New CNG Procurement

[DetSMART45]

LOOK, all, not getting into a tinkling contest with LOTS of more "regulars" not only on this forum but elsewhere (don't know how "sensitive" the word-filter bot is) . . .

Point I was making was that the THREE "big" bus builders certified under "Build/Buy American" program ALL have CNG offerings, and to not look like "Mafia"-style dealings (we all know that's never EVER happened in NYC, right?), bidding should go out to ALL current builders NO MATTER IF THE MTA THINKS THEY'RE "up to snuff" or not, according to their "standards."

REMEMBER -- the MTA is the one saying, "We need more money, blah blah blah, cough up", yet all of a sudden, they can have a no-bid contract that goes out, with THEM paying the full cost.

ONE -- the MTA is happiest when the Fedz pay some (all) of their bills .... who wouldn't be?

TWO -- the MTA actually "specifies" builds that EVERY other transit operator would be looking for -- so NATURALLY, a contact FROM THE MTA would not only lend "credibility", but also sense that "HEY -- if it's good enough for the largest bus user in the US [and Canada], then trust us."

 

IMHO, nothing wrong with NFI doing CNG. It's just for the MTA to do no-bid -- especially given that they're bawling for money -- it just doesn't make sense when EVERY bus mfr under the current "guidelines" has something to offer, yet they decide it should go to one mfr AND they all of a sudden have cash just stashed away to pay for it.  COMPLETELY against typical MTA operating procedure.

 

An aside to ENY --

SMART Gilligs have made over 500,000 (active since 2001), but DDOT NFI haven't even come close (from active year 2006), and Detroit is "ordering" (purposeful quotes) new 40- and 60-ft (with a no-bid contact for 60s from NFI...imagine that).  UHMMMM ... wasn't there a bankrputcy somewhere that made national news, yet somehow ... well, ............

Yeah, those old  GMCs and even the TMCs (at SMART) ... lost potential.

They may not "have liked" those Gilligs, but I'd put a SMART Gillig -- with what SMART mechanics have done -- up against any MTA chariot from the same period any day and even the "persnickity" NY-ers (looking at you, VG8, *wink*) would notice a major difference.  Our Gilligs -- cheap as they are -- could wipe the floor, even under grueling NYC-conditions.

But -- as always -- respect.  Even though we may have differences of opinion.

[theaveragejoe]

Well when it comes to the MTA NYCT, there are no other contenders out there. NYC Transit does evaluations to qualify bus builders, and there are no other qualified builders. The only big players left are Nova, New Flyer, and Gillig. Not sure exactly what you were reading in my post, but I didn't say the market was non-competitive at all. However the only 2 options for MTA, so it is what it is. As far as at the moment Nova is NOT a contender... They have not delivered a "full comparable" fleet of CNG buses anywhere, and only have one customer in the US under their belt...... So I think u need to read my post again, because nowhere did I say what you are stating..... Plus, I've been in the transit industry for 20 years.... I have access to all the market data..... You are the only who has to have to ask Nova (or yourself) why they have been in business for all these years and are "just now" investing in a CNG LFS.... 

 

Gillig is not an option and most likely never will be... SMART and DDOT hate their fleets.... (I'm from Detroit BTW) Been to all the garages, and have been unter the hood of plenty of your Gilligs.... I really miss SMART's RTS fleet... They had a damn good maintenance team back then. SMART has had so many issues with theirs its ridiculous. From leaking gas takes, horrible suspensions, bad handling, poor breaking.... I could go on.... And let's not forget Gillig just got in the CNG game and hasn't even been in a full 5 years yet. New Flyer on the other hand has delivered nearly 4,000 CNG buses.(Not including NABI) When Gillig and New Flyer deliver 1,000 CNG buses then we can talk..... Hell, when they deliver at least 200+ we can talk... Till then, the CNG market and all other platforms will be dominated by New Flyer until Gillig raises their build quality, and Nova actually makes more CNG buses, and somehow increases production capacity..... Mind you they have yet to send a demo to MTA... New Flyer is like "You want one tomorrow?"

 

DDOT hates their Gilligs (Only batch they ever had) and that's why they are taking delivery of Xcelsiors now. SMART hates their Gilligs as well, but cant afford anything else.

