|
|
| 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage (255687) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (255687) | |
126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by DHF60 on Thu Feb 16 12:19:52 2012 I've recently driven two of our 07 NG's (3891 & 3899) and was surprised at the high number of miles (112K & 125K respectively) that these buses have accumulated in just 3.3 years of service. At this rate they will definitely achieve their design life of 500K in 12 years. The problem is that they look and sound pretty worn out already and in my opinion will definitely require some extensive overhauls if they are to remain in service for the duration of their design life. |
|
|
| (255717) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by WayneJay on Thu Feb 16 19:19:33 2012, in response to 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by DHF60 on Thu Feb 16 12:19:52 2012. I agree. A lot of them (both 7 and 7NG) don't seem to be aging well. |
|
|
| (255731) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by Mr Mabstoa on Thu Feb 16 22:51:20 2012, in response to 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by DHF60 on Thu Feb 16 12:19:52 2012. There nothing like the RTS, thats for sure.I drove a 6700 about six months ago around the depot and the front end rattles and shakes like shit. Are they using Artics regularly on the 60's? |
|
|
| (255733) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by Joe Saitta on Thu Feb 16 22:59:48 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by Mr Mabstoa on Thu Feb 16 22:51:20 2012. How about "nothing like the Fishbowls?" |
|
|
| (255740) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by Mr. D - Type on Fri Feb 17 08:50:14 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by Joe Saitta on Thu Feb 16 22:59:48 2012. Joe. I will go you 1 better, how about "nothing like the flat botttoms ?" |
|
|
| (255742) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by JFK DEPOT on Fri Feb 17 08:52:40 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by Mr Mabstoa on Thu Feb 16 22:51:20 2012. " I drove a 6700 about six months ago around the depot and the front end rattles and shakes like shit. "LMAO those front end suspensions are SHOT.... the downfall to Low floor Buses is that the key to there longevity has to be SMOOTH roads... the roads on NYC are anything BUT smooth smh therefore get used to MORE of the shakes rattles and rolls smh its NOT just the Orion 07's starting to look bad... the Orion 05's are dropping like flies too.... over time the structure of the bus starts to give away... I wish I had saved this picture I had took of an MTA Bus 59xx series with a ridiculous hole in the floor after the left rear wheel-well... I looked down and literally saw the street as the bus was in motion and they ALLOWED that bus to come out and do revenue service smh horrible |
|
|
| (255743) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by Joe Saitta on Fri Feb 17 09:46:57 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by Mr. D - Type on Fri Feb 17 08:50:14 2012. They were great also, but the bulk of my driving experiences were with both the GMC and Flxible (I own one also) Fishbowls, although I did own two "flat bottoms" many years ago. |
|
|
| (255745) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by Joe Saitta on Fri Feb 17 09:56:13 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by JFK DEPOT on Fri Feb 17 08:52:40 2012. Are low floor buses really necessary? Since the advent of streetcars, people have always "stepped" into the vehicle. I realize and admire the efforts being made to accommodate the handicapped, but low floor buses are, in my opinion, a disaster. Not only is seating capacity greatly reduced (the older 40-foot Fishbowls had a general seating capacity in the area of 45-53), but low-floor buses appear to have more maintenance problems than high-floor units. Of course, the handicapped must be accommodated, but why can't we revert to high floor with lift buses? This worked before. While the dwell time at bus stops might be a little bit longer, the seating, and possibly standing, capacity of a high floor bus is far greater, the ride certainly smoother, maintenance problems probably less, and longevity of the bus itself possibly greater due to less stress on their structural components. What goes around comes around..... maybe. |
|
|
| (255747) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by WayneJay on Fri Feb 17 10:22:20 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by Joe Saitta on Fri Feb 17 09:56:13 2012. Agreed. Then one advantage (for the transit agency) that I see with low floor buses is that while the high floor buses need a lift, the low floor buses make do with a much simpler ramp. |
|
|
| (255749) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by The Flxible Neofan on Fri Feb 17 10:38:44 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by WayneJay on Fri Feb 17 10:22:20 2012. Also there are faster boarding times...no need to wait for people to climb up the steps. At the same time, that was one very nice thing about Flxible Metros - they had low steps compared to other buses. |
|
|
| (255752) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Feb 17 10:52:00 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by Joe Saitta on Fri Feb 17 09:56:13 2012. Are low floor buses really necessary?...While the dwell time at bus stops might be a little bit longer...You answered your own question. That and the unreliability of lifts. |
|
|
| (255753) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Feb 17 10:54:58 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by JFK DEPOT on Fri Feb 17 08:52:40 2012. the Orion 05's are dropping like flies too.... over time the structure of the bus starts to give away... I wish I had saved this picture I had took of an MTA Bus 59xx series with a ridiculous hole in the floor after the left rear wheel-well...The floor isn't structural. It's also a fifteen year old bus. |
|
|
| (255764) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by DHF60 on Fri Feb 17 12:48:46 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by Mr Mabstoa on Thu Feb 16 22:51:20 2012. They try to put as many of the non SBS LFSA artics as possible on the M60. Some runs (001 & 039) seem to be assigned them on a daily basis. I understand that plans are for the entire line to be artic once 126 receives it's allotment of new LFSA's. My hope is that we get to keep the 23 07 NG's (the luggage racks would have to be removed) for use on other lines. That would displace all of the older more decrepit RTS's and make our drivers with sore backs very happy! ;) |
