Jump to content

MCW Metrobus

CPTDB Administrator
  • Posts

    4,124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MCW Metrobus

  1. That's hardly new... I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Normal drivers take a shower and then go to work. Double decker drivers go to work and then take a shower.
  2. If you draw in the comparison to the TTC, an equivalent can be found in the routes that each service different sections of the same road, like the 36 Finch West and 39 Finch East, or the 52 Lawrence West and 54 Lawrence East. The problem is that there are no such cardinal direction designations for Kingsway, and so using East and West to tell apart the 19 and the 119 won't really be helpful. Many of the local routes in Richmond already have precedent to draw upon for route descriptions, as evidenced by the fact that the 408 now uses essentially the same route description that the 401 used before it was split in 2018. 401 One Road to Steveston / One Road to Brighouse Stn (406 follows this pattern, and so could the 402) 403 Three Road to Bridgeport Station / Three Road to Riverport 404 Four Road to Brighouse Stn / Four Road to Riverport 405 Five Road to Ironwood Industrial / Cambie to Knight & Marine (This one would require the bottom half of the stacked text to transition to "via Vulcan" during peak hours; the same also applies to the 407.) 407 Gilbert to Steveston / Bridgeport to Knight & Marine 410 is trickier. I feel like this one should break convention and be called "410 Queensborough Connector / to 22nd St Stn" because while it does provide local service along Cambie, I'd say the link to New West is more significant. Maybe even "410 Hwy 91 Q'boro Cnctr / to 22nd St Stn". The same goes for the 412. It seems pointless to call it "412 Russ Baker Way" because that's not the most important role the route plays. I'd actually be tempted to leave the primary route description as it is, calling it "412 Sea Island South / to YVR South Terminal".
  3. Someone got mad that this bus doesn't go to Aldergrove?!
  4. Not on any CMBC bus that I ever drove...
  5. Speaking of seatbelts... did you happen to see if the driver's seat is equipped with the three-point seatbelt?
  6. 16107 looks to have been involved in a boo-boo. Some minor damage to the right rear corner.
  7. There is a possibility that 9204 is retired. I use the word "possibility" only because it is currently parked behind 9244 and 9251 at RTC, but over the past few months there have been other buses parked in the same spot, sometimes even Novas or artics, and those always returned to service. This time though, 9204 has been there for almost a week and hasn't moved, so I think that may be its final resting place. I'm surprised @dover5949hasn't already reported this.
  8. That's not what I've heard. I believe the plan is to assign some of the new XDE60s to VTC for that purpose. We'll see how long that lasts, because the last time there were diesel artics assigned to VTC, there was nowhere to park in the yard at night... (Notwithstanding that summer a few years ago when a handful of the new RapidBus artics were mixed in with the artic trolleys.)
  9. And don't forget about all the negative publicity flying around during the contract negotiations that almost resulted in a three-day shutdown of the bus network...
  10. I've done the 26 once, but that was in my first week on the job out of class, and furthermore that was before the routing through Champlain Heights was changed in conjunction with the re-routing of the 49 off of 54th Avenue, so I don't remember for sure if that turn from Arlington existed then. All I do remember is making a wrong turn into a cul-de-sac at Frontenac and Hurst and having to back out.
  11. 9668 was involved in what appeared to be a solo MVA at 49th and Arlington, today around 12:30 pm. I say "appeared to be" because I didn't see any other vehicle on the scene, but the bus had clearly been making the right turn onto 49th off Arlington, but somehow ended up climbing the curb onto the sidewalk, and the right side of the bus was wedged firmly against the light standard...
  12. An internal memo indicates that coach #19420 has been fitted with snow tires as a trial until February.
  13. Fixed. @Nathan Davidowiczperhaps you could re-insert your original thread titles into the post body, because they don't appear in this thread. The links to the original threads are still on the main forum page.
  14. ...and the next bus going to 22nd Street is usually running late, and already full by the time it gets to the Boundary stop, so now there's a few dozen angry people all crowded onto that tiny little bit of asphalt on the side of the road by the ditch.
  15. 9547 looking pretty fresh at Brighouse Station this morning. T-Comm data shows it was out of commission for a while prior to this past Saturday, but the dirt pattern on the back end suggested it had recently been through the wash rack.
  16. I cannot speculate as to why this is the case, but... There is not a single artic on the R4 this morning (confirming initial reports from some very unimpressed drivers), and the R1 also appears to be all 40 footers save for 15010 - oddly, a non-RapidBus artic.