 

Note Nova is not yet a major contender at all: Nova CNG 'full" fleet deliveries in the United States: 0 Canada: 0

 

 

Buffalo's NFTA has got their pilot bus earlier this month

[East New York]

LOOK, all, not getting into a tinkling contest with LOTS of more "regulars" not only on this forum but elsewhere (don't know how "sensitive" the word-filter bot is) . . .

Point I was making was that the THREE "big" bus builders certified under "Build/Buy American" program ALL have CNG offerings, and to not look like "Mafia"-style dealings (we all know that's never EVER happened in NYC, right?), bidding should go out to ALL current builders NO MATTER IF THE MTA THINKS THEY'RE "up to snuff" or not, according to their "standards."

REMEMBER -- the MTA is the one saying, "We need more money, blah blah blah, cough up", yet all of a sudden, they can have a no-bid contract that goes out, with THEM paying the full cost.

ONE -- the MTA is happiest when the Fedz pay some (all) of their bills .... who wouldn't be?

TWO -- the MTA actually "specifies" builds that EVERY other transit operator would be looking for -- so NATURALLY, a contact FROM THE MTA would not only lend "credibility", but also sense that "HEY -- if it's good enough for the largest bus user in the US [and Canada], then trust us."

 

IMHO, nothing wrong with NFI doing CNG. It's just for the MTA to do no-bid -- especially given that they're bawling for money -- it just doesn't make sense when EVERY bus mfr under the current "guidelines" has something to offer, yet they decide it should go to one mfr AND they all of a sudden have cash just stashed away to pay for it.  COMPLETELY against typical MTA operating procedure.

 

An aside to ENY --

SMART Gilligs have made over 500,000 (active since 2001), but DDOT NFI haven't even come close (from active year 2006), and Detroit is "ordering" (purposeful quotes) new 40- and 60-ft (with a no-bid contact for 60s from NFI...imagine that).  UHMMMM ... wasn't there a bankrputcy somewhere that made national news, yet somehow ... well, ............

Yeah, those old  GMCs and even the TMCs (at SMART) ... lost potential.

They may not "have liked" those Gilligs, but I'd put a SMART Gillig -- with what SMART mechanics have done -- up against any MTA chariot from the same period any day and even the "persnickity" NY-ers (looking at you, VG8, *wink*) would notice a major difference.  Our Gilligs -- cheap as they are -- could wipe the floor, even under grueling NYC-conditions.

But -- as always -- respect.  Even though we may have differences of opinion.

 

I understand what you are saying, and it makes perfect sense. However, MTA is operating fully within the scope of the law. You are not evaluating all the facts from every angle. You are just looking at what "you think" is fair. MTA can do whatever they want when it comes to bus orders as long as they are using Capital Project funds. If they request funds from the federal government, then bids are put out. But what good does that do when the only would-be bidder would be New Flyer? Now that would be a waste of tax dollars on stacks of paperwork alone.  

 

MTA is unlike any other agency and the conditions here are more harsh than any other in North America. You could never compare an MTA mechanic or that of the operations to that of SMART. 5,900 buses to maintain versus 300-400 is a lot. Besides, it is also a known fact that New York and Toronto have maintained Detroit Diesel engines better an either Detroit agency ever has. Most of our RTS's as well as Canada's run like they were built 5 years ago. You also have to remember I am from Detroit, and I grew up maintaining RTS' from the age of 10 up right at the SMART Oakland terminal back when it was SEMPTA. I used to tweak those engines with veteran mechanics as a child my man. SMART was the only crew I knew that would remove a governor in a minute and tune a DD to hit 66-70 easy. They did the same with their Flxibles and New Looks... The 7000, 9000-9500 series were the best RTS buses they ever had... When they handed the 9500's over to DDOT they were in pristine condition... They retired looking like they had been through World War Z.  

 

You can't call me the parsnikity NY-er because I just live and work here now. I am an maintenence engineer. My paternal roots may be here but I was raised in The Oakland and Shoemaker terminals. They (SMART) by far had some of the best mechanics in the country back then, and if it wasn't for the fact that they have a good maintenance team now, those Gilligs would have fallen apart long ago. Roofline separations, fuel tank leaks, and faulty suspensions aren't minor issues at all. If SMART could afford other buses, they would have them. This is from their records and accounts. MTA would have Gilligs head on a platter if they delivered buses out here and experienced those issues.

