|
|
| Acceptable Express Equipment.... (188870) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (188870) | |
Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by rionOne on Sun Mar 7 18:15:26 2010 Coming to you live from a Santa Cruz Metro New Flyer C40LF Suburban. This is exactly what the MTA should've ordered for express equipment... 36 Seats, all reclining seats with tables and foot rest, luggage racks with LED lighting, free wi-fi on board. Very Sound ride top speed is 75 MPH. This is Day 1 of my 7 Day California Adventure, Stay Tuned for more... -Trevor |
|
|
| (188875) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 7 18:44:29 2010, in response to Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by rionOne on Sun Mar 7 18:15:26 2010. Only problem is, east coast TAs would never tolerate a 40-foot suburban/commuter bus with only 36 seats, when the same-length MCI seats 49 and a 45-footer can seat 57 for the same single trip. You would need two of those C40LFs to do the job of one D4500. Buses as functionally inefficient as that C40LF are accepted in California strictly because of political pressure. |
|
|
| (188878) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by busdude2 on Sun Mar 7 19:25:54 2010, in response to Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by rionOne on Sun Mar 7 18:15:26 2010. No way not enough seats. The buses are packed as it is with 45 ft buses. |
|
|
| (188888) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sun Mar 7 20:00:54 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by busdude2 on Sun Mar 7 19:25:54 2010. They could run that bus in the OP on the BM4 during the PM rush, it would be able to handle it, now if you were to put it on the BM1 or BM2... wouldn't work IMO. |
|
|
| (188891) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by rionOne on Sun Mar 7 20:19:21 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 7 18:44:29 2010. Na.... That bus is perfect for these MTA express routes with less than steller ridership. |
|
|
| (188892) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by rionOne on Sun Mar 7 20:23:11 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sun Mar 7 20:00:54 2010. Half of the city's Express routes would do fine with that bus and the only reason it has 36 seats was because of a floor mount luggage rack in the rear. If it wasnt for that...the bus would have had 39-40 seats, the same amount of seats that were in the RTS and Orion V coaches. So in reality, the bus would work fine on a good number of Express Routes. |
|
|
| (188894) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by GOLD_12th on Sun Mar 7 20:25:48 2010, in response to Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by rionOne on Sun Mar 7 18:15:26 2010. It also needs TVs and a cup holder; that would complete the package |
|
|
| (188896) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by QM18Express on Sun Mar 7 20:42:37 2010, in response to Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by rionOne on Sun Mar 7 18:15:26 2010. Now thats awesome! Loving that interior! Wish MTA did order some C4OLF suburbans for some of the CP & SC express lines! I bet they sound good too! |
|
|
| (188897) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by David on Sun Mar 7 20:51:43 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sun Mar 7 20:00:54 2010. In that case, what would be operated in the morning? The NYCT/MTA Bus standard MCI over-the-road coach? Now the operating agency would need two buses -- one for the morning and one for the evening! There goes any pretense toward efficiency...David |
|
|
| (188898) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Q101 E. MIDTOWN 2 AV on Sun Mar 7 20:54:15 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by QM18Express on Sun Mar 7 20:42:37 2010. I imagine some express bus riders here wouldn't tolerate low-floor suburbans versus MCI D series coaches. |
|
|
| (188900) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Mar 7 21:02:40 2010, in response to Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by rionOne on Sun Mar 7 18:15:26 2010. Looks way more comfortable than that MCI I rode from Atlantic City back to Brooklyn, thanks for sharing. |
|
|
| (188904) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sun Mar 7 21:12:13 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by David on Sun Mar 7 20:51:43 2010. The reason I said PM rush in my statement about the BM4 is because I never rode it during the AM rush so IDK what the ridership is like on it during the AM rush. I know the everytime I see or ride the BM4 during the PM rush its empty. SC could do like they did before the 2200s came in where the most crowded runs uses the MCIs and the less crowded runs uses the CNGs. |
|
|
| (188905) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by QM18Express on Sun Mar 7 21:17:29 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by Q101 E. MIDTOWN 2 AV on Sun Mar 7 20:54:15 2010. It depends on the route! I know the BM2 Riders will not like it. Riders on other CP & SC may not mind it. The only lines where a D4500 is really need it from CP & SC is QM1/QM1A, QM2, BM1, & BM2. |
|
|
| (188906) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Nabinut on Sun Mar 7 21:17:37 2010, in response to Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by rionOne on Sun Mar 7 18:15:26 2010. The last time i was there, Route 17 ran 2003/2004 Orion V suburbans, wondered if the Flyers are replacements or add-ons... |
|
|
