northwesterner

Saw in another group that 6897 had a tire blow out that led to a loss of control and rollover while deadheading. 

10 hours ago, 3we said:

This morning it's showing 6653 on Country Club, but 6853 on 521.

 

So I went over to Arizona Avenue, and found that 6653 is really 8525.

Presumably someone working dispatch will notice the fleet number reporting is incorrect and it'll get fixed...

On 7/23/2021 at 4:20 AM, traildriver said:

That is indeed truly sad.   I remember all the hoopla when that terminal opened.  It was considered "state-of-the-art" for a bus terminal, and was very similar to the one also opened around that time in Indianapolis.   During that era, around 1969-1970, the Greyhound Corporation was opening a new terminal somewhere at the incredible rate of one-a-month.  Which was amazing considering they also were in the midst of a huge diversification, merger and acquisition making them about number 28 in size on the Fortune 500 list.   And they still saw fit to re-invest into the core bus line.  Credit is due to then CEO Gerald Trautman...

I changed coaches in 2005 at Columbus. It was a massive station. Even 16 years ago, it was way oversized for the modern day Greyhound operation.

On 6/12/2021 at 6:14 PM, translink fan said:

That ordering when necessary mentality confused me. Stuff as basic as DEF one time I had to wait because they had it coming in from New Jersey when it was available locally probably for cheaper. They really did not like storing vital parts or even have them because to upper management it looked like money sitting on the shelf that could be spent somewhere. 

I never knew they did charters until I had seen only 1 time with my own eyes a Greyhound doing a cruise transfer. 

Financial accounting rules mean that inventory on the shelf is literally "money sitting on the shelf." 

When the inventory is purchased, the cash spent is reflected on that month's statement of cash flows. However, the same amount is also recorded on the balance sheet as an asset (inventory). 

When the part is used - placed on a bus, it is removed from inventory on the balance sheet, and shows as an expense on the income statement, in the month that it is used.

If you're really watching your cash flows, you want to avoid buying assets and keeping them in inventory for any period of time.

Many managers are also enamored with "just in time procurement." This means you keep very low inventory, but are able to source your inventory quickly. It is widely successful in many industries (for example - Boeing has seats arrive from a seating manufacturer the same day that they are to be installed in a plane - which means they don't have to build a warehouse to store them).

It doesn't seem to work so well in bus maintenance, because a lot of parts are OEM, or, even if they are available aftermarket, you're subject to the vagaries of two or three distribution centers nationwide, which lengthens shipping and lead time. 

It's probably better to have a minimum of parts on hand at all times, with auto-reorder the moment you get below a certain inventory. And if its something you only use a couple of per year ... don't stock it at all.

On 7/11/2021 at 4:58 PM, roamer said:

 

The bidadoo ad is not only incorrect (should be a 1996 instead of 1997, and VIN on ad does not correspond to the ID plate ...they're actually showing the VIN of 32096) but a bit misleading as well because that coach will definitely have more than 81,798 total miles attributed to its transit mileage so it's probably the mileage after the last engine rebuild(?) or turned over several times?
   

If you have to replace the speedometer, you can't "roll" the odo to what was on the prior unit. I'm sure they're just reading off the odo, which is wrong.

Interesting to note that the Argo Tachographs had odo's that could be rolled. Designed before that became illegal, I suppose.

12 hours ago, MCW Metrobus said:

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.

It's not that it couldn't be done.

We know it could be done.

They knew it could be done.

But you can't underestimate the organizational inertia that has to be overcome to make a change of this nature. Thirty-five years of middle managers who could have done something, but chose not to take on that battle. We should be grateful someone finally was able to push that rock up a mountain and get it done.

12 hours ago, Translink69 said:

It really does when you’re waiting and  an LFR shows up and you can’t read where the bus is going cause 2/3 of the sign is burnt out. 
 

Nothing wrong with “Destination via Road/Station/POI” like we’ve been doing for decades. It’s another needless change by the planning department for the sake of doing something rather than nothing.

CMBC not maintaining and repairing their destination signs is a different issue than having a wayfinding strategy.

****

You're right, there is nothing wrong with "Destination via ..." except you're statement is incorrect. CMBC hasn't been doing this for decades. Yes, there are a small handful of routes that have signage constructed this way, but the majority do not.

The majority is set up with the same philosophy that came with the 1986 overhaul, which is route number, and broad destination. This was done to simplify and reduce the number of readings on the roll signs, and was copied verbatim onto the electronic signs. It was a bad set up for the rollsigns (particularly as there was no route number on the side so you'd have a half dozen buses with just "Surrey Ctrl Stn" and no other info), and is inexcusable on the electronic signs.

This bad decision, from 1986, is finally being unwound. We should be applauding that change, not coming up with criticisms of it like "the font is too small." 

As I've noted, if this was really a problem, how have the transit systems with the highest bus ridership in North America like Toronto, San Francisco, and New York been able to function for close to two decades of programming this way? 

