Turbo19 Posted October 29, 2012 Share #26 Posted October 29, 2012 I was aware the LFR was not approved by the MTA, so let's drop that. Me preferring a modern design was my opinion and soley my opinion. What I don't appreciate is that you deny that you report anything regarding LFR's with the MTA. At this point, I don't give a damn. Have a great day, Dante. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted October 29, 2012 Share #27 Posted October 29, 2012 The bus is not approved because of it's face. It's qualified because of the platform. So far the TA has not had any significant issues and the Xcelsior is in. This is a new bus, not just a new face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted October 29, 2012 Share #28 Posted October 29, 2012 I was aware the LFR was not approved by the MTA, so let's drop that. Me preferring a modern design was my opinion and soley my opinion. What I don't appreciate is that you deny that you report anything regarding LFR's with the MTA. At this point, I don't give a damn. Have a great day, Dante. Lol! This is funny to me because you don't have to appreciate anything. I know what the hell I typed, and I do not appreciate you telling me what I did and didn't type. The difference between you and I, is the fact that I know where to find any and all posts. So please show me in the thread below which in in question where did I ever say anything about the TA getting LFR's??? http://www.nyctransi...archive-thread/ Better yet, here is the thread for all to see...... Reading goes a long way, and please don't ever say I said something again if you can't back it up. I've been doing this for way too many years to be questioned about what I said. And since you forgot a few other details, the C40LF discussion began in the summer of 2010. Not 2009. Now chick on the link above, and you have a nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenEleven Posted October 29, 2012 Share #29 Posted October 29, 2012 I'm not taking sides but just to add on: At the time the order was awarded, it was automatically thought that they would be for LFRs since the LF line was discontinued. Time went by and it shifted between LFRs and LFs before finally being confirmed that they were LFs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted October 29, 2012 Share #30 Posted October 29, 2012 Maybe many thought it would be LFR, however I stated otherwise from day 1 so there wouldn't be any confusion. The confusion came when people wanted to argue the point that the buses had been discontinued. That's why I linked the thread above. It was confirmed when the contract was awarded that they were in fact LF's. And it never shifted between the LF and LFR. That information was never correct. It was always LF. My point is that the thread tells all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbo19 Posted October 30, 2012 Share #31 Posted October 30, 2012 Lol! This is funny to me because you don't have to appreciate anything. I know what the hell I typed, and I do not appreciate you telling me what I did and didn't type. The difference between you and I, is the fact that I know where to find any and all posts. So please show me in the thread below which in in question where did I ever say anything about the TA getting LFR's??? http://www.nyctransi...archive-thread/ Better yet, here is the thread for all to see...... Reading goes a long way, and please don't ever say I said something again if you can't back it up. I've been doing this for way too many years to be questioned about what I said. And since you forgot a few other details, the C40LF discussion began in the summer of 2010. Not 2009. Now chick on the link above, and you have a nice day. Man, I'd hate to bring this up again, but I feel it is nessacary to have closure on the subject. My most deepest apoligies to you. After reading the archive thread, I see you were correct with the order being all LF from the beginning. However at the same time I found a post (#194) by (I really hate to bring him in to this) Vintage Soul that read: So found out a few minutes ago, the order has a modification, the C40LF order is coming in as C40LFRs after all! New Flyer is pushing an extra cost for the old face and the MTA is not paying for the extra cost! WHOOHOO!!!!!! New Flyer C40LFR CNG Low Floors! ...with a proceeding post (#197) by you that read: YESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!! Thank you for that update!! I had a feeling New Flyer was going to push for the LFR! Damn, I can't wait to see this bad boy in MTA livery! I can already feel the foam starting to form around the corners of my mouth! Don't judge me! In addition, you gave an overview, in post #230, @ http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/20730-new-flyer-c40lf-archive-thread/page__st__220. C40LFR Overview New Flyer C40LFR $61,424,152 base order est. -135 MTA spec coaches($454,993.72), Cummins Westport ISL G EPA 2010, 8.9L, 280 hp, Allison B400R, Thermo King HVAC, hydraulic cooling system, LED headlamps, disk brakes *2 Pilots set for delivery in April 2011. Delivery of remaining 133 buses expected to begin December 2011, and run through April 2012. *Fleet 7820-7954, or 7850-7984 expected. *Buses are expected to go to College Point, Gleason, Spring Creek, and West Farms depots. Fleet numbers, specs, and other info subject to change. Different bus configurations may be tested as well. MTA has until August of 2011 to exercise the optional order of 340 additional buses. Under the current contract, 183 of the buses will go to NYCT, and 157 will go to MTAB. Delivery of all buses would be expected by December of 2012. During contract negotiations, New Flyer and MTA discussed the performance of the C40LF's at Gleason, as well as further proposals, pilot testing, exceptions to the technical specifications of the new buses, and a few other issues. At contract award, the C40LFR, was not approved for structural reasons, and would need to go through extensive testing before the MTA would go with that model. At this time, the TA will continue foreward opting for the LFR variant. When the pilots arrive in April of 2011, they will begin what will be one of the most extensive testing programs in MTA history. One of the buses will be used for 90 days of in-service testing and training. The other will be used for configuration audit, systems validation, and qualification testing. The belief that the MTA would recieve LFR's continued until your post (#253): Breaking News! As I originally reported last summer (at the start of this thread) the MTA has in fact gone with the C40LF, and NOT the C40LFR. I was told the first pilot bus off the assembly line failed MTA's audit inspection, and had to be modified. All is supposedly going well now, and the buses will be on the way! Stay tuned!!:cool: So I will say this. I was wrong about the date, and your original post stating they would be LF's. However, what stuck in my mind was the disscussion of the buses being LFR's, so that is what I remember. Of course this is all irrelavant now. I just have one last