Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
MysteriousBtrain

MTA vows to scrap all of its old diesel buses by early May

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Are these the last RTS in the whole system?

Aside from the museum fleet, yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2019 at 6:42 PM, Flatbush SBS Duece said:

Yes and the reason being, there are not enough leg room, the seats doesn't go back as much compared to the recent buses that are out there. Myself when I had to operate on them I would have to try to adjust the seat up high which caused a hazardous issue since the panel on top of the bus would interfered with my view and sometimes by sitting high up because I have long legs, it would take a toll on my knees holding the service brake pedal at traffic light or moving through slow traffic. Some of the RTS seats doesn't even go up or back enough.

But overall if these buses were to have a little drag race, the RTS would out beat the current bus since the speed on those buses are wooohoooo........((Thats all I'm saying)) lol 

Leg room has always been a major issue. Something I never really understood. And yeah they definitely need to go. My only point is some of the kneelers won’t go back up on new buses lol. Or the bypass they’ll the bus it does but it’s really still dragging the ground. Especially when crushloaded. That’s usually the only time an RTS kneeler won’t go back up as well. But it took 15 years for them to start wearing out. New buses? 15 months lmao.

Being someone who isn’t a y’all guy the RTS is perfect for me. The only friends that I have that are tall that like them are SOLELY because they are RTS fans. 80% of the guys that are tall can’t stand that bus, and I can totally understand why. And yep, if you sit too high you can’t see and it becomes a safety issue. This is why many agencies including TTC opted for the Wide Front Door Model. Those things have crazy room in the front, they are just ugly as hell. Lol

On 3/22/2019 at 9:58 PM, Brillant93 said:

I understand some may be upset about the RTSs. But they are aging or have aged and even though they drive fast or do better in weather you can’t deny they are having issues and they’re not environmentally friendly. I’ve also read across saying how people opt for them because there’s more space? Well any other but would have the same space if people would learn how to walk up the stairs of the newer buses when the operator asks people to. 

True they are aging but yes many people including passengers in my part of Brooklyn (contrary to what politicians and haters want you to believe) in the poorest neighborhoods as they say, which I live dead smack in the center of, if a low floor and a high floor come back to back crush loaded, a good portion of these poor people are gonna run to the high floor. I see it all the time. Elderly people will even hold up a whole bus to go up some steps. 

If they asked “real” people in and around my neighborhood how they feel, or maybe the older crowd on the upper east side and lower Manhattan how they feel we would know. Funny all these damn years have passed and not ONE rich person has made a stink about in in some of the nicest neighborhoods in Manhattan or Queens.

At the end of the day, of the Orion V, and Orion VII were of better build quality  Most of the RTS would have been gone long ago.

However, MTA has to divert funds to order “emergency” Xcelsiors and implement artics in order to get rid of 2 whole fleets of buses that were costing them an exorbitant about of money to maintain. 

It’s sad that as I write this in 2019, the RTS still has the lowest maintenance cost..... Oh, and gets better gas mileage than the newest MCI’s we have, and the roofs of MCI’s haven’t been made of steel in a long time. Plus they are of newer EPA standards... Interesting.

Again, I agree it’s time for them to go, but the ties that are needed to get them off the road says something all in itself

On 3/22/2019 at 10:02 PM, ABOGbrooklyn said:

I always thought that the newer buses have more space and the RTS have less space.

It’s the opposite. High floors automatically have more space. More floor space, more seating space. No front wheels to compete with..... 

I thought that was quite obvious just by standing in one and looking

On 3/22/2019 at 11:35 PM, Q23 via 108 said:

Either way, the RTS is dying in Brooklyn. Weren't the very 1st RTS brought to Brooklyn?

Yes they were. To East New York.

On 3/23/2019 at 9:15 AM, Flatbush SBS Duece said:

Exactly!  How ironic it was all of sudden they decided to make the change ASAP. The RTS was due to retire by the end of the year, but again sometimes Transit don't always follow their agenda. If it wasn't for the public addressing this concern, it would have been remain the same situation with these depots still using old buses or hand me down buses.

Yeah, there’s a few undercover haters that got together with a few passengers that would also agree they are time to go, and fabricated a whole story.

I wonder what this means for the Retirement party?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, East New York said:

It’s the opposite. High floors automatically have more space. More floor space, more seating space. No front wheels to compete with..... 

I thought that was quite obvious just by standing in one and looking

More seating room, I can see but more standing room than the low floor buses? No way. It's always cramped when I stand in a RTS that's packed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this note, can anybody point me to a good photo of 5249 in the new paintjob? I saw the shot from the rear but I'm dying to see the whole look. That's gonna bring me right back. If they need any original fare decals or 1990s depot stickers, I'll contribute lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2019 at 8:57 PM, ABOGbrooklyn said:

More seating room, I can see but more standing room than the low floor buses? No way. It's always cramped when I stand in a RTS that's packed.