|
|
| (255797) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Fri Feb 17 20:24:05 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by Joe Saitta on Fri Feb 17 09:56:13 2012. Hobble skirt streetcars were built to accommodate fashion. Women wearing long tight skirts couldn't climb the steps onto regular streetcars. |
|
|
| (255798) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Fri Feb 17 20:25:27 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by Joe Saitta on Thu Feb 16 22:59:48 2012. Fishbowls rattled and shook like shit when they were brand new. |
|
|
| (255802) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Feb 17 20:51:09 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by Joe Saitta on Thu Feb 16 22:59:48 2012. Pity those NYBS fishbowls were outright retired after the MTA takeover... They ran pretty well. |
|
|
| (255823) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by mr mabstoa on Sat Feb 18 01:38:29 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by DHF60 on Fri Feb 17 12:48:46 2012. OK I know we send two 3800's every day for your morning service and then we get them back by 12 noon.We had to borrow a bus from Quill to make PM service Monday and they sent a RTS. Right now we have six hybrids waiting for new engines and other major parts that are out of stock! |
|
|
| (255825) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by AcelaExpress2005 on Sat Feb 18 01:40:57 2012, in response to 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by DHF60 on Thu Feb 16 12:19:52 2012. Yeah, I've noticed that on our NGs as well, though it hasn't hit 100k yet, it's still hefty between 65 and 75k on the odometer so far. However, we're still rolling at Flatbush! |
|
|
| (255826) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by mr mabstoa on Sat Feb 18 01:42:37 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by Joe Saitta on Fri Feb 17 09:46:57 2012. Guess we always have fond memories of what we predominately operated when we drove. I only operated RTS's so I love them, kids today love the hybrids and hate the RTS. |
|
|
| (255833) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by Joe Saitta on Sat Feb 18 09:26:45 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by mr mabstoa on Sat Feb 18 01:42:37 2012. You're right. But for smoothness, and I've also operated the RTS', I'd have to say the Fishbowls were the best. Actually, I really disliked the RTS' and did everything I could to avoid using them. |
|
|
| (255848) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by BigBusDriver on Sat Feb 18 16:45:51 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by Joe Saitta on Sat Feb 18 09:26:45 2012. I would still drive a fishbowl over an RTS, Grumman, Hybrid, 07 or any other new bus. Reason: Blitzs and fishbowls have no wheelchair lift!STILL LOL@PASSING THEM BY~~ |
|
|
| (255850) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by DHF60 on Sat Feb 18 17:20:49 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by mr mabstoa on Sat Feb 18 01:38:29 2012. Well then I get the sinking feeling that our 07 NG's will be going back to MTV and the RTS will continue to be the primary 40 foot bus operating out of 126! UGH!!! :( |
|
|
| (255853) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by LRG5784 on Sat Feb 18 19:24:10 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by BigBusDriver on Sat Feb 18 16:45:51 2012. You're bad! Lol! |
|
|
| (255854) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by LRG5784 on Sat Feb 18 19:25:33 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by mr mabstoa on Sat Feb 18 01:42:37 2012. I like Orion 5s over the RTS', but my favorite low-floors are the Nova LFS/LFS Artic, hands down. |
|
|
| (255871) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by Mr Mabstoa on Sun Feb 19 01:20:58 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by DHF60 on Sat Feb 18 17:20:49 2012. I love the RTS, they were real comfortable and easy to drive.But now when I move them around I find that the seats are really close to the dash/steering wheel. I couldn't drive them today for 3 or 4 hours. |
|
|
| (255877) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by BigBusDriver on Sun Feb 19 13:09:56 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by LRG5784 on Sat Feb 18 19:25:33 2012. Man those things are like IRT cars with their 3 doors on the side. Driving those makes you more of a T/O than a B/O!STILL LOL@MTA ABBREVIATIONS! |
|
|
| (255882) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by LRG5784 on Sun Feb 19 14:48:48 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by BigBusDriver on Sun Feb 19 13:09:56 2012. Lmao!!! |
|
|
| (255897) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Feb 19 19:30:51 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by DHF60 on Sat Feb 18 17:20:49 2012. To me, the common sense solution would be to transfer the 3877-3899 batch to Charleston, with 4431-4452 heading to 126 Street. After all, Charleston has only 4 local routes. |
|
|
| (255901) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Sun Feb 19 20:18:12 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Feb 19 19:30:51 2012. If mileage is the issue, it won't be solved on Staten Island. When that set of Orion 7s were on Staten Island, a couple caught fire. I believe that it may not be wise to send them back there. |
|
|
| (255908) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by DaRidgewoodBusBuff on Sun Feb 19 22:47:22 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by JAzumah on Sun Feb 19 20:18:12 2012. Yeah, Staten Island Division has the highest mileage routes for both local and express buses, esp. the two Verrazano Bridge routes. |
|
|
| (255910) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by caine515 on Sun Feb 19 23:03:37 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by DHF60 on Sat Feb 18 17:20:49 2012. is there a height problem with the Orion VII that prevents them from being assigned to the M66 and M72 lines? I heard about this once. Is it true? |
|
|
| (255921) | |
Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage |
|
|
Posted by DHF60 on Mon Feb 20 01:15:47 2012, in response to Re: 126 O7's Racking Up High Mileage, posted by caine515 on Sun Feb 19 23:03:37 2012. No. Peter Pan and Greyhound regularly send their MCI's and Prevosts through the 66th Street transverse without any clearance problems. |
|
|