Articulant Junk

[rmadisonwi]

All right. Since it's now public, the plan is to acquire up to 150 DE60LFs from New Flyer, with delivery anticipated starting late next summer/early fall. This will supplement the NABI fleet (whose troubles are not a secret to anyone), and also provide operational savings by accelerating the retirement of the TMC fleet and allowing for the conversion of additional routes to articulated bus service standards.

[Buslover88]

All right. Since it's now public, the plan is to acquire up to 150 DE60LFs from New Flyer, with delivery anticipated starting late next summer/early fall. This will supplement the NABI fleet, and also provide operational savings by accelerating the retirement of the TMC fleet and allowing for the conversion of additional routes to articulated bus service standards.

The only thing I can say is that i'm shocked by this.

[Busjack]

The only thing I can say is that i'm shocked by this.

You should be, because there is a lot of inference here.

The link is to an agenda for a meeting today (it hasn't been held as of this writing) to approve financing. While one can infer that financing is needed only if you are going to purchase, and it might be possible that this purchase is included in recommendations 1-29, CTA is not here announcing that they awarded the contract.

It is also shocking because CTA still has on the table a budget calling for taking 700 some buses out of service January 20th. (Note that the prior item on the agenda is sending out layoff notices.) While TV news reports Monday night were that everything was lined up for a casino bill and capital bill, which should clear the decks for a transit bill, by Tuesday it appeared that the House, Senate, and Governor were feuding again. Also, how does CTA (and Pace, for that matter), keep coming up with money if they say they exhausted their capital (although the agenda says that there is financing to approve)?

Also, if 150 articulateds are being purchased from New Flyer, that would indicate that maybe 225 other 40 foot buses aren't needed. Does this mean that the staff presentation on exercising Options 3 and 4 gave the wrong impression that 400 14 year old buses would be left in 2009? Either some of the options were exercised for artics (meaning that the 1000 series of 40 footers won't go to 2029), in which case there shouldn't be more than 320 old buses around, or if CTA is getting 150 articulateds in addition to the 1050 buses already ordered, it is unlikely that there will be more than 170 old buses around. Or, based on the timeline, maybe Option 3 was renegotiated from 200 40 footers to 150 60s, but that wouldn't accelerate the retirement of the 4400s.

Finally, a hybrid articulated bus is probably twice as expensive as a diesel 40 foot bus. If you also consider that CTA said that the existing 800 and 900 series hybrids would be tested for a year, at least the 900s haven't.

Considering both CTA's and Pace's lack of transparency with regard to capital expenditures, I would not be shocked if the 25 Compobuses would show up on X49 (after all LA is seeking proposals for a composite bus, and Wikipedia said at one time that NABI thinks it has the order, even though the closing date hasn't arrived yet).

Not to say that change orders are not possible, but, if rmadison does have a link to something official filling in the gaps, please post it. Maybe we will find out if the Board Presentations for the meeting to be held are posted.

[busfan4022]

The CTA relies too much on New Flyer. Pretty soon every bus will be one. ._.

[rmadisonwi]

The CTA relies too much on New Flyer.

What's that supposed to mean?

[busfan4022]

Exactly what I said.

[wordguy]

All right. Since it's now public, the plan is to acquire up to 150 DE60LFs from New Flyer, with delivery anticipated starting late next summer/early fall. This will supplement the NABI fleet (whose troubles are not a secret to anyone), and also provide operational savings by accelerating the retirement of the TMC fleet and allowing for the conversion of additional routes to articulated bus service standards.

===Does the CTA really NEED 150 additional artics? What additional routes would really be a good fit for artics?

Off the top of my head, I can think of four routes that probably have heavy enough ridership to warrant their use: 79th, Clark, Belmont, & Lawrence. However, these are for the most part, narrow congested streets with heavy retail activity. Double parked and illegally parked vehicles can be a challenge even with a standard bus. (Someone on this board mentioned that some NABI artics did operate along 79th Street for a short time after they first arrived. I can imagine that it must have been a nightmare for the operators and frustrating for the riders).

