Quebec Transit Vehicle Reviews

[Jack 47]

I would like to start a discussion regarding your reviews and opinions of transit vehicles in Québec.  I think that this discussion would be better suited in the Québec Transit Discussion forum than the General Vehicle Discussion Forum.

[Jack 47]

Fuel consumption numbers for suburban transit vehicles are hardly discussed in any of the forums, so I have been collecting some data from the dashboards of various vehicles in suburban transit vehicles.  Below are figures for instantaneous highway fuel consumption, and all-week averages (60% highway, 40% local)

2003 H3-45 12.7 litre Detroit Diesel and Allison B500 transmission

23 litres per 100 km on highway (100 km/h)

41 litres per 100 km average all week

 

2009 X3-45 14 litre Detroit Diesel and Allison B500 transmission

24 litres per 100 km on highway (100 km/h)

41 litres per 100 km average all week

 

2014 Novabus LFS with Cummins ISL9 and Allison B400R transmission

31 litres per 100 km on highway (100 km/h)

42 litres per 100 km average all week

 

2008 Novabus LFS with Cummins ISL and ZF 6HP554 transmission

33 litres per 100 km on highway (100 km/h)

43 litres per 100 km average all week

 

2013 Novabus LFS with Cummins ISL and Voith transmission (urban service comparison)

37 litres per 100 km on highway (90 km/h)

48 litres per 100 km average all week (90% city and 10% highway)

 

2015 Grande West Vicinity (30 foot)

21 litres per 100 km on highway (100 km/h)

34 litres per 100 km average all week

 

2010 G5 Ford Cutaway

18 litres per 100 km on highway (100 km/h)

27 litres per 100 km average all week

 

2012 G5 GM Cutaway

17 litres per 100 km on highway (100 km/h)

27 litres per 100 km average all week

[Transitfan39]

You would have to be specific on which bus companies you are reviewing, because some companies have horrible buses and some have great, a good example is the STM 3rd Gens

[Jack 47]

2 hours ago, Transitfan39 said:

You would have to be specific on which bus companies you are reviewing, because some companies have horrible buses and some have great, a good example is the STM 3rd Gens

The bus companies above include the CIT's in general suburban service, the variability is quite low among the highway mileage numbers, since engines of all vehicles in subcontracted service must run fairly well (CIT services are very time-sensitive) and meet requirements for emissions. The numbers taken above are from CIT's on the South Shore. 

Greater variability in fuel consumption is noticeable between buses with the same engine, but different transmissions.  Allisons and ZF-equipped buses will slowly sip fuel at all speeds, Voith buses will drink everything in first gear and on the highway in fourth.

There are two "subgenerations" of 3rd gen STM buses, with 2 different levels of performance, transmissions and emissions systems.

3rd gen STM buses (late 29-072 to early 30-094 with ISL2007 engines, electric fan cooling and Ecomat transmissions with Topodyn programming) are very economical and come close to the hybrid's fuel consumption.  Their acceleration performance in urban service is quite slow in order to meet emissions standards. They are different from the later 3rd gen STM buses (late 30-095 to 32-032 series with ISL9 engines and Ecolife transmissions) which consumes more fuel but more easily meet emissions standards and have better acceleration performance.

The link below compares buses with different engine and cooling system configurations:

http://www.sto.ca/ligneverte/_download/depliant_phybride_2_1-eng.pdf

[anyfong]

Since I am not an expert on the mechanical side of the vehicles, I will talk about overall the quality of passenger experience on those vehicles. Those in the review are only those in regular service, which excludes the LFSe now (which is an EXCELLENT vehicle by the way, much better than anything listed below).

Best transit vehicle (overall) of all of Quebec:

• RTC LFS Artic HEV (possibly the best transit bus in all of Canada, it has a great-sounding hybrid powertrain, the engine can stop and start while bus is not moving, and it has frameless windows which make it so much better than those without).

Worst transit vehicle in all of Quebec:

• This is a tie between STM SCRAP LFS 2009-13; and
• Grande West Vicinity (although production buses are made in Canada, the company is based in China which makes horrible quality stuff; the prototype was made in China by the way).

Most comfortable seats:

• 4th-gen LFS on CIT Laurentides (those used on 8 St-Eustache and 9 St-Jerôme)

Least comfortable seats:

• Those on STM SCRAP LFSes 2009-13 (TTC Orion VII has worse seats than the 3rd-gen LFS, because of the horrible legroom in the rear)

Best seating arrangement:

• STO LFS Artic HEV (lots of seats while still enough space for 2 wheelchairs on the front)

Worst seating arrangement:

• Again, STM SCRAP. They took away so many seats that it is horrible to ride in them.

Best-sounding engine:

• Tie between STO 7901 and Detroit-powered Classics in the STO and Galland Tremblant

Worst-sounding engine:

• Yet again, STM SCRAP. They don't sound good anymore, they sound rather like vacuum cleaners.

Best transit livery (those that are in service):

• RTC new livery from 2013

Best transit livery (of historic vehicles):

• FHTCQ/Metropolitain Provincial 7296

Worst transit livery:

• No doubt, STM SCRAP. Man I really dislike those arrows, they cover the windows and they don't represent the transit agency and the city of Montreal at all. The T arrow logo before 2009 is much better, at least it represented that it was a good quality transit agency back then, with good-quality vehicles like the New Look and Classic.