 

MTA put a test program in place to make sure buses hold up to their standards. After evaluating the fact that the Flexibles cracked back in the day, and the Orion VII cracked in half on the shaker, MTA said they would learn from the past and have all buses pass an in-house test and shaker to be qualified for them. No one orders more buses than the MTA, so the standards here need to be higher to ensure that when MTA places an order for 700 buses with 700 options, tax payers don't get caught on the hook if 700 buses have to be returned because they can't hold up to our stress. 

 

MTA invite's bids from every bus manufacturer in existence. NABI and Gillig were the one's who never wanted to submit a bus to the MTA for evaluation..... Why is that??? They didn't think they would meet the MTA standards, and they didn't want to submit any bids. This was right from the horse's mouth as I have personally talked to executives from both companies in 2013 at the APTA conference, where I was a presenter. So that being said, a Gillig could NEVER wipe the floor with anything here.... If rooflines separate from windows in Detroit, they would fall apart 50 times faster on Utica Avenue in Brooklyn..... 

 

At the end of the day, you are blaming the MTA for the fact that only 2 agencies are now bidding on their specifications. No other company can meet the specifications other than New Flyer at this point in time. ANy new bus platform entering into the MTA fleet has to undergo testing prior to acceptance. MTA has the right by law to implement this test program to ensure buses will last at least 12 years under more stressful conditions than anywhere else in North America.

 

 

Buffalo's NFTA has got their pilot bus earlier this month

 

That is correct, and Calgary has 2 pilots as well. Still 0 complete fleet deliveries in either country. 

[DaimlerBuses]

LOOK, all, not getting into a tinkling contest with LOTS of more "regulars" not only on this forum but elsewhere (don't know how "sensitive" the word-filter bot is) . . .

Point I was making was that the THREE "big" bus builders certified under "Build/Buy American" program ALL have CNG offerings, and to not look like "Mafia"-style dealings (we all know that's never EVER happened in NYC, right?), bidding should go out to ALL current builders NO MATTER IF THE MTA THINKS THEY'RE "up to snuff" or not, according to their "standards."

REMEMBER -- the MTA is the one saying, "We need more money, blah blah blah, cough up", yet all of a sudden, they can have a no-bid contract that goes out, with THEM paying the full cost.

ONE -- the MTA is happiest when the Fedz pay some (all) of their bills .... who wouldn't be?

TWO -- the MTA actually "specifies" builds that EVERY other transit operator would be looking for -- so NATURALLY, a contact FROM THE MTA would not only lend "credibility", but also sense that "HEY -- if it's good enough for the largest bus user in the US [and Canada], then trust us."

 

IMHO, nothing wrong with NFI doing CNG. It's just for the MTA to do no-bid -- especially given that they're bawling for money -- it just doesn't make sense when EVERY bus mfr under the current "guidelines" has something to offer, yet they decide it should go to one mfr AND they all of a sudden have cash just stashed away to pay for it.  COMPLETELY against typical MTA operating procedure.

 

An aside to ENY --

SMART Gilligs have made over 500,000 (active since 2001), but DDOT NFI haven't even come close (from active year 2006), and Detroit is "ordering" (purposeful quotes) new 40- and 60-ft (with a no-bid contact for 60s from NFI...imagine that).  UHMMMM ... wasn't there a bankrputcy somewhere that made national news, yet somehow ... well, ............

Yeah, those old  GMCs and even the TMCs (at SMART) ... lost potential.

They may not "have liked" those Gilligs, but I'd put a SMART Gillig -- with what SMART mechanics have done -- up against any MTA chariot from the same period any day and even the "persnickity" NY-ers (looking at you, VG8, *wink*) would notice a major difference.  Our Gilligs -- cheap as they are -- could wipe the floor, even under grueling NYC-conditions.

But -- as always -- respect.  Even though we may have differences of opinion.