Incidentally, the artics that operate in Manhattan and the Bronx are used almost exclusively on wide thoroughfares (with a few exceptions, but then only for short distances).

[geneking7320]

===Does the CTA really NEED 150 additional artics? What additional routes would really be a good fit for artics?

Off the top of my head, I can think of four routes that probably have heavy enough ridership to warrant their use: 79th, Clark, Belmont, & Lawrence. However, these are for the most part, narrow congested streets with heavy retail activity. Double parked and illegally parked vehicles can be a challenge even with a standard bus. (Someone on this board mentioned that some NABI artics did operate along 79th Street for a short time after they first arrived. I can imagine that it must have been a nightmare for the operators and frustrating for the riders).

Incidentally, the artics that operate in Manhattan and the Bronx are used almost exclusively on wide thoroughfares (with a few exceptions, but then only for short distances).

I've seen NABIs operating on routes 3,4, and 151. Given the small seating capacity of 40 foot low floor buses, I would welcome more artics.

[Danielsmusic]

I've seen NABIs operating on routes 3,4, and 151. Given the small seating capacity of 40 foot low floor buses, I would welcome more artics.

Yeah, plus 103rd and North Park could use additional artics for the 2, 6, 14, 26, X28, 134, 135, 136, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148. These routes, while they should be assigned artcs, simply require too many buses on the road at one time to be all-NABIs. Theses routes certainly could use more artics, but there simply aren't enough of them. And I don't care if we have enough New Flyers to cover these routes, YOU get on a 40-footer running on the 147 in evening rush hour, and tell me we don't need more artics.

[Buslover88]

I will say that I think the purhcase of these New Flyer Artics is a waste of money. We already have more then 200 artics as it is.

[busfan4022]

Yeah, plus 103rd and North Park could use additional artics for the 2, 6, 14, 26, X28, 134, 135, 136, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148. These routes, while they should be assigned artcs, simply require too many buses on the road at one time to be all-NABIs. Theses routes certainly could use more artics, but there simply aren't enough of them. And I don't care if we have enough New Flyers to cover these routes, YOU get on a 40-footer running on the 147 in evening rush hour, and tell me we don't need more artics.

The 14 doesn't even need anymore artics, because now it operates nothing but artics. On the weekends the occasional TMC. The number 6 is a 77th route not a 103rd or NP. The X28 doesn't need artics, Orion's formerly ran along that route ( for the short time they were here) with TMCs, now it's Flxibles, and TMCs, but with the dying Flxibles new buses are needed. Nonetheless the New Flyer's are here, so there is no need for artics. Plus the route doesn't receive that many passengers to begin with. I can only say that 77th and NP may need some more artics, but I surely don't think more then 30 is needed.

[wordguy]

Yeah, plus 103rd and North Park could use additional artics for the 2, 6, 14, 26, X28, 134, 135, 136, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148. These routes, while they should be assigned artcs, simply require too many buses on the road at one time to be all-NABIs. Theses routes certainly could use more artics, but there simply aren't enough of them. And I don't care if we have enough New Flyers to cover these routes, YOU get on a 40-footer running on the 147 in evening rush hour, and tell me we don't need more artics.

I agree with both you and Gene King (Post #83) that the routes you mentioned are short of artics. On any weekday during the peak of the evening rush, I've noticed 20 or more NABIs in the yard at NorthPark. So maybe you're both right. IMO, the existing 226 NABIs in the CTA fleet probably would have been enough if only they were dependable.

rmadison has mentioned in the past that storage space throughout the system is really at a premium. So what's to be done with the most troublesome NABIs? Should they be sidelined or just used for school and rush-hour runs? If so, would there be enough space for both the NABIs and the New Flyer artics?

It seems like a done deal unless the cutbacks occur. Just wondering if the CTA is really doing its homework. If my memory serves me, spur-of -the-moment decision-making has come back to bite them just recently. Didn't the CTA approve the NABI contract before adequate testing was done with the prototype? Or am I wrong?