| (188907) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by QM18Express on Sun Mar 7 21:28:13 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by rionOne on Sun Mar 7 20:23:11 2010. IAWTP! The only places where a D4500 would work out is on majority of SI express lines, All NYCT Brooklyn X lines except the X29, All Eastchester Express lines except BXM6 & BXM7B, & the X68. All other lines U can pretty much seat everybody with A 38 to 40 seat low floor bus |
|
|
| (188909) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by QM18Express on Sun Mar 7 21:31:51 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sun Mar 7 21:12:13 2010. IAWTP! The highest I ever seen on the BM4 was about 20 to 25 max. Believe it or not, the BM5 used to have good ridership back when the BQM1 went to Canarsie on the rush hours! |
|
|
| (188911) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Mar 7 21:41:53 2010, in response to Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by rionOne on Sun Mar 7 18:15:26 2010. Totally agreed! D4500s are overkill here. |
|
|
| (188912) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Mar 7 21:45:00 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 7 18:44:29 2010. No one is saying to replace all the D4500s with C40LFs. But there are a few lines [BM4] that really don't need D4500s on them.Hell, maybe they should convert some artics so they can be put to use on higher used lines like the X1 and such. |
|
|
| (188913) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Mar 7 21:45:49 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sun Mar 7 20:00:54 2010. Exactly. |
|
|
| (188914) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Mar 7 21:47:51 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sun Mar 7 21:12:13 2010. Yup either that or they really need to cut runs on the BM4 to justify those D4500s. |
|
|
| (188918) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 7 22:15:01 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Mar 7 21:47:51 2010. ...or they really need to cut runs on the BM4 to justify those D4500s.That is what will happen before using buses with lower capacity. The operational cost savings comes from less buses used, not smaller ones on the same schedule. Replacing a 57 passenger D4500 with a 40-passenger C40LF suburban still means the same number of buses and drivers. Cutting three partially-full D4500 runs to two full ones means one less bus to fuel/maintain and one less driver to pay. |
|
|
| (188919) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by PHXTUSbusfan on Sun Mar 7 22:28:44 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 7 18:44:29 2010. WMATA operates a fleet of suburban D40LFRs and Orion VIIs, do they not? |
|
|
| (188920) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Mar 7 22:32:23 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 7 22:15:01 2010. Well if you are going to make that point, why not run artics on the more heavily used lines then? Then you can save on costs for the need to pay more drivers to drive the same amount of people?Plus they don't run D4500s on he local routes. Maybe with the C40LF they can run it on a local line, maximizing the use of the bus than to have it deadhead or remain in Manhattan till it's time to take people home for the PM rush. |
|
|
| (188921) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Mar 7 22:32:41 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 7 22:15:01 2010. Well if you are going to make that point, why not run artics on the more heavily used lines then? Then you can save on costs for the need to pay more drivers to drive the same amount of people?Plus they don't run D4500s on *the local routes. Maybe with the C40LF they can run it on a local line, maximizing the use of the bus than to have it deadhead or remain in Manhattan till it's time to take people home for the PM rush. |
|
|
| (188923) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 7 22:44:27 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by QM18Express on Sun Mar 7 21:31:51 2010. Not really. I've seen those numbers too. Ugh. |
|
|
| (188924) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 7 22:47:54 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Mar 7 22:32:23 2010. Artics have 62-65 seats within 60 feet.45 foot coaches have 57-59 seats within 45 feet. Artics are wasteful in express service. |
|
|
| (188925) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12th on Sun Mar 7 22:55:10 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 7 22:47:54 2010. and artics cost more then MCI D4500 buses. |
|
|
| (188926) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Mar 7 23:12:40 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 7 22:47:54 2010. oic. |
|
|
| (188927) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by R42 4820 on Sun Mar 7 23:34:32 2010, in response to Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by rionOne on Sun Mar 7 18:15:26 2010. Agreed, the MCI D4500s we have are a huge waste. |
|
|
| (188928) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Mar 7 23:34:58 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 7 22:47:54 2010. Then why does New Jersey Transit use them? |
|
|
| (188931) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Sun Mar 7 23:45:02 2010, in response to Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by rionOne on Sun Mar 7 18:15:26 2010. For certain routes-yes. But not all. The lines with higher ridership such as the QM1A would keep the MCIs rolling while the ones with not as high ridership such as the QM3 would get these.Looks like you are enjoying Cali on day 1! I look forward to seeing more pics! |
|
|