A lot of these so called "sole source" contracts are not by design. In fact, often times they happen because while the transit agency utilized a competitive bid process, either only one manufacturer bid, or several manufacturers bid but only one was deemed compliant. It can cost thousands of dollars in staff time and company resources just to prepare a bid for submission. If a manufacturer realizes they cannot reasonably have a chance of meeting the specifications and/or terms of the bid, sometimes they will not bother bidding at all. Also consider that the reality is transit bus bids have become slightly less competitive in nature due to the contraction of manufacturers in the market (no Orion, no NABI). Some of these specifications/terms that manufacturers can see an issue with include:

 

• General specifications - such as length and fuel type. As an example, right now New Flyer is the only manufacturer that is building 60' CNG buses.
• Terms of the bid - warranty length, delivery date can't be met due to current production commitments, etc.
• Structure of the bid - Some agencies will tender multi year contracts for buses of multiple lengths and fuel type, with the condition that it will be all awarded to a single manufacturer (not awarded separate by fuel type and/or length)

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure what you're trying to make with the DDOT/SMART comparison. Of course a bus from 2001 will have more mileage than a bus from 2006.

[DaimlerBuses]

it is also a known fact that New York and Toronto have maintained Detroit Diesel engines better an either Detroit agency ever has. Most of our RTS's as well as Canada's run like they were built 5 years ago

 

. 

I will respectfully disagree on the RTS running well in Canada. TTC has begun phasing theirs out earlier than they expected due to corrosion, decreasing reliability and increasing repair costs. Not to mention some of the other issues TTC had with them, especially the multiplex system and exterior panels. There were other systems in Canada that retired their RTS earlier than planned because they had become too costly and difficult to maintain.

 

That being said, the RTS in general was never popular up here. There were maybe 200-300 RTS built for Canadian customers, and that's through the entire run from GM to Nova.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I will respectfully disagree on the RTS running well in Canada. TTC has begun phasing theirs out earlier than they expected due to corrosion, decreasing reliability and increasing repair costs. Not to mention some of the other issues TTC had with them, especially the multiplex system and exterior panels. There were other systems in Canada that retired their RTS earlier than planned because they had become too costly and difficult to maintain.

 

That being said, the RTS in general was never popular up here. There were maybe 200-300 RTS built for Canadian customers, and that's through the entire run from GM to Nova.

Sorry to say it but Canada runs everything into the ground, so trying to rate RTS's quality in Canada isn't saying much.

[Fresh Pond]

Sorry to say it but Canada runs everything into the ground, so trying to rate RTS's quality in Canada isn't saying much.

No he's actually kinda right

 

The RTS never really caught on in Canada, so they built the Classic for Canada...which in turn kinda caught on in the States

[Via Garibaldi 8]

No he's actually kinda right

 

The RTS never really caught on in Canada, so they built the Classic for Canada...which in turn kinda caught on in the States

Not disagreeing... Just saying that Canada in general doesn't seem to invest as much as they should.  I have colleagues up there who constantly complain about how buildings are in such terrible shape, etc.  The buses and trains aren't much better. lol

[East New York]

I will respectfully disagree on the RTS running well in Canada. TTC has begun phasing theirs out earlier than they expected due to corrosion, decreasing reliability and increasing repair costs. Not to mention some of the other issues TTC had with them, especially the multiplex system and exterior panels. There were other systems in Canada that retired their RTS earlier than planned because they had become too costly and difficult to maintain.

 

That being said, the RTS in general was never popular up here. There were maybe 200-300 RTS built for Canadian customers, and that's through the entire run from GM to Nova.

 

I'm talking about maintenance of the engines in this example. Not the actual configuration, which was one of TMC/Novs's worse.

[DetSMART45]

Alright, as promised, I can admit when I'm wrong, and being schooled by ENY actually leads me to better understanding.

 

I'll also admit that Gillig does build a "basic" bus when compared to the other manufacturers, and they certainly wouldn't handle the much more abusive NYC environment.

 

The bidding for CNG, I can see the point (and could before my last post).  But another question that I didn't mention was, Why the "absolute necessity" of doing the purchase to begin with in the "right now" frame of mind.  Yes, I understand the fleet replacement needs, but does the CNG fleet actually fiscally perform better -- in a significant way -- than clean diesel for the additional cost associated?  Or is it more of a way of maintaining the MTA's "Look at us being good people saving the environment" face?  Reason I bring this up: Many question the MTA's accounting methods/"transparency" (i.e. bus route usage figures, on-time performance, etc.) to the riding public, and if there's only a very negligable "savings" being seen, then adjustments should be made -- for proper use of the funding.

 

Hopefully this gets the thread back on track, and thanks all for the input.

[bobtehpanda]

Alright, as promised, I can admit when I'm wrong, and being schooled by ENY actually leads me to better understanding.