  17. A dashcam video of this incident surfaced online, taken from a vehicle that was travelling in the same direction as the trolley bus, a short distance behind it. For clarity's sake I feel it should be pointed out that both the eastbound trolley and the car in the lane next to it were innocent bystanders, as they were both fully stopped at the red light at the time of impact. An white pickup travelling westbound on 41st ran the red light and got T-boned by the Nova bus travelling southbound on Rupert, and both those vehicles ended up plowing into the vehicles stopped at the light.
  18. The driver who was hit downtown the other day has passed. With that in mind I ask that we refrain from further speculation about what specifically led to this situation unfolding until official information is available.
  19. ...and the fact that it still shows up on T-Comm means that someone went NIS without going all the way to the last stop. Although, now I come to think of it, that might have been the day that all the buses were horrendously late anyway, so perhaps it was short-turned and the adjustment wasn't made in the TMAC.
  20. I'm not sure why or how this came about, but 18473 was on the 430 yesterday morning. It doesn't show up on the T-Comm assignment history, so I assume someone coming off a highway tripper was asked to cover. It looked like there were some standees on board, but I couldn't see much beyond the seats directly behind the wheel well.
  21. That reminds me of the White Star Line's RMS Olympic war colours.
  22. Technically, "the older buses don't allow us to do that" is also incorrect. The flipdot signs might not be able to display stacked text, but in Toronto, the old TTC buses (GM fishbowls and Flyer D901s, for instance) used scrolling to display two-part destinations. Where the problem arose, in my opinion, was with PR messages, because that would result in a scrolling cycle like "129 MCCOWAN NORTH / TO MAJOR MACKENZIE DRIVE / EXTRA FARE REQUIRED / NORTH OF STEELES", which might leave riders waiting at a stop served by multiple routes not knowing if the approaching bus is the one they want, until it has already passed them by and they see the rear sign displaying "129". On a modern sign like a Luminator Horizon with stacked text, that same front message could be displayed in two exposures - and this was 15 years ago, which is the last time I was in Toronto. And let's not forget, revisiting your Richmond example, that the sign "401 ONE ROAD / TO STEVESTON" already exists, and has existed for a long time. I have a picture of it being used on a 7100 series D40LF many years ago, and I've used it a few times myself because it appears on the sign code sheet. A couple of employees have actually suggested this. I'm not sure whether the suggestion will be heeded or not; probably not.
  23. I agree with this, wholeheartedly. Mostly because it's been done before. Before the old artics were retired, five of them had luggage racks installed opposite the centre doors, and it certainly made things easier on the 620, not just because it cut down drastically on the amount of luggage blocking the aisles, but also because it gave people a place to safely stow oversized items. Case in point: one guy once boarded my rack-equipped, crowded 620 at Ladner Exchange with a full-length surfboard. With standees in the aisle, I might have had to tell him I didn't have room to accommodate both him and his board... if not for the fact that the surfboard fit perfectly on the luggage rack atop the many suitcases that were already stowed there. Poof, problem solved. The six seats that were sacrificed to make room for the luggage rack were probably more than offset by the extra standee space created by removing all that luggage from the aisles, vestibules and gangway. Logistics wise, keeping the rack-equipped buses on the 620 didn't seem to be a problem during the week. Usually at least three of four (or four of five, depending on the season) all-day runs on the 620 that came out of RTC in the morning were assigned a rack-equipped bus. The only weekday run that would consistently not be assigned a rack bus was the overload that only ran on Friday afternoons. The bigger problem arose on the weekends; for some reason, the artics would just get thrown everywhere, the Xcelsiors would be put on the 620 and the luggage rack buses would end up on the 49 until past midnight. I always attributed this to different personnel assigning buses on the weekend. It was clearly possible to keep the rack-equipped buses on the 620 without too much difficulty - it was done consistently for more than a year, at least on weekdays. Sadly, when the D60LFs were withdrawn from service, the luggage racks went with them. When the TransLink deckers were first delivered, someone from the training department told me that some discussions had taken place about the possibility of installing luggage racks in the space behind the curbside front wheel well, but the sticking point was that this would result in the loss of one of the two accessible positions, which would be a non-starter. In sum, I think you're right that we likely won't see luggage racks again for a while, despite how well they worked in the past.
  24. The first few 311s out of Scottsdale in the morning are pretty much always deckers.
×
×
  • Create New...