Jump to content

Orion6025

Wiki Editor
  • Posts

    589
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Orion6025

  1. shoot they didn't waste any time getting rid of that lone 2008.
  2. If you mean increasing fleet size again so that it matches what it was pre-corona, then that wouldn't be surprising, but expanding beyond that?? I wouldn't go so far as to call it a fact lol. Just because a depot isn't full doesn't mean it has to be, it isn't some goal to pack them wall to wall with buses. The goal is to have enough buses to make service while maintaining a reasonable spare factor. As New York reopens and service is appropriately increased, some of the freed space will probably get filled in with the 130 or so 'expansion' buses that are retroactively replacing the 2005-2007 Orions replaced late last year. They certainly could store Orions, I haven't heard an indication that they will so far, will but it's possible.
  3. Here is the math. There are 291 LFS HEV #9620-9910 There are 209 LFS #8755-8963 There are 194 XDE40 #9416-9499, 9510-9619 There are 139 XD40 #7851-7989 That's a total of 833 new buses. There were 200 2006 Orions #3500-3599, 6690-6789 There were 300 2007 Orions #3600-3783, 6790-6905 There are 160 2008 Orions #3800-3959 That's a total of 660 buses. Of course this wasn't exactly 660 prior to the mass retirements in September-November 2020, it was a little less, but to keep this simple let's just keep it at 660. No 2005 Orions were retired between mid July and late September 2020, so let's use mid-July 2020 numbers to estimate how many 2005s were retired sans replacements. There were 78 active 2005 Orions. 660+78 = 738, 738 is less than 833. If the MTA chooses to retire buses one-for-one based on the numbers just before the Sept-Nov 2020 mass retirement, 95 2009 Orions were going to be retired anyway. If you want to use an even more conservative number, let's draw from the mid February 2020 numbers to ensure we are using a figure that is not impacted by corona. At the time, there were 84 active 2005 Orions. 660 + 84 = 744. 744 is also less than 833. Some 2009s were going to retire regardless. You would have to go back to mid July 2019 to get close to 833 active 2005-2008 Orions (829 active). Furthermore, if the MTA decides to hold on to the best performing 2008s at MTA Bus, more 2009s are going to retire in place of those 2008s. you need to remember than the MTA does not do 1-for-1 artic-rigid replacement. When they put XN60 at Gleason, the total # of buses at the garage was going to drop regardless because of this. West Farms picked C40LF off of Gleason, but it's not like all of those C40LF were taken without replacements... Any reductions in fleets at FP, EN, GA, FB, UP due to the retirement of the Orions is addressed above.
  4. Like I said, some 2009s are going to be retired regardless of their mechanical state based on how many Novas and New Flyers that are on order. So, it's more economical to retire a 2009 Orion with an expensive mechanical failure now, than it is to repair that bus only to retire it within a year's time again.
  5. 6691 is still with MV, it's on the M116 right now.
  6. Based on the # of Novas and New Flyers on order, some 2009s were bound to be retired. If one of those breaks down and it is uneconomical to pay for the repair, then it’s simpler to just retire the bus instead of spending a large amount of $ repairing it.
  7. They got 93001 but they failed to get one as a representative for transit configured orion 5s. They were going to get one of the two 1996 Orions r/n into the 1300 series, but both were scrapped, they then tried to get 6000 but there was too much frame rot so that scrapped that, 6326 *appears* to be scrapped as well. the 1993 orion used at zerega was junked too. There are also 174,180 but being roadeo equipment buses, I’m not sure if that counts as preservation (considering all past roadeo equipment buses have been junked).