 

I'll also admit that Gillig does build a "basic" bus when compared to the other manufacturers, and they certainly wouldn't handle the much more abusive NYC environment.

 

The bidding for CNG, I can see the point (and could before my last post).  But another question that I didn't mention was, Why the "absolute necessity" of doing the purchase to begin with in the "right now" frame of mind.  Yes, I understand the fleet replacement needs, but does the CNG fleet actually fiscally perform better -- in a significant way -- than clean diesel for the additional cost associated?  Or is it more of a way of maintaining the MTA's "Look at us being good people saving the environment" face?  Reason I bring this up: Many question the MTA's accounting methods/"transparency" (i.e. bus route usage figures, on-time performance, etc.) to the riding public, and if there's only a very negligable "savings" being seen, then adjustments should be made -- for proper use of the funding.

 

Hopefully this gets the thread back on track, and thanks all for the input.

 

All the CNG buses use specific CNG equipment to fill up and such. Switching all of those buses over to diesel would probably strain existing diesel facilities at the depots. It's not an insignificant amount to switch between two radically different types of propulsion. (Gas prices have also been cheaper than oil for the past few years due to the shale boom.)

[Blitz]

Alright, as promised, I can admit when I'm wrong, and being schooled by ENY actually leads me to better understanding.

 

I'll also admit that Gillig does build a "basic" bus when compared to the other manufacturers, and they certainly wouldn't handle the much more abusive NYC environment.

 

The bidding for CNG, I can see the point (and could before my last post). But another question that I didn't mention was, Why the "absolute necessity" of doing the purchase to begin with in the "right now" frame of mind. Yes, I understand the fleet replacement needs, but does the CNG fleet actually fiscally perform better -- in a significant way -- than clean diesel for the additional cost associated? Or is it more of a way of maintaining the MTA's "Look at us being good people saving the environment" face? Reason I bring this up: Many question the MTA's accounting methods/"transparency" (i.e. bus route usage figures, on-time performance, etc.) to the riding public, and if there's only a very negligable "savings" being seen, then adjustments should be made -- for proper use of the funding.

 

Hopefully this gets the thread back on track, and thanks all for the input.

The procurement of the cng buses is all about funding. To get federal funding to buy buses, a certain percent of the fleet has to be alternatively fueled. Thats why we still get cng buses even though they cost more to maintain. The hybrids were brought for a combination of reasons. 1 the same federal funding terms as the CNG buses, 2 the mta thought that they would increase fuel efficiency across the fleet (I've heard that this is only true with cross town routes in Manhattan), 3 Orion did a hell of a job tricking us into believing that the maintenance costs would be lower than comperable straight diesel buses, and 4 the MTA want that clean green image you mentioned.

[East New York]

Alright, as promised, I can admit when I'm wrong, and being schooled by ENY actually leads me to better understanding.

 

I'll also admit that Gillig does build a "basic" bus when compared to the other manufacturers, and they certainly wouldn't handle the much more abusive NYC environment.

 

The bidding for CNG, I can see the point (and could before my last post).  But another question that I didn't mention was, Why the "absolute necessity" of doing the purchase to begin with in the "right now" frame of mind.  Yes, I understand the fleet replacement needs, but does the CNG fleet actually fiscally perform better -- in a significant way -- than clean diesel for the additional cost associated?  Or is it more of a way of maintaining the MTA's "Look at us being good people saving the environment" face?  Reason I bring this up: Many question the MTA's accounting methods/"transparency" (i.e. bus route usage figures, on-time performance, etc.) to the riding public, and if there's only a very negligable "savings" being seen, then adjustments should be made -- for proper use of the funding.

 

Hopefully this gets the thread back on track, and thanks all for the input.

 

 

In addition to what Blitz stated, the Orion VII CNG's are costing the MTA much more to maintain than anticipated. True they cost more to maintain than straight diesels, but not much more at all, and they are a very attractive option if purchasing large quantities of fuel as the MTA does.

 

This is one of the reasons Spring Creek was converted to an all CNG local operation.

 

Now enter the New Flyer C40LF. MTA had an excellent experience with the buses and were forced to retire because their takes were expiring. This is not the case with the Orion's, and was the major factor in MTA telling New Flyer that if they wanted the contract, the buses had to be based on the exact same basic architecture as the previous model, and be common in parts. Thus, the Xcelsior and LFR were automatically disqualified.

