BusTalk Forum Index BusTalk
A Community Discussing Buses and Bus Operations Worldwide!
 
 BusTalk MainBusTalk Main FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups BusTalk GalleriesBusTalk Galleries   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Pros and cons of low-floor buses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BusTalk Forum Index -> General Bus Forum - All Bus Topics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
timecruncher



Age: 73
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 456
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It won't do any good to have a pretty bus if it doesn't come from the factory in better condition than their standard product does. Metro in Cincinnati has had their 40 or so D40LF units since late November, and have yet to field more than a handful because of de-bugging problems.

timecruncher
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
RailBus63
Moderator



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 1063

PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boston's D40LF's from 2006-07 already rattle like crazy, worse even than the Neoplans that are a few years older. New Flyer has competed aggressively to win as many orders as possible, but I wonder if they are rushing the buses off the production lines (both of Boston's orders were also delivered later than originally announced).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
timecruncher



Age: 73
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 456
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Um, what does that have to do with the discussion about delivered new-bus quality?

Anyway, as a follow-up, Metro continues to have performance issues with all of their D40LFs, and now there are a half-dozen hybrids that are apparently basket cases as well.

You don't have to like the Gilligs, but they come from the factory pretty much ready to be marked up...

timecruncher
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
RailBus63
Moderator



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 1063

PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cliff, have you driven both the Gillig Low-Floor and the Phantom? I'm curious what your impressions are as a veteran driver - some other drivers who post on enthusiast boards have not been charitable towards Gillig in general and the Phantom in particular.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dieseljim
Deceased



Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 548
Location: Perry, NY

PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:08 pm    Post subject: Just Serving Up some Humor Reply with quote

I was just serving up some HOT humor, that's all.
timecruncher wrote:
Um, what does that have to do with the discussion about delivered new-bus quality?

Anyway, as a follow-up, Metro continues to have performance issues with all of their D40LFs, and now there are a half-dozen hybrids that are apparently basket cases as well.

You don't have to like the Gilligs, but they come from the factory pretty much ready to be marked up...

timecruncher
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
timecruncher



Age: 73
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 456
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:12 am    Post subject: timecruncher resume Reply with quote

I have driven them for a day or two...

I was a driver here in Louisville from 1973 - 1977, driving TDH4507, TDH5103 and various 40-foot new look coaches, along with some of the first 10240 AM-Generals [not] built, as well as some new look Flxibles delivered in Summer 1977. I then went to Cincinnati and drove for Queen City Metro until 1995, doing some dispatching and instructing along the way, and ending up as a scheduler in their Planning Department.

Metro had a lot of 1960-1965 new looks when I arrived, as well as around 160 new look Flxibles and 125 or so brand-new 10240B AM-Generals. In 1990 Metro also acquired 125 Neoplan AN440s.

Before I went into scheduling, Metro had begun their decade-long acquisition of Gillig Phantoms.

I did part-time work for charter outfits on my offdays for years, driving for long-gone Price Hill Coach Lines, Jubilee Tours and finally Croswell Bus Lines' PD4104s, 4106s and their MC5Cs when they were new, as well as their motly MC8s, MC9s, 102C3s and their 102DLs before TANK offered me a weekend dispatching gig part-time. That job allowed me to be at home instead of on the road weekends, so I took it.

There I occasionally got to drive their 35 and 40-foot Phantoms, and low floors. In my last two years at TANK, one of the First Transit people passing through discovered that one of my sons was employed as a driver, and since there was an anti-nepotism rule somewhere in TANK Board Policy, I was allowed to slip sideways into a part-time driver position. So for two years I worked there Friday-Saturday-Sunday, driving mostly Gillig low floors

While at TANK I drove mostly low floor Gilligs, both 29-foot and 40-foot models, occasionally driving the Phantoms and the last remaining Flxible Metros.

Here at TARC, I can drive a bus only in a Planning Department function, due to our union local's uber-paranoid attitude about admin personnel actually touching a bus. Don't get me started on that...

