|
BusTalk A Community Discussing Buses and Bus Operations Worldwide!
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Dieseljim Deceased
Joined: 26 Jun 2008 Posts: 548 Location: Perry, NY
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:14 am Post subject: Mack Buses versus Today's Rolling Junkheaps |
|
|
I believe that if Mack were ever to go back to building buses for both transit and over the road markets, their offerings would outlast and outperfrom much of the junk now seen going down the highways and plying city streets today. Mack knows what Bulldog Tough means, today's bunch of fairies turning out todays pathetic excuses of transit buses do not. The old Niagara Frontier Transit System, Incorporated of Buffalo New York got no less than 15 years out of its Macks and more than 20 years in some cases as compared to 12 years out of today's junk if you are lucky. I rode both styles of C49DTs in Buffalo; old look and new look, when they were still in service. quiet and nice riding buses these were. Same for the GM fishbowls and Old Looks. As for the TDH5106 old look, the NFT wound up with 55-65 of the buses once the Buffalo Transit Company's 20 were added to the fleet in the 1960s. BTC's 36 and 45 seater old looks were NOT retained by NFT, but sold off along with both BTC garages. NFT kept BTC's larger buses and sold off the rest, a total of 30 buses out of a fleet of more than 100. What's more, even a few of NFT's prewar Macks lasted as late as 1971, when the last one was retired. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cyberider
Joined: 27 Apr 2007 Posts: 515 Location: Tempe, AZ
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As much as I would like to believe this, I suspect Mack would be legislated into building the same sort of junk the current manufacturers are since it appears little is left up to the manufacturer to design without governmental intervention. I loved the old manufacturer-designed buses a lot more than the government-designed buses of today. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Linsky BusTalk's Offical Welcoming Committee
Joined: 16 Apr 2007 Posts: 5071 Location: BRENTWOOD, CA. - WOODMERE, N.Y.
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D.J.,
Having Mack back in the bus business would be great as long as they 'don't' build them the way the used to!
Don't get me wrong - I'm a Mack fan from way back as most of you know but their big mistake and a good deal of the reason for their downfall was that they built buses on truck chassis.
And, as solid as they appeared to be, the constant vibration and road shock ripped them to pieces.
To add Diesel to the fire, the extra weight of the heavy chassis caused excess fuel and oil consumption - a chief complaint by most Mack operators.
GM, on the other hand, went with the monocoque or airplane fuselage type construction which eliminated a chassis altogether.
Now, if you said - bring back the old GM buses - that would be another story!
Mr. Linsky - Green Bus Lines, Inc., Jamaica, NY |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dieseljim Deceased
Joined: 26 Jun 2008 Posts: 548 Location: Perry, NY
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: Transit Bus Manufacturers |
|
|
That is why I refer the ADA (Americans With Disabilities ACt) as the Crybabies' Law because of the whining and bellering it took to get that passed and the numerous flaws that are still in it to this day. I see that as a contributing cause for GM's getting out of the bus manufacturing business altogether. If it were up to me I would tell some peabrained bureaucrat to kiss my a-- if he doesn't like the bus design I come up with. and Add I am not about to let a bunch of crybabies who are ability challenged to dictate bus design to me. I am not about to turn out junk just because a bunch of crybabies in wheelchairs want the whole fleet lift equipped. However, I would order lift equipped buses based on actual usage and not some phony figures given to require the entire fleet be lift equipped. I bet the g overnment is on one hell of a cocaine high right now. Cyberider wrote: | As much as I would like to believe this, I suspect Mack would be legislated into building the same sort of junk the current manufacturers are since it appears little is left up to the manufacturer to design without governmental intervention. I loved the old manufacturer-designed buses a lot more than the government-designed buses of today. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
RailBus63 Moderator
Joined: 16 Apr 2007 Posts: 1063
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some of today's bus models are better than others. The better transit agencies have shown that it is certainly possible to get 15 years service or more out of modern transit buses. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DE60LF
Joined: 03 Oct 2007 Posts: 142 Location: Albuquerque, NM
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RailBus63 wrote: | Some of today's bus models are better than others. The better transit agencies have shown that it is certainly possible to get 15 years service or more out of modern transit buses. |
ABQ RIDE still has their 1996 Neoplan AN440 CNG buses in service. They are still going strong. I think that they can endure to at least past 2011.
In fact, I have heard rumors that the ABQ RIDE is looking to retire their Thomas SLF200 CNG buses made in 2001. I know that ABQ RIDE is currently looking for 30-40 more 40-foot diesel-electric hybrid buses.
The Thomas SLF200 CNGs are the least reliable in the ABQ RIDE fleet. They usually make up over half of all breakdowns in the entire fleet. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Linsky BusTalk's Offical Welcoming Committee
Joined: 16 Apr 2007 Posts: 5071 Location: BRENTWOOD, CA. - WOODMERE, N.Y.
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
DE60LF,
I'll tell you that Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines (The big Blue Bus) here in L. A. is a bellwether when it comes to using its equipment to its fullest potential! (and making a profit doing it too!).
They only recently retired the last of their GMDD 'New Looks' (one of which they have preserved) and still operate a number of their MCI 'Classics' and expect to do so for a number of years to come (and they still look brand new - see below).
It's just a question of a well organized maintenance program (which they excell in) and a dose of tender loving care!
Photo taken by Steve Hoskins with # 5205 while in original livery
Mr.Linsky - Green Bus Lines, Inc., Jamaica, NY
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dieseljim Deceased
Joined: 26 Jun 2008 Posts: 548 Location: Perry, NY
|
Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:43 pm Post subject: The Classic, Now THAT's a REAL bus |
|
|
I liked the photo of the Classic, now That"s a REAL bus and the way a bus should be built. It may not be a fishbowl, but it is the next best thing. Too bad they are not building them anymore. Canada Coach Lines' very last acquisition was for 10-20 Classics in the single door suburban configuration, sort of a follow on to the GM SDM4501/4502 suburbans they operated for so many years as the workhorse of their fleet. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
HwyHaulier
Joined: 16 Dec 2007 Posts: 932 Location: Harford County, MD
|
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject: Re: Mack Buses versus Today's Rolling Junkheaps |
|
|
Great thread, though I tuned in late.
Noted comments by Mr. Linsky on Comparative Mack and GM...
I have issues with the premise that a crucial flaw to Mack design was its use of a separate chassis. I'm quite aware of the GM - T&C engineered,
monocoque (i.e. frameless) design. The latter did reduce tare (empty) weights of the coaches.
Keep in mind bad streets were not kind, either, to immediate post WWII GM - T&C products, working on conventional suspensions. I can still count
my own calluses and battle scars from riding 1946 - 1947 products in Baltimore, after all of it had some times on the chronically nasty streets.
I'm persuaded the single factor that went far in keeping together the later production GM - T&C coaches (TDH-5105, et. al.) was the important
upgrade to Air Ride. By extension, we can estimate Macks would have done equally well on Air Ride suspensions?
About the issue of Mack's exit from the business? My own hypothesis is simply that there was no viable market! Transit fleets loaded up on new
equipment, immediately past World War II. This created a downstream problem, in that there was no way there could be another huge wave of
buying until about two decades later! By circa 1966, however, the financial condition of the fleets were disasters! It's a sad story! NCL was aware
it was coming, as early as 1951! Rather than let the privately owned fleets catch some breaks, especially from regulatory agencies, the dreadful
decisions taken to make it all still another government backed service.
There had to have been a better, cheaper, more effective way! But, it gets us to this point with all the little quirks and oddities of how transit is
done these days. Or, not done, as the case may be...
....................Vern.............. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|