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 

"Giant Insects" vs "Shoe Boxes"
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BusTalk Forum Index -> General Bus Forum - All Bus Topics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629




Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 5168
Location: NEW JOISEY

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Today's puzzle:

Try to find the body curves on this bus (wheel wells DO NOT count!!)........... Rolling Eyes Wink

http://bus.nycsubway.org/perl/show?1540

(courtesy: bus.nycsubway.org)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629




Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 5168
Location: NEW JOISEY

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Native to San Diego, California, this giant caterpillar is related to the elusive South American "Railroad Worm".......(!!) Shocked Shocked

http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?83507
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629




Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 5168
Location: NEW JOISEY

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I truly am at a loss for words on this one.................. Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked

http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?49301

http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?148229

(courtesy: world.nycsubway.org)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629




Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 5168
Location: NEW JOISEY

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"SACRE BLEU!!!!! ATTENDEZ, HENRIQUE, LE FLIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked

http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?148390
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
N4 Jamaica




Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 584
Location: Long Island

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629 wrote:
"SACRE BLEU!!!!! ATTENDEZ, HENRIQUE, LE FLIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked

http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?148390


Note that this is from 2002, about when I rode a few miles of this Tramway T2 built on a decent double-track rail line. There was no need to add high platform stations (big expense on LIRR and Metro North) because low-floor trams were already available. Standard gauge, and neat catenary, not the monster poles we waste money on.
---
A topic I would like to explore is car width vs. our 102" buses. In Vienna a few years ago, we rode the new ultra-low-floor cars, but they were very narrow and crawled around the ring at annoying slow pace. For me, seating capacity is very important.
---
By the way, I think T2 is outside the central Paris fare zone and you need to pay a surcharge over the regular Metro fare.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629




Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 5168
Location: NEW JOISEY

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

traildriver:

Interesting comment on equipment width!

I remember reading, long ago, that the CTA (1960's) ordered narrow-width Fishbowls for use on a route that had tight clearances imposed by the support columns of the El structure that the route passed under.

In Europe, it would seem that most trams (and modern light rail equipment) were/are virtually all narrow, since their ancient streets are, for the most part, quite narrow, and clearances are obviously very tight.

In Southampton (Great Britain) the double deck trams had to be specially designed to pass through the medieval archways of the Bargate.

In London, for many years, double deckers used on the Blackwell Tunnel route required inward sloping upper decks to make the tight clearances imposed by the tunnel roof (these unique buses were known as "Tunnel STL's)

It was not until 1951 that modifications were made to the tunnel to allow normal-profile double deckers to use the Tunnel.

Even after 1951, the buses that were assigned to the routes using the tunnel were equipped with reinforced tyres to withstand scuffing the kerb.

Indeed, this was a TIGHT tunnel for LT drivers to negotiate!

Reinforced tyres were also required on LT buses that ran through the Rotherhithe Tunnel.....


Last edited by NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629 on Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
N4 Jamaica




Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 584
Location: Long Island

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I managed to find the width of the U-bahn streetcars in Stuttgart, 2.65 meters or 104.3 inches, wider than our 102-inch buses. Stuttgart took many years to replace a meter-gauge streetcar system with standard gauge. The job has been finished, and these DT8 cars in trains operate both in subway tunnels and mixed with traffic on ordinary city streets, although boarding platforms are high obstructions. The term U-Bahn is a bit fanciful, since it is a system of tunnels and street-running. I consider seating good because the cars are wide.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629




Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 5168
Location: NEW JOISEY

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

N4 Jamaica wrote:
I managed to find the width of the U-bahn streetcars in Stuttgart, 2.65 meters or 104.3 inches, wider than our 102-inch buses. Stuttgart took many years to replace a meter-gauge streetcar system with standard gauge. The job has been finished, and these DT8 cars in trains operate both in subway tunnels and mixed with traffic on ordinary city streets, although boarding platforms are high obstructions. The term U-Bahn is a bit fanciful, since it is a system of tunnels and street-running. I consider seating good because the cars are wide.


N4:

This is making me recall certain European tram networks that have gradually been upgraded to heavy-rail standards, with high level, rapid transit-style platforms.

In Pittsburgh, when the new LRV's were replacing the remaining PCC's in service years ago, high level platforms were built to accomodate the new LRV's while the operations were transforming from PCC to light rail.

Wider vehicles, of course, allow for both greater passenger capacity as well as more room for standees; of course, it is not always possible to use wider buses or rail cars.

PATH and the "A" Division (IRT), by the nature of the small diameter tunnels they use, preclude the use of wider (and longer) equipment, such as has always been used on the "B" Division (BMT/IND)........

"NYO"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629




Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 5168
Location: NEW JOISEY

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From "BUS WORLD" magazine (Spring, 1986); the quote is from the article "SUCCESS WITH A TWIST", by Van Wilkins.

