Jump to content

TTC Nova LFS orders


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It could be just me but I found it was rather hot to be on the back seats, which is similar to some of the RTS buses.

Not just you, i've found that to be the case with many Nova buses as well. With the Orion's (Old Generation), and D40LF's I dont find this to be a very significant issue (about 1 out of every 10 I ride has the warm backseats). With the Nova Artics its about 1 out of every 3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its good to know they are still in talks with NFI. But Nova has made a good bus, drivers appear to like it, the rear doors are too slow that's about it.

Drivers don't like the artics. They complain of doors getting stuck, PA system cutting out or not working in the second module and slow acceleration.

There is also the issue of only being able to put one bike on the rack due to sight line issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it growth ridership or replace the current fleet bus?

A quote from Steve Munro's blog: http://stevemunro.ca/2015/07/23/ttc-board-meeting-july-29-2015/#more-13229

"TTC management proposes to order 108 new 40-foot (10m) buses from Nova Bus for delivery in 2016 and 2017. The purpose of these vehicles is to support ridership growth and an improved spare ratio for fleet maintenance."

One main reason is buses are breaking down way too quickly (especially all those dead hybrids on the road). By increasing the number of buses available to each division, they can have enough buses on the road.

Drivers don't like the artics. They complain of doors getting stuck, PA system cutting out or not working in the second module and slow acceleration.

There is also the issue of only being able to put one bike on the rack due to sight line issues.

TTC even got the more powerful ones. The ones in Montreal have a weaker engine. What do they expect when they have more riders and another module. It's like an engine for pushing 2 buses at the same time. The doors are way slower than the Orion VII's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A quote from Steve Munro's blog: http://stevemunro.ca/2015/07/23/ttc-board-meeting-july-29-2015/#more-13229

"TTC management proposes to order 108 new 40-foot (10m) buses from Nova Bus for delivery in 2016 and 2017. The purpose of these vehicles is to support ridership growth and an improved spare ratio for fleet maintenance."

One main reason is buses are breaking down way too quickly (especially all those dead hybrids on the road). By increasing the number of buses available to each division, they can have enough buses on the road.

TTC even got the more powerful ones. The ones in Montreal have a weaker engine. What do they expect when they have more riders and another module. It's like an engine for pushing 2 buses at the same time. The doors are way slower than the Orion VII's.

Thanks for finding it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TTC even got the more powerful ones. The ones in Montreal have a weaker engine. What do they expect when they have more riders and another module. It's like an engine for pushing 2 buses at the same time. The doors are way slower than the Orion VII's.

A dispatcher I was talking to said they are fast, just take a bit to get going, which in stop and go traffic doesn't mean much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A dispatcher I was talking to said they are fast, just take a bit to get going, which in stop and go traffic doesn't mean much.

Once anything is going, it doesn't take too much to keep them moving. (law of physics from Newton).

This is why artics shouldn't be used on Sheppard, Bathurst and Dufferin. Although Bathurst short turn probably went up the roof again during the games with 40 ft buses and the shorten round trip time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The doors are way slower than the Orion VII's.

That one is on the TTC. They could tweek the door speed if they wanted, but they want to keep things "consistent" with door closing times. Mind you, the doors definitely close slower than the Orions and they should speed it up a notch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TTC even got the more powerful ones. The ones in Montreal have a weaker engine. What do they expect when they have more riders and another module. It's like an engine for pushing 2 buses at the same time.

Instead of being so concerned with boosting your post count, you should instead be concerned with doing proper research. The STM's artics have the same amount of horsepower as the TTC's. With that being said, the torque figure is more important for stop and go operation, it too is the same.

In other news, NYC is having problems with a (seemingly minor) structural component in the joint of all of their 418 (2009-2013) Nova Artics. Unsatisfied with Nova's response, the MTA is hiring an engineering firm to devise a solution.

Refer to page 138 of the MTA's Transit Committee. http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/150720_1030_Transit.pdf

Given that the MTA isn't happy with Nova's solution, I would imagine this problem will also affect the TTC's units.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That one is on the TTC. They could tweek the door speed if they wanted, but they want to keep things "consistent" with door closing times. Mind you, the doors definitely close slower than the Orions and they should speed it up a notch.