  8. I would endorse this as well ^^. Of the top ~~100 rows of the L VINs page, only 19 of them have to do with L-series VINs... Granted, we’re certainly missing some serials that would fit in the huge block, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that the page doesn’t really look as nice and doesn’t communicate information well. I mean,,, currently only 19% of the first 100 rows has information relevant to the page title... And while the K VINs page looks a little less extreme, that’s because only a couple 2018 model blocks have been put in. If someone actually went to fill in all the J VINs on that page, I imagine it would look just as insane. It takes long enough to just gather the serials to put onto a page because of how many different orders Gillig fulfills, and having to spend another hour or so editing at least three pages to make sure the different serial groups are reflected accurately across all the relevant pages is really not fun... not to mention that all the extra work just makes all three pages harder to read.. It kind of becomes a lose/lose situation; it’s not fun as an editor, nor is it fun as a reader (From my POV, at least). i kind of wish I could get some of the time back that i sunk into the K and L VINs page; while the concept of condensing vins into this type of format works great (Older versions of the L VINs page without all the 2019 serial blocks look fine IMO), this method of grouping serials is really not nice to read/process... Also the fact that editors may need to edit up to at least three pages just to input one serial block means that the format is ripe for mistakes as well in the future. As a full disclaimer, initially I had no opinion - making pages by serial blocks was not standard, but making pages by model year would result in a lot of linking. That said, having an actual, worked example of what a page grouped by model year looks like, and having worked on those pages and getting an idea of the work needed to put them together, I agree, it would be wiser to go by blocks of serials instead.. ———— While we’re on this topic, I’d like to propose linking VIN pages in a similar manner to what is done on the New Flyer pages with the white bar and bold black text, and also employing the use of empty rows for gaps in serials.. to keep the pages at a reasonable length, perhaps the serials should be grouped at no more than 1,000? That’s just an arbitrary suggestion, but I went thru the New Flyer pages (randomly chose some from the 2003-2009 block) and the difference between the lowest and highest serial #s on the pages are generally between 1,000 and 3,000. I generally find the new flyer pages to be of a reasonable length so shooting for something in that range would be best IMO. I choose the lower bound though since not all of the 1,000-3,000 serials will have their own rows on the NFI pages of course due to differences in model year (making the page appear artificially short), so it might be better to lean on the lower end since we would be creating rows for every serial used.. Title suggestion- Gillig Serials #[Lower bound]-[Upper bound]
  9. I think they might be done? They’re no longer listed as pending preservation. Typical NYTM not giving a crap about the bus fleet and only babying their subways..
  10. I'm fairly certain 1020 is done done.
  11. 2217,2220,2225,2228 at least are still at Castleton, they ran during the evening rush today as well. 2218 also is still at Castleton, though it didn’t run this evening. That’s not to say they won’t go to Eastchester soon, though. Unsure where 2219,2221,2227 have been today, it’s possible those were transferred at some point today but the change has not been reflected yet if that is the case. 2213,2216 are physically at Eastchester but are still assigned to Castleton. 2222 and 2226 are the only buses actually assigned to Eastchester right now. — as of 5/10 10:22p
  12. Off topic from the route redesign discussion above but krapfs should be getting 5 former SEPTA 2004 d40LF for their route A rover transit contract service instead of brand new 2020 xde40 per the original plan.
  13. Well i haven’t seen any indication that it is a lease They released their wishlist with the pretty pictures and graphics a couple years ago now. I don’t think anything significant from it has been funded yet
  14. Right, that’s why i said I assume they were put into the system later in the day since 545 was a bit early in the day. I just checked while making this post and both are in. That was a typo, god knows what was i was thinking when i typed that. I’m going to take this as a lesson to not post right before going to bed, lol Well for the xde40 it was supposed to be march/april but that’s long since passed. Probably soon since both pilots recently went back. The 2018 order was to evaluate which hybrid system to use. I don’t think those served as pilot buses for this order specifically though, which is what 9510 and 9560 have done since late 2020. XD40 pilot should be soon? —— -never mind this is what i get for reading page 56 and hittingreply with realizing there is a page 57-
  15. Well what’s interesting about the rumor is that Gillig is not explicitly mentioned as excluded like BYD but they arent among the three that are explicitly mentioned as included. Given that it’s just a rumor I assume that it might just be a poor choice of wording by the enthusiast who started the rumor, or something got lost in translation (Ex. It started as “All but BYD can bid”, but someone along the way forgot that Gillig makes electrics and they only named Nova, NFI, Proterra as possible contenders...)