thing to say. I know you get a lot of shit from foamers and from posters on other disscussion boards, so it is obvious that you would hate someone doubting you, especially because you're in the industry. And you have every right to be annoyed, but when you come up with an agressive front like the one you displayed, it just brings larger conflict. I'm not an antagonist. I truly hate to argue, so I'm sorry if I came off as an prick. To avoid future conficts, I ask that we put this behind us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted October 30, 2012 Share #32 Posted October 30, 2012 It's not a problem at all. I knew what you were referencing after the fact, so I made sure I linked the post again. That was partially my fault for not double-checking to make sure it was still LF's. Instead, I just went ahead with what was posted. Then I got a call from my NFI guys saying who the hell changed it to LFR? lol No worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compobus fan Posted November 2, 2012 Share #33 Posted November 2, 2012 I don't know where you guys keep coming up with all these suggestions. You don't just change a vehicle model in the middle of an order. There is a contract in place, and It's not legal. There is no other vehicle to be considered as the LF and the Xcelsior are the only two vehicles qualified by the MTA. For the millionth time, the LFR is not approved, and we will NEVER see LFR's in NYC. So when will we see an Xcelsior CNG for testing so that my great grandchildren won't have to look at C40LF's ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted November 2, 2012 Share #34 Posted November 2, 2012 Something struck me odd when I saw buses that were numbered higher than 569 a few days ago in a pic. This clarifies everything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted November 2, 2012 Share #35 Posted November 2, 2012 So when will we see an Xcelsior CNG for testing so that my great grandchildren won't have to look at C40LF's ? Won't you think by that time all those buses will be retired anyway? Even if we did get XN40's, buses only stay in service for 12- 15 years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XcelsiorBoii4888 Posted November 2, 2012 Share #36 Posted November 2, 2012 So when will we see an Xcelsior CNG for testing so that my great grandchildren won't have to look at C40LF's ? I think we will get XN40s in 2020 2021 to replace those Orion VII OG CNGs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XcelsiorBoii4888 Posted November 2, 2012 Share #37 Posted November 2, 2012 Something struck me odd when I saw buses that were numbered higher than 569 a few days ago in a pic. This clarifies everything... No no no that's not clarifiying anything 570-643 is the second option...for SC and CP 570-599 SC 600-643 CP Then Option 3 is the extra 14 or 15 buses (what were talking about now in this thread) 644-658 or 659 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerdodge9 Posted November 3, 2012 Share #38 Posted November 3, 2012 I think we will get XN40s in 2020 2021 to replace those Orion VII OG CNGs Oh I would hope not! Those buses are so ugly, they make the XD40s look good o.0! Hopefully by then the MTA could start excepting Nabi products so that we could get some Nabi 40LFW 3Gs CNGs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted November 3, 2012 Share #39 Posted November 3, 2012 Oh I would hope not! Those buses are so ugly, they make the XD40s look good o.0! Hopefully by then the MTA could start excepting Nabi products so that we could get some Nabi 40LFW 3Gs CNGs! What is the damn difference if a bus is ugly or pretty? This is no beauty contest. Do you think the MTA picks buses because they look good or do you think they choose a bus because it performs good and lasts long. If you don't like a bus then don't ride it, but I find it kind of silly because as long as it gets you from point A to point B your good. I don't see what is the problem with these new members. It was already explained at least 50 times already that the C40LFR's are not approved and they still say that they should order them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted November 3, 2012 Share #40 Posted November 3, 2012 -double post- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted November 3, 2012 Share #41 Posted November 3, 2012 Oh I would hope not! Those buses are so ugly, they make the XD40s look good o.0! Hopefully by then the MTA could start excepting Nabi products so that we could get some Nabi 40LFW 3Gs CNGs! No matter which Xcelsior model you order, they all pretty much look the same. Its the way the roof flare is set up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted November 3, 2012 Share #42 Posted November 3, 2012 @Compobus - The Xcelsior is qualified so any futher orders for New Flyer CNG's would be XN40's which don't need to be tested. @lilGIjoe - The 570-643 batch is not an option. It is a totally seperate contract that was originally for Orion VII's. 644-658 is option 1 of the second contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerdodge9 Posted November 3, 2012 Share #43 Posted November 3, 2012 Man, I just hate this! Without new Orion VIIs, this is going to be one boring fleet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailBus63 Posted November 3, 2012 Share #44 Posted November 3, 2012 Man, I just hate this! Without new Orion VIIs, this is going to be one boring fleet. You would have been really bored in the mid to late 1990's when most of the fleet was RTS's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XcelsiorBoii4888 Posted November 3, 2012 Share #45 Posted November 3, 2012 Man, I just hate this! Without new Orion VIIs, this is going to be one boring fleet. you would be loving this if you like the Xcelsior...im surprised though...your the first person i know that doesnt like the Xcelsiors...why?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerdodge9 Posted November 3, 2012 Share #46 Posted November 3, 2012 Oh no, I actually loved the RTS's (mostly the DD50 ones, wasn't really crazy about the older ones) and the Orion Vs and Orion V CNGs (and 1998-2000 New Flyer C40LFs)! Those buses were awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerdodge9 Posted November 3, 2012 Share #47 Posted November 3, 2012 you would be loving this if you like the Xcelsior...im surprised though...your the first person i know that doesnt like the Xcelsiors...why?? They suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BZGuy Posted November 3, 2012 Share #48 Posted November 3, 2012 They suck. Such a mature post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XcelsiorBoii4888 Posted November 4, 2012 Share #49 Posted November 4, 2012 They suck. whyy?? since ur the first person to hate them...i need reasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerdodge9 Posted November 4, 2012 Share #50 Posted November 4, 2012 They are not built for tall people at all, the interior is a real piece of work, and they sound like junk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.