| (188933) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 7 23:48:48 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Mar 7 23:34:58 2010. They have on-off traffic along the way and standees. Artics are great for dealing with standees. |
|
|
| (188940) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Mar 8 00:10:45 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 7 23:48:48 2010. Thanks, I see them on the 158 but the 158 didn't see to be that crowded the times I've seen it and the 128 uphill is way busier. |
|
|
| (188941) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Mar 8 00:12:34 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Mar 7 22:32:41 2010. I think that artics could actually work on the BxM7 and X1. |
|
|
| (188942) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Mar 8 00:12:49 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Mar 8 00:12:34 2010. If it was efficient of course. |
|
|
| (188943) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by WayneJay on Mon Mar 8 00:32:25 2010, in response to Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by rionOne on Sun Mar 7 18:15:26 2010. Preach on! I always thought the MCIs for express service was overkill. I see where they are a good idea on some routes, but it's clear that the TA and MTAB doesn't need nearly as many of them. Seems to me that suburbanized transit buses (including artics) would do well as express buses. |
|
|
| (188944) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by lbt 9415 on Mon Mar 8 00:33:42 2010, in response to Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by rionOne on Sun Mar 7 18:15:26 2010. Love the interior...looks better than OCTAs C40LFRs...which seat 34 with the rear door |
|
|
| (188945) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Mon Mar 8 01:12:14 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Mar 8 00:12:49 2010. Right. I mean if they are as packed as i've read, surely there might be some standees on it. But if it's not efficient then it's just add another run or two to accomodate the ridership. |
|
|
| (188946) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Mon Mar 8 01:14:23 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by WayneJay on Mon Mar 8 00:32:25 2010. They really shouldn't have reseated so many of those CNG O5s. And should've kept the RTSs [9200-9300s] for the really lower use lines. Since Ulmer gave up its buses to LGA, surely they could've gone to SC as well for routes like the Bm4 that doesn't need a D4500. |
|
|
| (188953) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by R42 4820 on Mon Mar 8 06:17:16 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by Grand Concourse on Mon Mar 8 01:14:23 2010. Exactly, that bus pretty much runs empty on Saturdays anyway. |
|
|
| (188959) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Mr. D - Type on Mon Mar 8 08:28:08 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by R42 4820 on Sun Mar 7 23:34:32 2010. I totally agree, the MCI D4500 are indeed a huge waste. Bring back the MCI Classics. |
|
|
| (188961) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by R42 4820 on Mon Mar 8 09:00:03 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by Mr. D - Type on Mon Mar 8 08:28:08 2010. Yep, especially for the express bus routes that don't even run full.That's why I feel like the MTA is not making the right type of cuts. There are bus routes that don't even run full on weekends, such as the BM4, yet I saw it with a gas-guzzling MCI and the bus was empty one evening...dead empty. |
|
|
| (188965) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Mar 8 10:10:58 2010, in response to Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by rionOne on Sun Mar 7 18:15:26 2010. 36 seats? Not enough...that's 21 fewer seats, with a similar lack of standing room, then the the MCI's have. |
|
|
| (188966) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Mar 8 10:14:01 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by Grand Concourse on Mon Mar 8 01:12:14 2010. Technically, the more standees means you're more efficient. |
|
|
| (188967) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Mar 8 10:14:45 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by Q101 E. MIDTOWN 2 AV on Sun Mar 7 20:54:15 2010. No one will care as long as they get a seat. |
|
|
| (188968) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Mar 8 10:15:38 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by R42 4820 on Mon Mar 8 09:00:03 2010. Didn't we already determine that the mpg of buses was pretty similar across various non-hybrid models? |
|
|
| (188971) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Pablo M 201 on Mon Mar 8 10:58:50 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by QM18Express on Sun Mar 7 21:28:13 2010. They can definately work on the X51.... |
|
|
| (188974) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Pablo M 201 on Mon Mar 8 11:08:43 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Mar 7 21:41:53 2010. D4000s would be enough for a good majority of routes. |
|
|
| (188994) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by Waynejay on Mon Mar 8 12:48:18 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by Grand Concourse on Mon Mar 8 01:14:23 2010. Agreed! I always thought it was a waste of resources to reseat those buses, especially considering D4500s are clearly not needed on all express runs. |
|
|
| (188999) | |
Re: Acceptable Express Equipment.... |
|
|
Posted by R42 4820 on Mon Mar 8 14:05:57 2010, in response to Re: Acceptable Express Equipment...., posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Mar 8 10:15:38 2010. Didn't look into that. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|