Out of 35 years in transit, 23 years of it was behind the wheel. I gave up TANK last year due to my age and $4.00+ gas (I live near Louisville, TANK is 100 miles north of here). Here is a list of the equipment I have spent many hours pushing around the streets:

TDH4507 -- loved 'em (I grew up on these buses, LTC's were 1948 models, 2 years older than me!);
TDH5103 -- loved 'em (great buses, sounded so-o-o good winding up!);
TDH5301 -- not bad -- (easy steering, still had the "drop shift");
TDH5303 -- ditto, but with the newer power-shift (didn't like that);
T6H5305A-- ditto, but cheesier than the earlier models (GM was getting cheap);
AMG 10240 and 10240B -- crap. I mean, hard steering, bad a/c, junk, like everything else American Motors ever did. Good on snow, though;
Grumman 870 -- crap that looked good but leaked on rainy days and horrible on snow and ice;
Flxible Metro -- still crap, and still leaked like the Titanic;
Neoplan AN440 -- Best damn transit bus ever built in North America. Drove like a sportscar! (Too bad they rusted through every component in two years!);
Gillig Phantom -- durable, reliable, rode like crap, driver position uncomfortable as heck;
Gillig Low Floor -- ditto, better driving position.

The highway coaches were all pretty nice to drive, although the 102C3 and DL were mighty nice.

My charter career began just for fun, but ended being helpful with four kids at home (two in Catholic schools). I did a lot of local charters, senior groups, bingo charters, which were popular back before casinos were built everywhere, band trips and the annual Spring "3-day marathon trip to Washington, DC" with school groups. We referred to those as 'Death Marches.'

I now do all fixed-route scheduling and runcutting for the Transit Authority of River City here in Louisville, where I grew up and where I began my transit career. I thoroughly enjoy scheduling, but I miss the driving and customer contact aspect working the runs every day.

But to answer your question -- yeah, I have had a few hours' experience. I consider myself blessed to have been able to work in an industry that I was always interested in.

timecruncher
Schedulers give you the runs!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
timecruncher



Age: 73
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 456
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not terribly positive about the Gillig experience as a driver, although part of that has to do with the way the engine/transmission are set up. My support of Gillig is as a transit administrator. They are, simply put, one of the best vendors in an industry where bad products and bad customer service abound.

Without doing a Consumer Reports-style critique, the Phantom has a very uncomfortable driving position for the driver and visibility sucks.

The Low Floor is far better, with much better visibility and a good seating position, but both the Phantom and the Low Floor models suffer from poor handling and ride quality. With the exception of the hybrid models, they are noisy inside. The low floors, like everyone else's low floor, literally eat front tires due to the bowed front axle assembly and the way it throws the bus' weight balance off.

As for the drivetrain problems, the popular Allison B400 World Transmission is great except for the built-in retarder. Metro and TARC both have their buses so equipped to engage the retarder when the brake pedal is pressed. This results in a 'grabby' brake effect that is maddening to those of us who like to make smooth stops. TANK had their retarders set up to engage when letting up off of the throttle. This setup is far better for smooth stops, but takes some getting used to.

Incidentally, TANK had their 6V92TA Flxibles and early Gillig Phantoms set up this way as well. As the retarders got weaker, the effect didn't work as well. On the 1995 Phantoms with Cummins C engines and the earlier version of the B400 tranny, the retarders tend to be a bit schizophrenic, working at odd (and sometimes inconvenient) times, making for a really annoying drive. I place the blame of that solely on lack of proper maintenance of these high-mileage units.