This is not a change for the sake of "doing something." This is a true, substantive change being driven with an eye towards improved passenger information and wayfinding. Given the context of how long Vancouver had underperformed in this area, it's a big deal.
 

1 hour ago, 8010 said:

The wayfinding isn’t useful if you can’t read it, which is why they should stop with this stupid pilot and go back to alternating head signs, because I am fine with giving the routes names as they give a better idea where the buses are going.

How does anyone get on the correct bus in Toronto, or New York City for that matter, with stacked signs? 

Clearly, the customers are able to read the signs and chose the correct bus, as these are some of the highest ridership systems in North America. 

Perhaps this is not actually a problem ... but a wayfinding improvement that starts to correct an error made in 1986 that has survived for 35 year is a monumental change for this system.

1 hour ago, Translink69 said:

Why are they adding more they suck

Yeah, it sucks to actually have signs and a wayfinding system that gives you information on where the bus is going.

On 5/6/2021 at 1:44 PM, Jared Kam said:

The pandemic has a lot of agencies rethinking the optics of plastic or vinyl vs. fabric. I'll take padded vinyl over the hard plastic any day, but that plastic seat salesman is seemingly doing a pretty good job.

Considering COVID really doesn't spread via surface transmission - something we've known for a year - they should stop thinking so deeply about this issue.

2 hours ago, Kennys bus drawings said:

Does anyone know what base the old routes 242  and 243 to northgate and ridgecrest ran out of?

East/Bellevue (242 & 243) and North (242) depending on the time frame.

29 minutes ago, Border City Transit said:

I'm straying off the specific topic of King County Metro, here... but you hit on something I've wondered about for a while:

Tiny, Go-Kart Size Steering Wheels on Gillig LFs

You seen 'em? It appears to be an option.

I wanna say maybe Port of Seattle's Gilligs at SeaTac are so equipped? Not sure about other Gilligs in the area.

The steering wheel looks no bigger than a typical automobile... it's anchored to the dashboard by a weird cassette sort of thing.

I drove early 90s Flxibles with big, 20- or 22-inch steering wheels and felt firmly in control. I found smaller steering wheels disorienting -- like, not proportionate to the size of the vehicle.

But, yes, I drove plenty of Gilligs with "Flxible" badges on the steering wheel and vice versa. I vaguely recall a GMC steering wheel, even though we never had any RTSes!

 

The tiny steering wheels are part of an electric steering system...

11 hours ago, roamer said:

Steering wheels are outsourced.  I'm fairly certain that Gillig themselves do not actually manufacture the steering wheel itself for the low floors.  The hub --horn button insert-- can be ordered with the bus, truck, or chassis manufacturer's name in the middle.  IMMI is one of the largest, if not the largest manufacturer of steering wheels used in buses, trucks, and motorhomes.

For instance, I believe Metro's Gillig Phantoms used the IMMI Vector series steering wheel ...shown HERE on the IMMI website but most were the padded version.  Gillig ordered the hub insert emblem with their name on it.  

Gillig gives the agency ordering the bus a choice of steering wheel they want to use (as they do for a lot of other parts) so a Gillig Phantom, for instance, used by another agency may or may not have the exact same steering wheel as a KCM Phantom, etc. 

And I'm not sure which series of KCM Gillig low-floor you're referring to.  Weren't the first Gillig low floors the 7300-7400s that started service in 2018?

 

 

(first image shows a steering wheel almost identical to what was used on a KCM Gillig Phantom but had "Gillig" on the emblem --second image shows horn button and emblem part)

(eta:  third image shows the options when ordering the horn button emblem)

Looks like VIP Steering Wheels has been purchased by another company.

Basically, every heavy duty steering wheel is OEM equipment made by them. That's why steering wheels all look so similar - whether you're in a Gillig or New Flyer or a fire truck.

In addition to what is listed on their catalogue online, if you call up the parts department at your OEM manufacturer and ask for a new steering wheel, they'll see you one, and it will be a "branded" (horn button) VIP wheel. 

Need a new steering wheel for your 1975 GM Fishbowl? It'll be a VIP wheel.

Need a new steering wheel for your 1990 MCI Motorcoach? MCI will send you a wheel, and it will be a VIP wheel.

11 hours ago, roamer said:

 

The Phantoms had a similar front design  ...i.e. similar strange A-pillar design because of the canted windshield, etc.-- so a similar deflector was installed at the factory  ...or so I believe as from my recollection, they either came from the factory with deflectors or Metro installed them as part of the procedure to ready them for service as I don't remember the Phantoms having that problem when they were brand new. 

 

They were installed after the Gilligs had been on property for 6-7 years...

22 hours ago, Kennys bus drawings said:

also theresd  this 6867 bus on my street rn that says "to terminal" on the rear reader board in small text instead of "TRM"

kinda odd

Different destination sign model.

