Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CR SD40-2

AC Transit's new Van Hools

Recommended Posts

A. Wong   

What in the world...

That poster referenced to it as a "reincarnated Scenicruiser".. I almost tend to agree but it needs a window at the slant!

I don't see the point of that bus at all. It's not like there's extra luggage space or anything? Maybe to get an extra 5 feet they had to put the dual axle and figured having the wheelwells interfering with the passenger compartment was worthy of a new, odd design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like a Van Hool transit bus with a big step up at the back. Big deal. I guess if you think Van Hool's are terrible to begin with you won't like these Van Hool's.

I like it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see the point of that bus at all.

I was reading an article in a transit industry publication about passengers prefering high floor buses, especially when operating at higher speeds, because they don't like to be sitting low to the road. I would suspect that's what the bus is partially trying to provide. An easily accessible bus for longer commutes.

Sure, coaches work, but they are slow to load and unload and not convient at all for accessibility, yet, who would want to ride a D40LF on a long commute?

Further, given that the top half is rather high up and juding from the photos, seats go right to the very back, unlike most other LF designs where you lose at least a little space at the very back to accomidate the engine.

It's a very interesting merge of a transit bus and a coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A. Wong   

I have to wonder how the height compares to a TD295 - might as well just get one of those! There is probably a price difference though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ADB   

This is the C3045 model from Van Hool. It has been in the works since 2008 or 2007, and was designed in co-operation with AC Transit. The first time I heard about this was from the Van Hool rep at the 2008 Expo, who was happy to explain the buses Van Hool offers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see the point of that bus at all.

They're trying to "have their cake and eat it too" -- combining a low floor bus with a motorcoach.

Personally I like the idea behind such a combination -- people complain about low floor buses having fewer seats as well as high floor motorcoaches with limited or no wheelchair accessibility, so why not address both problems at once? That's not to say that they could have made it look much better (how about redesigning the roof line?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was reading an article in a transit industry publication about passengers prefering high floor buses, especially when operating at higher speeds, because they don't like to be sitting low to the road. I would suspect that's what the bus is partially trying to provide. An easily accessible bus for longer commutes.

Sure, coaches work, but they are slow to load and unload and not convient at all for accessibility, yet, who would want to ride a D40LF on a long commute?

Further, given that the top half is rather high up and juding from the photos, seats go right to the very back, unlike most other LF designs where you lose at least a little space at the very back to accomidate the engine.

It's a very interesting merge of a transit bus and a coach.

So if people like high floor buses why did people be presistent that there Transit authorities get low floor and doo away with high?I prefer High floor cause the ride better and seat more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if people like high floor buses why did people be presistent that there Transit authorities get low floor and doo away with high?I prefer High floor cause the ride better and seat more.

Were people even lobbying their transit autorities to go low floor in the first place as you suggest?

I think it was more so a natural progesssion that once the low floor was avalible, it was the logical choice to easily serve all of passengers of a transit agency.

If in fact customers were demanding low floor buses, it would have probably been the vocal minority who especially benefit from a low floor bus, passengers with reduced mobility, that would have been the ones making the noise. Transit authorities probably wouldn't have heard from the average user who was probably indifferent. In fact, I suspect the average person would have been in favor of low floor buses and wouldn't not have been aware of any of the disadvantages (often reduced ride quality, increase maintenance costs etc).

Anyways, here's the article: http://www.metro-magazine.com/Article/Stor...other-Look.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be just me, but this looks like a giant waste of money (fortunately, I'm not in the Bay Area of California)...especially when MCIs are available, with federal funding potentially available to defray most of the $500,000 per bus cost.

Never mind that the C3000 series bus is ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my eyes, my eyes!

Holy donuts thats ugly, no the definition of ugly!

Incidentally are these buy America compliant or does AC Transit pull a few strings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Were people even lobbying their transit autorities to go low floor in the first place as you suggest?

I think it was more so a natural progesssion that once the low floor was avalible, it was the logical choice to easily serve all of passengers of a transit agency.

If in fact customers were demanding low floor buses, it would have probably been the vocal minority who especially benefit from a low floor bus, passengers with reduced mobility, that would have been the ones making the noise. Transit authorities probably wouldn't have heard from the average user who was probably indifferent. In fact, I suspect the average person would have been in favor of low floor buses and wouldn't not have been aware of any of the disadvantages (often reduced ride quality, increase maintenance costs etc).

Anyways, here's the article: http://www.metro-magazine.com/Article/Stor...other-Look.aspx

Yeah didn't really think on that one.Thanks Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, gotta agree with you there, we have a new FUGLY champion

How does the designer sleep at night? He should do the honorable thing:

HaraKiri.jpg

Lol, nice senpakku reference, but I don't think these look too bad. Though the only problem I have is the back flooring tilted forward, I don't know why they wanted it slanted...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smallspy   
Incidentally are these buy America compliant or does AC Transit pull a few strings?

No strings pulled - AC Transit doesn't use Federal funding for its bus purchases. That's how they are able to purchase Van Hool products.

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RTS_04   
Never mind that the C3000 series bus is ugly.

It's a helluva lot nicer looking than the rip-off Gillig BRT, IMO...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DE40LFR   

I think its pretty unusual looking... but i dont think its that ugly. Sure, it has the half floor feature, as its being resurfaced from the 1940's or something. Its actually a very logical and thoughtful design, combining the comfort of being more high from the road, to the accessibility features of being low floor. Like Martin said, no one would wanna ride a D40LFR for a long duration along a highway. I just dont understand, like Ashton said, why or what would be underneath the higher up portion of it though. Its not like theyre storing luggage or something. Nor do i understand the need for an extra axle. Is AC Transit like a suburban sort of transit agency? Do most of it's routes go along highways? I'd give this bus a 7.8/10! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is AC Transit like a suburban sort of transit agency? Do most of it's routes go along highways? I'd give this bus a 7.8/10! ;)

They have a fleet of highway coaches, so there must be a number of routes with a lot of highway/ long distance runs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of AC Transit's transbay routes (such as the San Mateo routes) are quite long and would necessitate something a bit more than a standard transit bus.

But...

Mountain Metropolitan Transit (in Colorado Springs) operates a special express route between Colorado Springs and Denver (a distance of about 70 miles) using suburban Gillig BRTs, so I don't think low floor buses are completely unsuitable for long-range highway use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris H   
It's a helluva lot nicer looking than the rip-off Gillig BRT, IMO...

Referring to the Nova LFS? I agree with you on the Gillig BRT.

As for this Vanhool, I like the front design, but I can't get past that hump in the rear. It just looks so wrong! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smallspy   
I just dont understand, like Ashton said, why or what would be underneath the higher up portion of it though. Its not like theyre storing luggage or something.

Where else do they put the engine, transmission, alternator, radiator, fuel tank, etc?

Nor do i understand the need for an extra axle.

It's a 45 foot long vehicle. There's a very good chance that the extra axle is required to help reduce axle loading.

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A. Wong   
Where else do they put the engine, transmission, alternator, radiator, fuel tank, etc?

Mid-mount like the transits would be very interesting... I wonder if they have ever made a triple axle vehicle with a mid-mount engine??

This design does help with not eating up passenger cabin space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mid-mount like the transits would be very interesting... I wonder if they have ever made a triple axle vehicle with a mid-mount engine??

This design does help with not eating up passenger cabin space.

Unless otherwise noted, I would have to say "no" and this bus would keep that streak going---judging by the pics in that URL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks alright to me, interesting to see as these will be replace their 1998 MCI 102DL3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×