".........VOLVO is the only builder to date to build for domestic (US) use an articulated narrower than 102 inches. The SEPTA buses are 96 inches wide, and 60 of a 110 bus order for New Jersey Transit will also be of this width........"


Last edited by NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629 on Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
N4 Jamaica




Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 584
Location: Long Island

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those 102" decals on New Jersey buses? Are they marked front and rear? Are there any problem lanes in the Hudson River vehicle tunnels? Do bus drivers have problems hitting tunnel curbs?
Thanks.
Joe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629




Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 5168
Location: NEW JOISEY

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

N4 Jamaica wrote:
Those 102" decals on New Jersey buses? Are they marked front and rear? Are there any problem lanes in the Hudson River vehicle tunnels? Do bus drivers have problems hitting tunnel curbs?
Thanks.
Joe


Joe:

You might find this page of interest........ Wink

"NYO"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NJ_Transit_bus_fleet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629




Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 5168
Location: NEW JOISEY

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

traildriver/N4Jamaica/All:

Rubber-tired trains??

Trams on steroids??

I, personally, would designate these massive, rubber-tired behemoths as "EECSU's" (Extra Elongated Crowd Swallowing Units".

I know I sure would NOT want to DRIVE one!!!!!!!!!

Thought you might find the following of interest.........

"NYO"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-articulated_bus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629




Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 5168
Location: NEW JOISEY

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

See also.........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulated_bus

http://www.megabus.co.za/introducing-worlds-longest-buses
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
traildriver




Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Posts: 1119
Location: Queens, NY

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NYO-
It was N4-Jamaica that brought up the subject of width, not myself...

But since we are on that subject...Ever since 102" buses entered the market, I have always wondered why Queens/Steinway Transit varied back and forth between 96" and 102" buses, while NYCTA pretty much always went with 102" buses...
And they were scattered on all routes, not just selectively used on certain routes that might have had narrower roadways.

It sure made a difference in space inside...the 96" had 20" aisle's, while the 102" had 26" aisle's....

I don't think the average passenger was really aware of the difference, but they may have noticed it, and not understood why...I sure did. Wink


In the coach market, the two 1967 built MCI MC-6X prototypes for Greyhound, were the first 102" wide coaches...but the Supercruiser's, as they were called, were also 12' tall, and their unique tri-level roof design, their DD 12v-71 powerplant, and other features, made them obviously something different. Inside, they put all the extra room where it really counted on a long-distance coach--wider seats...each seat an inch and a half wider. There were 100 of them eventually built. They were restricted to only a few routes, so more were not built. Their sibling, more conventional MC-7 was the eventual choice for future purchases.

A less known foray into the wide bodied coach, were the 45 model '07' Eagles built for Continental Trailways. These were built in 1969, and only a trained eye could tell them apart from the regular 96" wide Eagle.
The easiest telltale, was the 'recessed' wheels...they had wider bodies, but used conventional width axles, hence an 'overhang'. Some might also notice the six inch wider destination sign window, although the windshield was also wider, as were the rear windows.
Inside, they used conventional width seats, but managed to put a 1" split between the seats in each pair, and the 4" remainder of extra width, was "wasted", IMHO, in a wider aisle...not really needed in a long-distance coach. Again, no more were built due to limited legal road limits.

Years later, as the Feds forced the states to go with 102" limit, 102" buses became the norm.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629




Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 5168
Location: NEW JOISEY

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2018 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

traildriver:

Thanks for the correction; I guess I was having an "almost senior moment"! Rolling Eyes

Also, truly appreciate your "in depth" discussion on bus widths; this is a subject, I feel, that is seldom discussed (and, as far as passengers go, I think they only think about bus width in terms of the width of the aisles!)

It is quite interesting to call to mind the different state regulations, many years back, regarding bus width and weight.

The GMC TDH-4801 (the "California Bus") was GM's answer to the weight restriction in California at the time

The production life of the 4801 was fairly short, only running between 1953 through 1958.

Only 622 of these unique buses were built.

Just prior to 1960, the California highway restrictions were changed to allow 40-foot transit buses to legally operate in California.

The 4801 model was then discontinued, and California transit operatorsbegan purchasing standard 40-footers.

Operators of the 4801 included:

PACIFIC ELECTRIC

METROPOLITAN COACH LINES

LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

PACIFIC GREYHOUND (later WESTERN GREYHOUND) also operated 4801's; however, these were TDM's, and not TDH types

(A number of the former LAMTA coaches went on to serve under SCRTD)

KEY SYSTEM

SAN DIEGO TRANSIT SYSTEM


Last edited by NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629 on Sun Jul 15, 2018 12:25 pm; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
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