I guess I could time the doors to get an exact figure, but they don't seem significantly worse than the doors on the 8000s that I'm used to, at least on the artics. I've only been on one 40' LFS.

Instead of being so concerned with boosting your post count, you should instead be concerned with doing proper research. The STM's artics have the same amount of horsepower as the TTC's. With that being said, the torque figure is more important for stop and go operation, it too is the same.

Gear ratios in the axle and transmission also make a difference on starting.

I take 41 north from Keele station around 9:30, and south from Ingram at about 6:20. Granted, this is counterflow riding, but there is absolutely no need for an artic based on the ridership. I've been on a SB express with three or four passengers. 41 is a funny route, though: it has a lot of people boarding/disembarking in the Eglinton and Rogers areas. Keele station on the ECLRT will be a busy one!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Drivers don't like the artics. They complain of doors getting stuck, PA system cutting out or not working in the second module and slow acceleration.

There is also the issue of only being able to put one bike on the rack due to sight line issues.

Some Operators have told me the only other problem is having to turn their neck more sharply to look at people or fares. each op is different.

PA problem is not Nova specific.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of being so concerned with boosting your post count, you should instead be concerned with doing proper research. The STM's artics have the same amount of horsepower as the TTC's. With that being said, the torque figure is more important for stop and go operation, it too is the same.

In other news, NYC is having problems with a (seemingly minor) structural component in the joint of all of their 418 (2009-2013) Nova Artics. Unsatisfied with Nova's response, the MTA is hiring an engineering firm to devise a solution.

Refer to page 138 of the MTA's Transit Committee. http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/150720_1030_Transit.pdf

Given that the MTA isn't happy with Nova's solution, I would imagine this problem will also affect the TTC's units.

Not just the TTC's - I'm pretty sure that all of the production Nova artics built have used Hubner joints and components.

It will be interesting to see how they tackle this. I think it could be resolved by changing the materials and way the spine is mounted, rather than an all-new design.

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Operators have told me the only other problem is having to turn their neck more sharply to look at people or fares. each op is different.

PA problem is not Nova specific.

Heard the same, also heard the fuel consumption is 76L per 100kms. OMG! If that's true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard the same, also heard the fuel consumption is 76L per 100kms. OMG! If that's true.

I suspect they consume a lot of gas. There must be a reason why they don't end up on the 191 anymore. Favour the heavy loading routes like 35, 60 or 165 and avoid fast pace routes like the 46 and 59 on weekends.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard the same, also heard the fuel consumption is 76L per 100kms. OMG! If that's true.

In what way? 76L/100km is about 3.7 mpg which seems to be standard for articulated buses. For comparison the New Flyer artic XD60 recorded a average consumption of 3.34 mpg at Altoona, and the standard 40' bus gets roughly 4-4.5 mpg depending on usage profile and drivetrain setup.

I suspect they consume a lot of gas. There must be a reason why they don't end up on the 191 anymore. Favour the heavy loading routes like 35, 60 or 165 and avoid fast pace routes like the 46 and 59 on weekends.

First off, it is diesel. Second, "fast pace routes" as you call them with a higher average speed will result in a overall higher mpg rate (read: lower fuel comsumption) than stop and go routes will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard the same, also heard the fuel consumption is 76L per 100kms. OMG! If that's true.

that average off the odometer is also including the layover idiling, and any idling at the depot.
Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, it is diesel. Second, "fast pace routes" as you call them with a higher average speed will result in a overall higher mpg rate (read: lower fuel comsumption) than stop and go routes will.

I wasn't comparing it as highway vs city driving but Orion VII vs LFS fuel usage. On faster routes, they might save more fuel with Orion VIIs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that's reasonable since having two buses to replace one artic would cost more.

Although two buses would have more capacity.

I'm sure that someone did the math and they wouldn't exist if it didn't make economic sense.

Any idea what the fuel consumption of an Orion JJI was? I know it's not the same, but just for comparison. Although fuel prices where half of what they are now.

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

×
×
  • Create New...