  16. Yeah whoops I was probably thinking of the meredith buses or something then. Whatever i put in on the wiki should be it as of 5 am this morning or whenever i published the update 1572 and 74 at the time may have inside meredith but they weren’t in the system yet. And if it’s not in the system, it’s not goingout in service.. Well, legally they can retire them and the MTA is keen on getting rid of all CAT powered buses
  17. summary 5/6 5:45 am. Likely will change later today mv 9624-25,67-68,70,76,98-99 kb 9644,48,50,52-53,64 oh 9626-28,36-37,39 ec 1585-87 cp 1300,02-26 ma 1557-71 ja 8755
  18. Yes 'Soon' is relative i guess, but there will be 45 new electric buses arriving in the coming years. No Well Nova and BYD could submit bids in addition to NFI and Proterra. LFSe probably not suitable, LFSe+ I believe is suitable?
  19. VINs for the 29 ft Gilligs are as follows 15GGE2714M3093922 15GGE2716M3093923 15GGE2718M3093924
  20. Looks like the first buses in the 7851-7989 XD40 may be built? Serials MB074886-889 are registered
  21. I guess it’s been pretty quiet as far as the 4300s go. Ever since 4314 retired a couple years back nothing much happened. The remaining 29 are still active and all have ran recently, I wonder how long it will be until they transfer buses to CH.. Yes
  22. Surprised this hasn’t been mentioned yet, 8755 is in service now (well, really yesterday). christ they really are gonna do 4300 replacement the hard way... Castleton has had a coach shortage for some time IIRC, but could they really have been *that* short??
  23. Well this is just a guess, but it could have something to do with fleet uniformity and/or the buses the XN40 were replacing. Maintaining a fleet of only XN40s for both suburban and local routes ensures fleet uniformity which makes training staff easier, lowers costs, simplifies parts inventory, etc. Eventually the NABIs are going to come up for replacement, and it’ll be cheaper for them if they end up becoming an agency with only New Flyers and Proterras instead of an agency with New Flyers, Proterras, and MCIs or Prevosts. Another reason could be because they were replacing suburban configured transit buses. It’s not at all a downgrade to replace a suburban configured NABI 416 with a suburban configured XN40, and perhaps they deemed a motorcoach to not be worth the cost. Commuter routes often are quite expensive to run (subsidy per passenger) and in most cases they turn into a money pit (I am aware of VVTA’s Fort Irwin routes being an exception though, perhaps there are more?). So one way to reduce costs would be to buy a cheaper bus, ex. a XN40. I mean looking at DART’s past fleet, they had Eagles and MCI and eventually they decided it wasn’t worth the investment to keep replacing those with MCI. Whatever justification they were using at the time is likely what they’re continuing to follow. Alternatively, the ridership might not be there for a motorcoach. Connecticut Transit maintains a fleet of suburban D40LF, currently being replaced by “suburban” XD40s for some of the lower ridership commuter routes/runs, while using MCI for the heavier stuff (though you could easily argue that the “suburban” XD40 replacements are merely transit XD40 earmarked for commuter routes....).
  24. I'm not sure if they've started soliciting bids or anything for those yet, they're more focused on wiping out the hybrid 40 footers instead. They very recently issued 2 RFPs for 45 electrics and 50 diesels and IIRC in the rumor mill there has been talk of an order in the 200-bus range for Bus co. Not sure what the breakdown of that 200-bus order will be, but the 95 buses in the 2 RFPs were for rigids implying they're going in that direction for now. That is to say, it will inevitably come down to New Flyer vs. Nova but there's no indication of the details of such an order. IIRC most if not all of the 1200s had some level of overhaul work done at Zerega in the past 2 or so years which is enough to justify keeping those buses around for a while.
  25. It’s possible they retired 3-too-many buses and have a deficit right now. Those were very high mileage and generally had lower MDBF compared to the rest of the fleet, and they were over the minimum retirement age of 12. From an enthusiast POV it may not make sense but if you’re the MTA and you have a bunch of poorly performing, near-EOL buses that can be replaced using federal funding, it makes a ton of sense.
×
×
  • Create New...