Culver

Yeah, if you run it like that it might work. Traffic on Canal can be insane, though. The risk is it becoming like the M60 in that respect.

I remember now why that route got canned: because the subway is much faster. I doubt the MTA will bring it back. Speaking of which, anybody know how the B39 is doing? Of all the redundant routes to resurrect.

I'm wondering what the DUMBO route will be. The streets there make anything other than extending the B25 or B67 a few blocks each rather difficult.

Thanks for the explanation. Knew about the tanks, was disappointed that the engine-related modifications increase cost significantly. But is actual maintenance more expensive, too?

Oh hell, that was a Sunday post. That's what I get for jumping the gun.

What's more expensive to maintain on a CNG bus? The fuel system is supposed to be sealed and gas is supposed to keep spark plugs clean (unless they use a diesel pilot spray, I guess). Otherwise, it's essentially the same Cummins ISL9 but with some modifications, and the same transmission.

Well, it does that every day.

It seems close enough for them to use it anyways. 7 minute run. https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Rockaway+Blvd&daddr=Tow+Pound&hl=en&ll=40.65349,-73.79096&spn=0.019633,0.038581&sll=40.646203,-73.798135&sspn=0.001735,0.002411&geocode=FQJvbAIdWUma-w%3BFcA1bAIdoOyZ-w&t=h&mra=me&mrsp=1,0&sz=19&z=15 Not ideal, sadly. I suggested it because, as I said, they were using CNG buses anyways. This brings me to a question: with CNG being cheaper and (a tiny bit) cleaner, why haven't all depots undergoing rebuilds (such as FR, prior to Sandy) been equipped to handle CNG filling? I don't want to get into the pro/con argument of NG extraction, but it's going full steam ahead anyways, might as well take advantage of the low prices and slightly better emissions.

I'd up-vote this, but I'm out for the day.

Saying this as a serious suggestion: just convert JFK to CNG. The filling station is there and CNG is cheaper than diesel; and in general tends to be cleaner to run. The price of CNG alone makes it a good long-term investment for the MTA.

I like this idea. Then basically the local/LTD pairs are S63/S93 LTD (even with 93 terminating at CSI, close enough), and S53/S83 LTD. They would then distribute lots at 4 Ave based on that pairing: 53/83 b/w 86 & 87 facing south; 63/93 b/w 87 & 88 facing south.

I think maybe in the interest of differentiation from the S93, this S63 could simply not stop at CSI. Even if it stops there, it wouldn't have to be all the way in the campus loop like the S93.

Yeah, I don't get why some people are still confused by this. It's been made pretty clear by the MTA (and commuters) that 86 St is just fine because of the area's stores and eateries and connection to R/Brooklyn buses. Going to 59 just adds time in traffic. When the S83 LTD eventually comes (MTA can only bullshit us for so long), I'm guessing it'll share space with the S53 and not the lot between 87 St and 88 St on 4 Av facing south with the S93 LTD. An S63 (or St. George-Bay Ridge route, or both) would have to take the space b/w 87 St and 88 St on 4 Av facing north. The west side train station stairwell has enough crowds as is.

I like this idea, but have one question: With three bus routes already turning at 4 Ave, where would an S63 fit? And the S83 LTD?

The MTA really has a fine product on their hands with these Xcelsiors. I'm almost willing to forgive the cramped interior and Titanic overhang of the LFS at this point since those things seem to actually be well built and run fine.

I just get blank Google map of NYC region

Thanks for the answer. I'd give a +1, but I'm out for the day. Those OGs getting Cummins ISL G engines? Question on the tanks: Any idea what construction they're using? Still heavy steel or they using the more modern plastic with carbon-fiber jacket?

So they did update them to have a Church-Jay express routing. Good. *Every time* I took an one of those two weekends, I got an R46, so I didn't notice the R160 programming. Probably a good thing since most conductors on the don't bother selecting the proper program on GO's anyways. I remember the days of the 3-month periods where they went express and some conductors would just turn off FIND or select the local route and have the train announce 15 St-Prospect Park while the train was half a mile to the east and 20 feet lower. As this is a random thought thread I'll mention this: a while back when and were running express *southbound* b/w Carroll and Church for a 3-month period I was on a Manhattan-bound . The conductor set the program to the construction Church-Carroll *northbound* express and didn't bother to change it or announce the stations that were now assumed to be skipped by the train's route program. She then made it worse by playing a 6-month old pre-recorded message about G trains stopping at Smith-9St (which they no longer were). Incompetence at its best.

They need to figure out how to handle the different local/express combos in Brooklyn.

Artics not too fond of snow, I presume. Well, next generation of artics a dozen years from now will likely feature electric all-wheel-drive (hub motors), so we only have to wait 12 or so years to not have problems with artics in snow.

Yukon never washes theirs on the inside at any time.

So we can all agree the 4C as is, does the job, right? If you're Westchester DOT, you have no incentive to cut the line as it serves your county (or at least an incredibly loyal patronage) and turns a profit. Back to Bronx route proposals...anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

Exactly. As long as Westchester pays for it and it turns a profit, no reason to cut it. Why would they cut a route that actually makes money?

I just want to verify something. So there are 23 original C40LF buses in operation and 36 Orion V CNG buses in operation. The next new C40LF option is for 29 buses and this is supposed to retire the old CNG fleet. We actually have 59 old CNG buses. Are the extra 30 old CNG fleet buses extras while Orion VIII OG CNGs have work done or will the MTA end up taking up one of the remaining C40LF options? The reason I ask is everyone keeps saying that the O5 CNGs will be retired with this next option and the math doesn't really add up (and I can't seem to find any explanation on the forums other than possibly O7 CNGs being overhauled). Thanks in advance.

I take it some of BL's Orion Suburbans got toasty engines back in the day?