything will then become obsolete and once," cited by CTA about 12 years ago for stringing out the options on the 6400s, and more recently cited by Metra a week ago, unless the assumption is that a rehab after 5 years is going to last at least 7, or somehow 1630+ are going to get a 3/4 life rehab.

Yeah true. But also given CTA's history with retiring smaller series of buses, it very possible that the saving grace with buses in the 1630-plus group would be that CTA doesn't really retire buses on time unless they've been in an accident that wrecked the bus irreparably.

[Busjack]

Yeah true. But also given CTA's history with retiring smaller series of buses, it very possible that the saving grace with buses in the 1630-plus group would be that CTA doesn't really retire buses on time unless they've been in an accident that wrecked the bus irreparably.

But that still gets to the point that if you are assuming a 14 year service life (like apparently the 6400s are going to get), that's 9 years from the last rehab. That's why I said either a 3/4 life rehab or we'll get the recurring "maintenance costs are going to soar."

[garmon757]

But that still gets to the point that if you are assuming a 14 year service life (like apparently the 6400s are going to get), that's 9 years from the last rehab. That's why I said either a 3/4 life rehab or we'll get the recurring "maintenance costs are going to soar."

Like maintenance costs is going to rectify the Novas being retired consistently. The way how NF's are being swapped up between garages and not enough of them 1630 and higher are rehabbed consistently, don't expect Novas being swatted away anytime soon. Welcome to the piece of [expletive] agency called RTA where we lack up-to-date bus fleet and spend money on stupid [expletive]. They can go to hell with that "World Class" garbage. Hell, even MCTS kicking their ass with a hell of a fleet with a possibility of expanding it more with a new series (5600s if I'm not mistaken).

[Busjack]

Like maintenance costs is going to rectify the Novas being retired consistently. The way how NF's are being swapped up between garages and not enough of them 1630 and higher are rehabbed consistently, don't expect Novas being swatted away anytime soon. Welcome to the piece of [expletive] agency called RTA where we lack up-to-date bus fleet and spend money on stupid [expletive]. They can go to hell with that "World Class" garbage. Hell, even MCTS kicking their ass with a hell of a fleet with a possibility of expanding it more with a new series (5600s if I'm not mistaken).

• My point was that those 1630 and over shouldn't be rehabbed until all those under that number are. FTA assumes that a rehab has a prescribed service life. I mentioned before deconstructing your garage listings, but jajuan said that was moot. In my mind (and maybe yours) it is not. Do you have a handle on the percentage of under 1630s rehabbed compared to the percentage of 1630 and above?
• The rest goes to (1) the capital deficit, which I just discussed in the Metra fare increase thread, and (2) apparently irrational CTA equipment allocation processes, over which the RTA does not have control.

[garmon757]

• My point was that those 1630 and over shouldn't be rehabbed until all those under that number are. FTA assumes that a rehab has a prescribed service life. I mentioned before deconstructing your garage listings, but jajuan said that was moot. In my mind (and maybe yours) it is not. Do you have a handle on the percentage of under 1630s rehabbed compared to the percentage of 1630 and above?
• The rest goes to (1) the capital deficit, which I just discussed in the Metra fare increase thread, and (2) apparently irrational CTA equipment allocation processes, over which the RTA does not have control.

Approximately 70% under 1630 are rehabbed (approximately 430 buses out of 628) (#1305 and #1482 are retired)

Approximately 30% over 1630 are rehabbed (approximately 110 buses out of 400)

Overall approximately 53% of the fleet are rehabbed excluding mechanically rehabbed buses.

[Busjack]

Approximately 70% under 1630 are rehabbed (approximately 430 buses out of 628) (#1305 and #1482 are retired)

Approximately 30% over 1630 are rehabbed (approximately 110 buses out of 400)

Overall approximately 53% of the fleet are rehabbed excluding mechanically rehabbed buses.

Thanks. But as you can infer, I argued that the 110 should have been under 1630, which would have got it up to 540 of the 630.

Maybe jajuan and I were making too much of the 110 out of 400, or maybe there was already something really wrong with those 110.

[garmon757]

Thanks. But as you can infer, I argued that the 110 should have been under 1630, which would have got it up to 540 of the 630.

Maybe jajuan and I were making too much of the 110 out of 400, or maybe there was already something really wrong with those 110.

You're welcome. Well, there are two separate contracts with the rehabs. If that doesn't play a huge factor than I don't know what is.

[Busjack]

You're welcome. Well, there are two separate contracts with the rehabs. If that doesn't play a huge factor than I don't know what is.

I would think that the service life of the rehab would.

There is also not disrupting bus operations during the rehabs, although it appears that there are enough spare buses (considering about 60 7900s having been delivered, plus whatever bloat from the 98 artics) to cover that.

[garmon757]

I would think that the service life of the rehab would.

There is also not disrupting bus operations during the rehabs, although it appears that there are enough spare buses (considering about 60 7900s having been delivered, plus whatever bloat from the 98 artics) to cover that.

True but the artics are the most restricted buses because of the length.

[Busjack]

True but the artics are the most restricted buses because of the length.

Maybe, maybe not, but my only point is that CTA is up about 100* buses from this time last year (when the artics were freed from the Red Line South project), so there are enough buses to cover those out of service for the rehab. I wasn't implying directly, such as putting an artic on 59th, but you know how the "More Bus Moves" works.

*98 artics + 60 7900s - 45 500s, give or take a few.

[ajm522]

I am riding 1480 right now and the clever device has moved from the black part of bus to now mounted in the corner by window.

[garmon757]

#1015 is indeed rehabbed while I was riding it on #30 heading home last night. Anybody wanna check out #1381?

[BusHunter]

#1015 is indeed rehabbed while I was riding it on #30 heading home last night. Anybody wanna check out #1381?

Did you ever come across #1983 or #1987? Both need to be checked.

[garmon757]

Did you ever come across #1983 or #1987? Both need to be checked.

No, I haven't. I'm trying to get back on track with the list because I've been recovering from an accident involving my bike being permanently destroyed.