No wheel flares in the front, and no stairwell or walls taking away standing room in the back.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Deucey said:

No wheel flares in the front, and no stairwell or walls taking away standing room in the back.

This is true but the low floor buses seem wider to me. Making it feel more roomier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ABOGbrooklyn said:

This is true but the low floor buses seem wider to me. Making it feel more roomier.

They’re 102 inches wide, while I think many RTSes are 96 to 102 inches wide. But because the height from floor to roof, it seems more spacious.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2019 at 8:57 PM, ABOGbrooklyn said:

More seating room, I can see but more standing room than the low floor buses? No way. It's always cramped when I stand in a RTS that's packed.

Yes more standing room as well like mentioned above. They are all the same width. 

Theres more head room in the front of low floors. That’s all. 

5 hours ago, Deucey said:

They’re 102 inches wide, while I think many RTSes are 96 to 102 inches wide. But because the height from floor to roof, it seems more spacious.

There actually aren’t that many 96 inch wide buses that were produced in the later years years, and overall only account for about 20% of the total buses ever built. 

Yes all MTA buses are 102 inches wide. They haven’t ordered 96 in. wide buses since before most of us were born.

These days the major manufacturing companies have discontinued the “narrow-body” and only offer standard 102 in. wide models. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the RTS feel more cramped because the windows curve in at the top, but they are the same width as ENY noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, East New York said:

These days the major manufacturing companies have discontinued the “narrow-body” and only offer standard 102 in. wide models. 

I never understood the 96in market. We had Orion V’s in Sacramento at 96 in 30 ft models, and even those were cramped on low utilization lines (especially if a wheelchair came on).

But is there some rationale for not using 45 ft transit buses to ease this crowding (a la both B38s and every SI bus during rush)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Deucey said:

I never understood the 96in market. We had Orion V’s in Sacramento at 96 in 30 ft models, and even those were cramped on low utilization lines (especially if a wheelchair came on).

But is there some rationale for not using 45 ft transit buses to ease this crowding (a la both B38s and every SI bus during rush)?

That would first require a suitable one to exist in the North American market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lex said:

I figured you were going to bring that bus up, which is why I chose my words carefully.

Not carefully enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Deucey said:

But is there some rationale for not using 45 ft transit buses to ease this crowding (a la both B38s and every SI bus during rush)?

Outside of coach buses, nobody makes units that are 45 Ft. However, some buses have/had options to extend past 40 ft by at least a few inches or at least 2 ft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Deucey said:

Not carefully enough.

I said "suitable" for a reason. If our fleet over the last 25 years serves as any indication, NABI had no place, least of all that model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Deucey said:

I never understood the 96in market. We had Orion V’s in Sacramento at 96 in 30 ft models, and even those were cramped on low utilization lines (especially if a wheelchair came on).

But is there some rationale for not using 45 ft transit buses to ease this crowding (a la both B38s and every SI bus during rush)?

Many agencies that are small have never really needed anything more than a narrow body. Quite a few agencies carry small loads that don’t require wide-body buses. 

Burlington, VT for example ONLY ordered RTS buses in 96 inch models no matter the length. 

Chicago had narrow-body buses so they could better fit on roads under elevated track. As far as 45 foot buses go, there has only been one manufacturer, and there’s no market for it. Surprisingly there wasn’t really a market for it when it was available. 

MTA doesn’t like to use buses that would be restricted to certain depots or routes. 

So basically is the rationale for not using them is the fact that they aren’t available, and MTA did NOT purchase anything from NABI, and never would have. 

The MTA however was once interested in the 42.5 foot RTS Extreme BRT, and that bus could have run out of any depot on any standard line. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, East New York said:

Surprisingly there wasn’t really a market for it when it was available. 

Is there any reason why 45 fters don't have a market in the usa? Is it turning radius, capacity, etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG I could kick myself in the face...... I just missed my bus, and it was 5119 😩

Oh well. 7565 will do. These new XD40’s are the truth! The take-off!!!! 🤤 It’s kinda bittersweet looking at the “Test Your Bus IQ” on the info screen in this bus.... I always wait for the RTS to pop up. 😫😪

On 3/28/2019 at 6:07 PM, Orion6025 said:

Is there any reason why 45 fters don't have a market in the usa? Is it turning radius, capacity, etc?

There are a few reason, but I’m glad you asked because it’s an interesting story. There are a lot of restrictions, and an agency like NJT for example could not take them because they have a rear axle weight limit. Note, this is why NJT NABI’s have a smaller rear ended and they were basically custom made. To this day the directors of maintenance, procurement and bus ops said they wished they had gone with the RTS. 

Crazy thing, this was my favorite NABI product to date, however they could not make a business case for it. It was too far ahead of its time. It was made out of composite materials very similar to that of the Boeing 787 and future 797. Many agencies were not sure of how they would hold up. In my personal opinion, this is the one NABI bus MTA should have gone for. U fortunately at the time, NABI refused to work with the MTA as did Gillig. 