[BusExpert32]

The purchase of 150 new artics is not a waste of money, but maybe the start of a new problem for the CTA; considering that Chicago has so many one-way streets where vehicles constantly block one side of the street, bringing an extensive amont of 60 ft buses into the system wouldn't be such a good idea. You would have to put them on any route, and with a lot of them on hand not only will a few be misplaced. Like Kruesi once said reffering to the Optimas, "we need the right tool for the job", so now articulated buses along with 30 ft buses will be misplaced, just what we need- not.

[Busjack]

If my memory serves me, spur-of -the-moment decision-making has come back to bite them just recently. Didn't the CTA approve the NABI contract before adequate testing was done with the prototype? Or am I wrong?

I don't know about that. However, the base contract was 75 with two options, but the options were exercised before there were really any deliveries. Also, NABI withdrew the first bus it submitted for Altoona testing, because it was not typical of what it was going to supply CTA, and submitted another. It apparently passed, but one can read the report to determine if it passed with "flying colors," as page 35 shows some reliability problems, and page 72 has a maintenance log, showing a lot of cracks. Page 94 shows the CTA bus tested.

The Tribune also reported that about the time the 2nd option was being delivered (7660 or so?) CTA was dissatisfied and sent inspectors to NABI's Alabama plant.

I'm not an automotive engineer, and if any of you are, please let us know if wordguy's conclusions are supported by the report.

BTW, this was about the time that NABI announced that it was the low bidder for the 40 foot CTA buses. However, CTA never awarded that contract, and rebid it a year later, with New Flyer winning. It was never disclosed whether the one year delay was due to money problems or the quality problems turning up in the 7500s at that time.

Also, folks, please restrict this thread to NABI problems, and discuss the 150 New Flyer proposal under the "Seattle Articulateds 2" thread.

[jajuan]

Yeah, plus 103rd and North Park could use additional artics for the 2, 6, 14, 26, X28, 134, 135, 136, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148. These routes, while they should be assigned artcs, simply require too many buses on the road at one time to be all-NABIs. Theses routes certainly could use more artics, but there simply aren't enough of them. And I don't care if we have enough New Flyers to cover these routes, YOU get on a 40-footer running on the 147 in evening rush hour, and tell me we don't need more artics.

134 is already mostly NABI. as well as 14 and 147. I've ridden the 135 and 136 and they don't really need more artics. There are some trips in mid evening rush where the 40 footers used are not even full once they enter the Drive and leave downtown. I don't think the 2 and X28 are justified in having more artics either.

[BusExpert32]

134 is already mostly NABI. as well as 14 and 147. I've ridden the 135 and 136 and they don't really need more artics. There are some trips in mid evening rush where the 40 footers used are not even full once they enter the Drive and leave downtown. I don't think the 2 and X28 are justified in having more artics either.

I don't think that any route is justified to have more artics which would make the purchase of 150 more artics unjustified as well.

[qwantae]

I don't think that any route is justified to have more artics which would make the purchase of 150 more artics unjustified as well.

You got that right!!! I was thought that they're ordering more artics to replace some of those breaking down NABIs with suspension problems ever since that they were brand new. They should change that from 150 New Flyers to Van Hools like AC Transit.

[rmadisonwi]

The purchase of 150 new artics is not a waste of money, but maybe the start of a new problem for the CTA; considering that Chicago has so many one-way streets where vehicles constantly block one side of the street, bringing an extensive amont of 60 ft buses into the system wouldn't be such a good idea. You would have to put them on any route, and with a lot of them on hand not only will a few be misplaced. Like Kruesi once said reffering to the Optimas, "we need the right tool for the job", so now articulated buses along with 30 ft buses will be misplaced, just what we need- not.

I don't see what one-way streets has to do with articulated buses. There are plenty of two-way streets where vehicles block the street as well.

[wordguy]

the base contract was 75 with two options, but the options were exercised before there were really any deliveries. Also, NABI withdrew the first bus it submitted for Altoona testing, because it was not typical of what it was going to supply CTA, and submitted another. It apparently passed, but one can read the report to determine if it passed with "flying colors," as page 35 shows some reliability problems, and page 72 has a maintenance log, showing a lot of cracks. Page 94 shows the CTA bus tested.