On 12/29/2020 at 8:56 AM, Chris.A said:

How many DD Series 50G EGR buses they have left overall in their fleet?

One. There is a 2004 45-C with a Series 50 that was inadvertently reactived from storage and painted orange for Metro Local service.

On 12/25/2020 at 11:35 AM, Chris.A said:

So the oldest buses in their fleet now are those 2004 NABI Compobuses I assume?

Yes, and just a handful of units from that batch are still active.

37 minutes ago, translinkedi337m said:

There should be some trial runs of the system to see how people actually receive it rather than just start it at the Monday of a new week all of a sudden.

Literally no system does that. 

Is there a reason why your cohort of fellow passengers is different or unique compared with those in every other major city in North America?

On 10/28/2020 at 12:59 PM, Ztonyg said:

It seems like the Transdev - Phoenix and First Transit - Tempe (I'm not sure about other divisions) has updated the destination sign format.

The new format seems to have the route number to the far left and then 2 lines for the destination. For example:

7	NORTH TO
	DEER VALLEY + 19TH AVE

Nothing worst that putting the cardinal direction on the destination sign.

5 hours ago, Border City Transit said:

Ugh. I never understood the reason for that awkwardly positioned rear door. Supposedly it had something to do with wheelchair access? I didn't buy that -- "regular" D40LFs were perfectly accessible without this unsightly adjustment. Glad that this spec has largely disappeared from the road -- in Phoenix, Orange County, Hamilton ON and a possible few other places that had it.

Some agencies that had lots of RTSs with rear door lifts chose rear door ramps when they went LF. Its dumb.

On 1/6/2020 at 2:51 PM, Border City Transit said:

Thanks!

Wow. Quite the set-up. So this likely affects all PT-operated Sound Transit routes that end up in Seattle. I wonder how it affects pay for the operators...

I kind of expected mid-day storage... in the same way that peak-hour Metro buses from North Base may spend the mid-day at Central

Long ago, PT would store some of their coaches at Metro's Atlantic Base during the midday.

4 hours ago, Zortan said:

Looks like a lot of the network is being gutted even if COVID-related service changes were to go away tomorrow.

The loss of revenue from the Seattle TBD is substantial... COVID cuts are mostly peak hour commuter routes.

12 hours ago, Matt Dunlop said:

Again, I still think it's a huge waste of resources to have a driver deadhead to a start point, do half a trip or so, and deadhead back to the depot. I know they're trying to "fill in" service on certain routes, but they should have a paddle that comes in to Royal Oak around that time (like a 30, 31, 83, 32, 35, etc) do that trip, then resume the regular route they do. I know there's paddles that do 32 and 35s all day. Have the driver do a half-trip of the 6 then resume their 35. But I guess transit has their reasons. 

The "reasons" are ... they have a very expensive, computerized scheduling system that runs optimization models to determine their schedules based on the parameters and constraints set in the model. 

These software programs do require some massaging to get things right ... you have to program in travel times correctly, etc, for them to work correctly. 

I tend to also dislike scheduling anomalies like you are reporting, but if you don't know what they're optimizing on, then how can you complain? 

Are they:

• Optimizing to use the least drivers possible?
• Optimizing to use the most drivers per day while meeting contractual hours requirements?
• Optimizing to minimize total operations cost?
• Optimizing to all pull in / pull outs, for sanitation?

I don't know.

You don't either.

But the software will produce paddles to fit any of those scenarios - and a million more, based on the "reasons."

40 minutes ago, CV92 said:

What's the date on that contract? 

Ha! You caught me skimming and not reading fully. 

It was the prior contract, that expired last year. The Unifor site indicates the new collective agreement has not gone into affect.

39 minutes ago, Matt Dunlop said:

I can't say, but I have heard that BC Transit operators only get 6 paid sick days per year. They can take a "zero day" if they use up all their paid sick days. But most operators have a decent immune system considering they're in a bus sharing the same air as hundreds of other people. 

I mean, you're the one who said it, so....


*****

It's a good thing the internet exists, as I just looked up the union contract.
Six days of sick leave (48hrs) into a bank at the start of every year. That seems pretty low, so I kept reading.
Oh, what's this... once you're out for more than 4 days a Short Term Disability Plan kicks in, paying 96% of scheduled days pay from day 4 through 8 weeks, and then 85% for weeks 9 through 17.

Seems like they have a very generous plan.

On 12/29/2019 at 8:49 PM, dev161 said:

Its still quite profitable for Greyhound to charter buses for overloads, after the cost of chartering a bus , greyhound still makes about 5000$ Profit 

 

Don't mean to resurrect old posts, but incorrect info needs to be corrected.

Greyhound, at best, breaks even when they have to charter to over an extra section. I suspect they actually lose money on many of these.

No one is making $5000 of profit on a days work in any sector of the motorcoach business.