 

When I confirmed NFI would resurrect the C40LF just for the MTA because they were pleased with the model, and it outperformed it's newer Orion counterpart, I remember the comment of "needing to stay off the drugs and stop trying to get site hits." Well now you all know the official reason into why this is the only agency with post-Xcelsior built classic LF models. This is also the very reason why SEPTA terminated decades long ties with New Flyer, and no one believed me. It was public record at the time that SEPTA wanted more LF's and were informed by New Flyer that only the LFR and Xcelsior models would be available.

 

MTA's "need to replace right now" attitude are coming from the fact that the buses are costing a lot more to maintain at the same lifespan of the older C40LF's that have retired. 

 

MTA anticipates the current C40LF's won't have to be replaced until 2027-2031. From a maintenance standpoint, if they replace the fleet ASAP with Xcelsiors, the can drastically lowers maintenance and parts costs, as the buses will have a configuration almost exactly like that of the C40LF, with 90% parts common to the XD40's already here.

 

Not only that, but the the Orion VII CNG tanks will begin to expire in 2017. MTA can't afford to wait until 2016 to place the order. We are already cutting it close because one always has to consider a fact that the delivery could be delayed for any reason. 

[Fresh Pond]

I always thought we picked up on the LF option (as opposed to LFR) was largely because Chicago couldn't pay for the rest of their order and we got them on the cheap, along with Baltimore and their 11 DE60LFs

[East New York]

No, at the end of the day, New Flyer was just able to fill the order because they had parts left from the CTA cancellation. The DE60's were already built when they were sold. Our buses were new built from the ground up

[SEPTA NewFlyer]

In addition to what Blitz stated, the Orion VII CNG's are costing the MTA much more to maintain than anticipated. True they cost more to maintain than straight diesels, but not much more at all, and they are a very attractive option if purchasing large quantities of fuel as the MTA does.

 

This is one of the reasons Spring Creek was converted to an all CNG local operation.

 

Now enter the New Flyer C40LF. MTA had an excellent experience with the buses and were forced to retire because their takes were expiring. This is not the case with the Orion's, and was the major factor in MTA telling New Flyer that if they wanted the contract, the buses had to be based on the exact same basic architecture as the previous model, and be common in parts. Thus, the Xcelsior and LFR were automatically disqualified.

 

When I confirmed NFI would resurrect the C40LF just for the MTA because they were pleased with the model, and it outperformed it's newer Orion counterpart, I remember the comment of "needing to stay off the drugs and stop trying to get site hits." Well now you all know the official reason into why this is the only agency with post-Xcelsior built classic LF models. This is also the very reason why SEPTA terminated decades long ties with New Flyer, and no one believed me. It was public record at the time that SEPTA wanted more LF's and were informed by New Flyer that only the LFR and Xcelsior models would be available.

 

MTA's "need to replace right now" attitude are coming from the fact that the buses are costing a lot more to maintain at the same lifespan of the older C40LF's that have retired. 

 

MTA anticipates the current C40LF's won't have to be replaced until 2027-2031. From a maintenance standpoint, if they replace the fleet ASAP with Xcelsiors, the can drastically lowers maintenance and parts costs, as the buses will have a configuration almost exactly like that of the C40LF, with 90% parts common to the XD40's already here.

 

Not only that, but the the Orion VII CNG tanks will begin to expire in 2017. MTA can't afford to wait until 2016 to place the order. We are already cutting it close because one always has to consider a fact that the delivery could be delayed for any reason. 

 

We didn't cut ties... New Flyer didn't bid on our last order so the order went to Novabus. On top of that, SEPTA is buying New Flyer MiDi's.

At first SEPTA was pissed cause of the whole LF/LFR/Xcel situation, but we accepted the LFR's and SEPTA actually likes them now. We also have a future order of 525 buses coming up and we were looking heavily into New Flyer once again. it'll be either diesel electric or electric.

[East New York]

We didn't cut ties... New Flyer didn't bid on our last order so the order went to Novabus. On top of that, SEPTA is buying New Flyer MiDi's.

At first SEPTA was pissed cause of the whole LF/LFR/Xcel situation, but we accepted the LFR's and SEPTA actually likes them now. We also have a future order of 525 buses coming up and we were looking heavily into New Flyer once again. it'll be either diesel electric or electric.

From what I was told NFI didn't bid on the last one because of the LF ordeal, but they have been actively trying to win you all over again... Looks like it was a success...