The Tribune also reported that about the time the 2nd option was being delivered (7660 or so?) CTA was dissatisfied and sent inspectors to NABI's Alabama plant.

I'm not an automotive engineer, and if any of you are, please let us know if wordguy's conclusions are supported by the report.

BTW, this was about the time that NABI announced that it was the low bidder for the 40 foot CTA buses. However, CTA never awarded that contract, and rebid it a year later, with New Flyer winning. It was never disclosed whether the one year delay was due to money problems or the quality problems turning up in the 7500s at that time.

It's a very telling document. Many thanks to Busjack for providing it. What was especially revealing was the Unscheduled Maintenance Report (pp. 72-82 including photos). Worn artic joint bushings after less than 1,000 miles and cracks in the frame with only 5,300 miles of travel! I can't imagine that one would need to be an automotive engineer to be concerned about those findings among numerous other serious defects.

As the report indicated, the test was conducted between 11/02 and 5/03. I'd be curious to know how soon after 5/03 the CTA approved the contract. Unless I'm wrong, the first NABIs arrived in early 2004. Also, why were the additional options exercised prior to delivery of the first bus? It just seems to me that there was a serious lapse of common sense on the part of CTA management. I realize that the only artics in the CTA fleet at the time were 22-year-old Seattle transplants without AC; they weren't a great riding experience in mid-summer, especially when crush-loaded. But still ....

In the meantime, just a li'l anecdote in closing. Last summer I remember seeing 7611 for a period of several weeks operating with the rear hatch over the AC cabinet ajar. I was assuming that the hatch itself was misaligned --- nothing serious. But after reading the report citing a cracked frame in the test bus's AC cabinet, I'm not so sure. Incidentally, I've been keeping an eye peeled for that bus since then, but haven't seen it for months. Just wondering.

[Busjack]

As the report indicated, the test was conducted between 11/02 and 5/03. I'd be curious to know how soon after 5/03 the CTA approved the contract. Unless I'm wrong, the first NABIs arrived in early 2004. Also, why were the additional options exercised prior to delivery of the first bus? It just seems to me that there was a serious lapse of common sense on the part of CTA management.

CTA Press releases indicate that the prototype was received by 2/11/03. That release also says that NABI was the lowest bidder, and that CTA expects all 226 to be in service in the next year. Thus, the two options were exercised by then. Googling around, I found the CTA Contract Awards document, which says on page 39 that Option 2 was exercised on 6/6/2002, the base order and Option 1 before then.

It is usual for the contract announcement to say that the contract was awarded contingent on successful Altoona testing. From this timeline, it appears that CTA exercised all the options before having received either the prototype or the test results. Apparently the testing was successful enough that CTA did not pull the plug after receiving the first couple of buses, although it would have had a contract right to do so if the buses had not passed testing. On the other hand, instead of taking the lowest bidder, it could have purchased from New Flyer, which already had a low flow articulated in the market, but then it probably would have faced a protest from NABI.

I have the feeling that CTA was so eager to get articulateds (having obtained the 7300s from Seattle because the 7100s had had it) that it exercised the options without a NABI low floor articulated even yet existing. However, not being on the inside, I can't say for sure.

Also, if you read Mayor Daley's and the PR person's comments in the Press Release in hindsight, they could qualify for "Who Ya Crappin" on the Score.

Also, I don't understand the (accurate) comment in the Contract Awards that the base contract was for 80 and they took 79, but then exercised Option 1. One would wonder why they didn't first take 80, and then exercise Option 1 for 74, but that seems similar to them announcing that the base order for the Optimas was 50 and they took only 45.

[jajuan]

It's a very telling document. Many thanks to Busjack for providing it. What was especially revealing was the Unscheduled Maintenance Report (pp. 72-82 including photos). Worn artic joint bushings after less than 1,000 miles and cracks in the frame with only 5,300 miles of travel! I can't imagine that one would need to be an automotive engineer to be concerned about those findings among numerous other serious defects.