I would imagine this is a problem with New Flyer, NABI or Nova buses as well, and is not a function of the bus manufacturer as much as it is the transmission vendor.

timecruncher
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
RailBus63
Moderator



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 1063

PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your feedback and analysis. Your comments on the Phantom pretty much match what I've heard from other drivers - the late Steve Hoskins used to compare this bus to driving a garbage truck and would pick runs at Southern California's OCTA that guaranteed him a New Flyer D60LF so that he didn't have to drive Gilligs. He would also complain about the driver's position being so low compared to any other transit coach and that he was at eye level with the customer's crotch!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bill D




Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 332
Location: Waterbury, CT

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

timecruncher wrote:
The low floors, like everyone else's low floor, literally eat front tires due to the bowed front axle assembly and the way it throws the bus' weight balance off.

timecruncher


In the few years that we have operated low floor buses (New Flyer D40LF's), we have had more complaints from drivers regarding front end shaking than on all other buses which we have operated combined. Even slightly uneven wear of tires or brake components throws the front end out of whack. Often it is necessary to replace both front tires, as well as the front brake lining and drums to rectify the problem. The tire department also has its' hands full swapping tires out before they wear so uneven that they are scrap.

Bill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dieseljim
Deceased



Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 548
Location: Perry, NY

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:21 am    Post subject: New Flyer Xcelsior Reply with quote

I would not be surprised if these buses turn up in Cleveland, Buffalo, and Rochester. Looks like a decent bus. I could see the three cities getting as much as 20 years' service out of a fleet of these buses much as Buffalo did their last Macks. They have the top notch mechanics to do it with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Dieseljim
Deceased



Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 548
Location: Perry, NY

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:25 am    Post subject: Low Floor Buses Reply with quote

I noticed that on Cleveland's low floor buses when I rode them several years ago, particularly the Route 90f line from Maple Heights to downtown Cleveland, which is a Freeway Flyer part of the way seven days a week instead of going straight down Broadway like it used to as the 90X.
Bill D wrote:
timecruncher wrote:
The low floors, like everyone else's low floor, literally eat front tires due to the bowed front axle assembly and the way it throws the bus' weight balance off.

timecruncher


In the few years that we have operated low floor buses (New Flyer D40LF's), we have had more complaints from drivers regarding front end shaking than on all other buses which we have operated combined. Even slightly uneven wear of tires or brake components throws the front end out of whack. Often it is necessary to replace both front tires, as well as the front brake lining and drums to rectify the problem. The tire department also has its' hands full swapping tires out before they wear so uneven that they are scrap.

Bill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
RailBus63
Moderator



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 1063

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:50 am    Post subject: Re: New Flyer Xcelsior Reply with quote

Dieseljim wrote:
I would not be surprised if these buses turn up in Cleveland, Buffalo, and Rochester. Looks like a decent bus. I could see the three cities getting as much as 20 years' service out of a fleet of these buses much as Buffalo did their last Macks. They have the top notch mechanics to do it with.


I don't know about Cleveland, but the transit authorities in Buffalo and Rochester appear to buy strictly according to who submits the lowest bid when purchasing new buses. This has led to a varied fleet over the years and recent wins by Gillig in both cities.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dieseljim
Deceased



Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 548
Location: Perry, NY

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:49 am    Post subject: Varied Fleets and Maintenance Reply with quote

I bet it is a headache and quite an expense keeping parts in stock for different makes of buses at Buffalo and Rochester, where in the days of GM and Macks, you had just had one or two makes to worry about. I bet the maintenance expenses for such varied fleets as what Buffalo and Rochester now have help drive up the cost of operating the bus portion of the system. Too bad they could not go back to the old system where they could concentrate fleet make up on just one or two makes of buses which would make life for both mechanic and driver alike so much easier and less expensive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
RailBus63
Moderator



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 1063

PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MODERATOR'S NOTE - I split this discussion off from the New Flyer Xcelsior thread - this is an interesting discussion and deserves its own thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
timecruncher



Age: 73
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 456
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was wondering. I remember posting a response to another thread (I think), and here it is by itself.

You're confusing an old man!!

Oh well, my standard response is "What was I talking about??"

timecruncher
(had my coffee this morning and feeling up to whatever the day throws at me. The Summer pick is up!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BusTalk Forum Index -> General Bus Forum - All Bus Topics All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
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