Outside of LA and Florida, the 45C never made a huge splash. A possible saving grace was when CTA showed interest and ordered 1 Bus with options for an additional 24. NABI then tried to secure more orders following the delivery of the CTA pilot. However there was no major interest, which forced them to close the line, and leaving CTA without remaining option availability. 

They returned the pilot which they had actually accepted as there was no longer a need for it if NABI could not afford to produce the rest. This also made CTA uncertain of the future for the line and chose not to commit to anything more than 24. 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/27/2019 at 4:54 AM, East New York said:

Yes more standing room as well like mentioned above. They are all the same width. 

Theres more head room in the front of low floors. That’s all. 

There actually aren’t that many 96 inch wide buses that were produced in the later years years, and overall only account for about 20% of the total buses ever built. 

Yes all MTA buses are 102 inches wide. They haven’t ordered 96 in. wide buses since before most of us were born.

These days the major manufacturing companies have discontinued the “narrow-body” and only offer standard 102 in. wide models. 

The last time the MTA ordered a 96" bus was in 1980, and that wasn't intended for MTA service, but to be operated by the Avenue B and East Broadway Company, but they went out of business (their route was today's M9). That is also the only time.

I'm actually surprised that New Flyer doesn't consider stretching the XD40 (and add a tag axle) for higher density routes that require frequency. Only in Los Angeles are there 45-foot low floor buses.

Edited by aemoreira81
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/30/2019 at 8:35 PM, East New York said:

OMG I could kick myself in the face...... I just missed my bus, and it was 5119 😩

Oh well. 7565 will do. These new XD40’s are the truth! The take-off!!!! 🤤 It’s kinda bittersweet looking at the “Test Your Bus IQ” on the info screen in this bus.... I always wait for the RTS to pop up. 😫😪

There are a few reason, but I’m glad you asked because it’s an interesting story. There are a lot of restrictions, and an agency like NJT for example could not take them because they have a rear axle weight limit. Note, this is why NJT NABI’s have a smaller rear ended and they were basically custom made. To this day the directors of maintenance, procurement and bus ops said they wished they had gone with the RTS. 

Crazy thing, this was my favorite NABI product to date, however they could not make a business case for it. It was too far ahead of its time. It was made out of composite materials very similar to that of the Boeing 787 and future 797. Many agencies were not sure of how they would hold up. In my personal opinion, this is the one NABI bus MTA should have gone for. U fortunately at the time, NABI refused to work with the MTA as did Gillig. 

Outside of LA and Florida, the 45C never made a huge splash. A possible saving grace was when CTA showed interest and ordered 1 Bus with options for an additional 24. NABI then tried to secure more orders following the delivery of the CTA pilot. However there was no major interest, which forced them to close the line, and leaving CTA without remaining option availability. 

They returned the pilot which they had actually accepted as there was no longer a need for it if NABI could not afford to produce the rest. This also made CTA uncertain of the future for the line and chose not to commit to anything more than 24. 

 

On top of this, at one point, New Jersey Transit was going to order 45Cs for the GOBus services....I still wonder what happened with that deal that made them back off. I know part of it was because of the increasing costs.

Edited by Cait Sith
  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

On top of this, at one point, New Jersey Transit was going to order 45Cs for the GOBus services....I still wonder what happened with that deal that made them back off. I know part of it was because of the increasing costs.

Correct. The costs kept going up, composites were not cheap at all then, and things just started to unravel. They wanted NABI to take weight out the rear end also which caused the price to rise significantly. I still have yet to ride one, but I will try to catch a few in LA before they retire. 

I totally forgot NJT was in the mix. Thanks for the reminder! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2019 at 9:40 PM, aemoreira81 said:

The last time the MTA ordered a 96" bus was in 1980, and that wasn't intended for MTA service, but to be operated by the Avenue B and East Broadway Company, but they went out of business (their route was today's M9). That is also the only time.

I'm actually surprised that New Flyer doesn't consider stretching the XD40 (and add a tag axle) for higher density routes that require frequency. Only in Los Angeles are there 45-foot low floor buses.

Don’t forget Arizona. I made a mistake and realized I typed Florida in my post. That was an error. Arizona and LA have them actually.  

As I said previously, there was no major business case for the bus therefore no need for NFI to even think about considering it. Adding a tag to a Xcelsior wouldn’t work anyway unless the buses went back to all-steel. It’s not durable enough, nor would it be worth the development money. It would not sell very well at all, and you would have an extra long rear section and 2 axels would now have to sit under the floor. The Xcelsior touts it’s fuel efficiency and a 2-axel would have all but killed that. 

In addition to all that, another reason it was never considered (other than not being efficient in any way) is because NFI has wanted MCI for years. They have wanted them since the D45HF was continued. It just wasn’t public knowledge. Hence the next gen D4500 now basically having a tradition NFI designation. D45 CRT and D45 CRT/LE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.