As the report indicated, the test was conducted between 11/02 and 5/03. I'd be curious to know how soon after 5/03 the CTA approved the contract. Unless I'm wrong, the first NABIs arrived in early 2004. Also, why were the additional options exercised prior to delivery of the first bus? It just seems to me that there was a serious lapse of common sense on the part of CTA management. I realize that the only artics in the CTA fleet at the time were 22-year-old Seattle transplants without AC; they weren't a great riding experience in mid-summer, especially when crush-loaded. But still ....

In the meantime, just a li'l anecdote in closing. Last summer I remember seeing 7611 for a period of several weeks operating with the rear hatch over the AC cabinet ajar. I was assuming that the hatch itself was misaligned --- nothing serious. But after reading the report citing a cracked frame in the test bus's AC cabinet, I'm not so sure. Incidentally, I've been keeping an eye peeled for that bus since then, but haven't seen it for months. Just wondering.

I'm not an automotive engineer per se. but I am a recently degreed mechanical engineer and some of what's involved would still fall in my area. First thing any engineer, especially one who looks to get license in Illinois or any other state, would tell you that if you design any thing your first priority is to the safety to the public. If tests show there are design flaws that pose a potential danger, you redesign the product to take care of the flaws and you definitely don't put the product out for use. NABI is as much to blame as CTA if not more so. with those serious flaws that came up during this test these buses should have never been put out on the street.

However, I can understand why CTA wanted to get these buses out there because they made a promise to bee 100% accessible and 100% airconditoned in the publications of their recently adopted standards of service.

[wordguy]

I'm not an automotive engineer per se. but I am a recently degreed mechanical engineer and some of what's involved would still fall in my area. First thing any engineer, especially one who looks to get license in Illinois or any other state, would tell you that if you design any thing your first priority is to the safety to the public. If tests show there are design flaws that pose a potential danger, you redesign the product to take care of the flaws and you definitely don't put the product out for use. NABI is as much to blame as CTA if not more so. with those serious flaws that came up during this test these buses should have never been put out on the street.

However, I can understand why CTA wanted to get these buses out there because they made a promise to bee 100% accessible and 100% airconditoned in the publications of their recently adopted standards of service.

===So apparently the CTA signed off on a product that was unknown and untested. <slaps forehead, then rubs eyes in disbelief> Jajuan's and Busjack's theories (Post #95) are probably right. (I made a similar observation in Post #87, too). The Seattle hand-me-downs were wheelchair-accessible, but not air conditioned. To make matters worse, the CTA exercised Option 2 a month after the Altoona test was completed. Presumably, the test results were known.

It seems as if just because no major safety issues surfaced during the 15,000-mile 6-month test, that approval of the contact was justifiable. In hindsight, it's clear to me that the CTA should have terminated the contract with NABI and turned instead to New Flyer which, as Busjack stated, had a proven product already on the market. Any protest by NABI could have easily been addressed by the Altoona test.

[Busjack]

The Seattle hand-me-downs were wheelchair-accessible, but not air conditioned. To make matters worse, the CTA exercised Option 2 a month after the Altoona test was completed. Presumably, the test results were known.

Since the Contract Awards states that Option 2 was exercised on 6/6/02, that would have been about when the Altoona test was started, and way before it was completed. According to page 3:

Testing on bus 0217 started on June 17, 2002 and was completed on May 6,

2003. The replacement bus (0217A) was delivered on May 21, 2003 and testing was

completed on June 9, 2003.

Also, I'm sure another consideration was that the Seattle buses were just a stop gap. CTA acknowledged at the time that they were older than the 7100s, but due to Seattle's milder climate, were in better condition. They sure didn't look it after running in Chicago for a short while.

My point was that in 2001, CTA contracted for an unknown product, with a contract subject to a contingency, which you sort of acknowledge, NABI met.

[wordguy]

Since the Contract Awards states that Option 2 was exercised on 6/6/02, that would have been about when the Altoona test was started, and way before it was completed.

===Ouch! I see what you mean, Busjack. I misread your previous post.