[SEPTA NewFlyer]

From what I was told NFI didn't bid on the last one because of the LF ordeal, but they have been actively trying to win you all over again... Looks like it was a success...

 

No, NFI was backlogged with other orders which was why they didn't bid for us. They didn't win us over just yet, we still have other companies that are coming in with buses. The only logical reason SEPTA would go back to New Flyer is so they don't have to train the mechanics too much since they're already familiar with New Flyer equipment.

[aemoreira81]

That's the problem with the older CNG buses---the tanks are only good for 15 years, and many of the batch have less than 3 years left to go. I expect that these  new CNG buses will have 20-year tanks as the 185-672 batch of C40LFs have,

[East New York]

CNG Procurement Update:

 

On August 11, 2015 at 10am, MTA conducted a pre-proposal conference for the next CNG procurement. 3 manufactures have expressed interest. El Dorado National, New Flyer of America, and NovaBus.

 

At this time, MTA still wants to award the contract based on best value as well as delivery schedule and a few other technical point.

 

El Dorado however is not qualified under the New Bus Testing Program, and will most likely not be able to have a bus qualified in time for the contract to be awarded.

 

The Authority (NYCTA) requires the Proposers to successfully complete the required structural qualification and all other qualification activities in accordance with the New Bus Testing Program. Proposals will only be considered from those manufacturers offering a bus already tested and approved by NYCTA or from manufacturers who can demonstrate that they have the ability to qualify their proposed bus in time to support the Authority's delivery schedule requirements.

 

NYCTA will consider the following factors, which are listed in descending order of importance, in evaluating proposals:

 

Overall Project Cost including, in addition to pricing, such matters as payment terms, net cost savings and or additions regarding proposed changes to the Contract Terms and Conditions and the Technical Specifications.

 

• New York State Content

• Overall Quality of Proposer and Product

• Other Relevant Matters

 

Any and all proposals are now due no later than September 15th as the MTA wants to award a contract by October 2nd, and require a delivery schedule that will have the base order of 138 buses on MTA property by the end of next year. If Nova can somehow prove they can meet this delivery schedule, they will once again be considered as their buses are already qualified. Options for an additional 125 buses are expected to be delivered immediately following the base order.

[Fresh Pond]

Eldorado LMAOOOO

[NewFlyer 230]

Didn't El Dorado test a bus a long time ago with Long Island Bus?

[MTA Bus]

Thank god El Dorado isn't qualified. That's just crazy.

[East New York]

Didn't El Dorado test a bus a long time ago with Long Island Bus?

 

I believe they sent a demo there, but that has nothing to do with the TA. We were supposed to get E10 "3G" CNG's alongside LIB, but that contract was transferred to New Flyer for additional C40LF's.

[BNQtrain3912]

CNG Procurement Update:

 

On August 11, 2015 at 10am, MTA conducted a pre-proposal conference for the next CNG procurement. 3 manufactures have expressed interest. El Dorado National, New Flyer of America, and NovaBus.

 

At this time, MTA still wants to award the contract based on best value as well as delivery schedule and a few other technical point.

 

El Dorado however is not qualified under the New Bus Testing Program, and will most likely not be able to have a bus qualified in time for the contract to be awarded.

 

The Authority (NYCTA) requires the Proposers to successfully complete the required structural qualification and all other qualification activities in accordance with the New Bus Testing Program. Proposals will only be considered from those manufacturers offering a bus already tested and approved by NYCTA or from manufacturers who can demonstrate that they have the ability to qualify their proposed bus in time to support the Authority's delivery schedule requirements.

 

NYCTA will consider the following factors, which are listed in descending order of importance, in evaluating proposals:

 

Overall Project Cost including, in addition to pricing, such matters as payment terms, net cost savings and or additions regarding proposed changes to the Contract Terms and Conditions and the Technical Specifications.

 

• New York State Content

• Overall Quality of Proposer and Product

• Other Relevant Matters

 

Any and all proposals are now due no later than September 15th as the MTA wants to award a contract by October 2nd, and require a delivery schedule that will have the base order of 138 buses on MTA property by the end of next year. If Nova can somehow prove they can meet this delivery schedule, they will once again be considered as their buses are already qualified. Options for an additional 125 buses are expected to be delivered immediately following the base order.

What about gillig??