|
|
| PHOTOS Valley Metro 02.24.08 (88193) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (88195) | |
Re: PHOTOS Valley Metro 02.24.08 |
|
|
Posted by roscoman1986 on Sun Feb 24 22:50:08 2008, in response to PHOTOS Valley Metro 02.24.08, posted by phxtusbusfan on Sun Feb 24 22:34:27 2008. Nice!Photo 3: Bus 6176 is an ex-FLASH bus that was repainted last August to increase capacity on Tempe crosstown routes. Obvious paint differences are (1) the font, position and purple color of the "Valley" lettering on the side below the windows (the purple is brighter on these buses and the lettering is centered on the side), (2) the font for the numbering is different, and (3) most obviously the "www.valleymetro.org/602-253-5000" is positioned where the ad would be on the Phoenix version. These buses were NOT rehabbed as they were in excellent shape when used as FLASH buses, unfortunately since they have been placed into local service they have really gone downhill and have serious tagging and seat writing in the back. Photo 4: Bus 6415 was waiting there even in the morning (at 10:30 AM) with the "Not In Service" designation. I don't know if it was broken down or waiting there as a spare for some reason. Maybe the Roadeo had something to do with it. Photo 13: They really have to do something with the Orbit when the Tempe Transit Center opens. They will need a bay or two to serve all of the Orbit buses that lay over there. Note that there are also some that lay over on the left side of the street. Photos 14-15: Nice shots of 6381, which is part of the rare 2002 40-LFW order from Tempe (there are only 4 buses). Most of the time I see them on the Red Line, and this weekend I saw 6378 and 6380. 6379 is repainted in new colors. Those buses were really nice when new but now they have a ton of mismatched windows and not to mention the general filth in the back. Also, I don't like the fact that they replaced their TwinVision signs with Luminator Horizons. I don't mind it as much with the other Tempe buses but I like TwinVision signs better than Luminator (partly because more text can be displayed on the side and the signs are brighter). Nevertheless, nothing appears to have changed since this bus has a broken sign AGAIN (it broke when it still had its TwinVision signs and people had to rely on the "runbox" for route info). |
|
|
| (88200) | |
Re: PHOTOS Valley Metro 02.24.08 |
|
|
Posted by MCI D4000 81994 on Sun Feb 24 23:12:17 2008, in response to PHOTOS Valley Metro 02.24.08, posted by phxtusbusfan on Sun Feb 24 22:34:27 2008. Why are the rear doors so far in the front part of some buses and normal rear position for others? |
|
|
| (88203) | |
Re: PHOTOS Valley Metro 02.24.08 |
|
|
Posted by phxtusbusfan on Sun Feb 24 23:15:01 2008, in response to Re: PHOTOS Valley Metro 02.24.08, posted by roscoman1986 on Sun Feb 24 22:50:08 2008. A few follow ups:That's somewhat interesting about 6415. I took that photo at around 3:30-3:40 and it was just sitting there. There was an operator inside sitting on the seats directly across from the rear door but I don't know what he was doing as he never came out of the bus nor did the bus ever move. 6381 looked bad externally, much worse than any of the 2002 Phoenix NABIs. The reason I took the 1st photo (photo 14) is because I wanted to display the missing black rubber strip around the rear wheel well, the buckled aluminum on the lower right corner of the side engine vent, and the missing piece of the lower black rubber strip below the upper left rear unit number. |
|
|
| (88207) | |
Re: PHOTOS Valley Metro 02.24.08 |
|
|
Posted by phxtusbusfan on Sun Feb 24 23:42:30 2008, in response to Re: PHOTOS Valley Metro 02.24.08, posted by MCI D4000 81994 on Sun Feb 24 23:12:17 2008. The 1994, 1996, and 2007 D40LFs as well as the entire NABI 40-LFW fleet (1998-2002) has the rear door after the 2nd passenger side window as opposed to after the 3rd passenger side window due to the fact that these buses all have rear wheelchair ramps and it facilitates easier loading/unloading. It is worth noting that all of these buses were built to City of Phoenix specifications. My guess is that this has to do partially with the fact that the fuel tank on the D40LFs extends forward from the "high floor" section of the bus, under the last 3 longitudinal seats on the driver's side of the bus. With a standard door arrangement, this segment of the fuel tank would be directly across from the rear door. Moving the rear door one position up allows the seats directly across the aisle from the rear door to "fold up" (as there would be no fuel tank in the way) thus allowing easier wheelchair loading/unloading. Due to the fact that when the NABIs were purchased Phoenix had 99 D40LFs and 1 L40LF with this arrangement, the NABIs were also specified this way and when the 2007 D40LFs were purchased it made sense to keep the arrangement the same.The 52 2006 C40LFRs and 28 2007 D40LFRs are, currently, the only buses in the fleet which have the "normal" rear door placement. The C40LFRs don't have the problem of the fuel tank (as the tanks are on the roof) as well as it is worth noting that they were built to MARTA and not City of Phoenix specifications. The D40LFRs do have the fuel tank "issue" but were built to VIA San Antonio specifications which have the rear door in the "normal" position. |
|
|