Best coach vehicle overall:

• Autocar Préférence 2016 MCI J4500 (they even have lighted seatbelt signs!)

Worst coach vehicle overall:

• Any Prevost H3-45 before 1998 with the much older interior (they are just dull and doesn't look good).

[Transitfan39]

13 hours ago, Jack 47 said:

There are two "subgenerations" of 3rd gen STM buses, with 2 different levels of performance, transmissions and emissions systems.

3rd gen STM buses (late 29-072 to early 30-094 with ISL2007 engines, electric fan cooling and Ecomat transmissions with Topodyn programming) are very economical and come close to the hybrid's fuel consumption.  Their acceleration performance in urban service is quite slow in order to meet emissions standards. They are different from the later 3rd gen STM buses (late 30-095 to 32-032 series with ISL9 engines and Ecolife transmissions) which consumes more fuel but more easily meet emissions standards and have better acceleration performance.

 

You should also factor in the buses performance in the dead of winter, Those 3rd gens are disastrous in snow storms because they have bare minimum winter performance specs and in the normal weather the bus hits every small bump and shakes the entire bus because they have no suspension of the bus, all because the STM didn't order and pay for specifications that the RTL and other bus companies has

[anyfong]

2 hours ago, Transitfan39 said:

You should also factor in the buses performance in the dead of winter, Those 3rd gens are disastrous in snow storms because they have bare minimum winter performance specs and in the normal weather the bus hits every small bump and shakes the entire bus because they have no suspension of the bus, all because the STM didn't order and pay for specifications that the RTL and other bus companies has

Exactly! They're horrible in the snow! High-floors like the Classics were better in the snow, but not the best.

Like this one:

 

[sdgta2008]

CITPI seems to be having problems with their MIDI's.  Often I would see tweets that a MIDI would be replaced with a cutaway due to mechanical issues...

[Jack 47]

On 2/27/2017 at 7:54 PM, Transitfan39 said:

You would have to be specific on which bus companies you are reviewing, because some companies have horrible buses and some have great, a good example is the STM 3rd Gens

Reviewing the STM's 3rd Gen LFS from a passenger perspective after riding them for the past 8 years, I would have to say that they are not that bad. I am currently a CIT transit vehicle operator (coaches, LFS 2nd and 3rd gen, minibuses).

There are obviously better configurations, offering passengers a more comfortable ride.

Powertrain (important...  It decides whether or not your bus delivers you late to work):

For series 29-072 to 30-074, the engine is a Cummins ISL (nominally rated at 250 hp) paired with a 6 speed ZF 6HP554C transmission.  This powertrain is a bit noisier than both its predecessors and successors.  It will go into auto-neutral when stopped for a few seconds.   The transmissions have been reprogrammed with Topodyn software which gently accelerates the vehicle, makes early gear shifts and locks up in 2nd gear.  The programming allows access to plenty of its reserve torque for climbing hills, but restricts torque for starting acceleration.  This makes the bus infuriatingly slow taking off from a stop and drivers complain that it is difficult to merge and keep on time. It has no problem getting up to top highway speed or keeping top speed up a hill.  The radiator system is roof-mounted an electrically driven.  This configuration gives this series fuel economy very close to the Allison EP Hybrid buses.

For series 30-075 to 32-032, the engine is a Cummins ISL9 (also nominally rated at 250 hp) paired with a 6 speed ZF 6AP1400B Ecolife transmission, equipped with auto-neutral and 1st gear lockup.  It's quieter, cleaner-burning, has much faster acceleration, easier to keep on time, merge into traffic, but spends more fuel than buses in the fleet.

Passenger Comfort (what you put up with every day is decided by what the bus designers were thinking):

The seats have no padding, vandalism-resistant fabric, either with the Otaco 6468 model (traditional seats) or the newer, harder Insight seating. The older traditional two-panel Otaco 6468 seats, as seen on previous buses are more comfortable over long rides.  The newer Insight seats are supposedly ergonomic, but they are not.  They are more fatiguing over long rides, harder and not well-designed for the human form, restricting blood circulation to the legs. 

Ride quality in both series are similar, but stiffer, choppier and noticeably worse than the 2nd generation STM buses or the Classics.  However, nothing can be worse than the 1st generation LFS when they first came out, in which you feel every road imperfection, and delivers sharp, shattering jolts over cracks and holes.

The heating system and the driver's fans were  noisy, which leads to suspicions that either no effort was made or no brains were available in 2009 to design a ventilation system that is acoustically acceptable.

Looks:

In the eye of the beholder.  Some like it, some don't.  I like it.

Reliability:

I have not been on any 3rd gen that broke down.  Only a few slightly malfunctioning vehicles with small electrical issues.  The STM seems unable to repair them fast enough to offer full-levels of service.

Snow:

Well, the slower, gentler bus series makes it out of the snow more easily.  The other one spins its tires while the traction control system applies the brakes, eating up the air supply and the brake pads.

 

[Jack 47]

Most people have posted their spottings of Novabus RTS buses, but very few people have described what they were like to ride (or drive).

Today's review, from a driver's perspective, is a 1999-model RTS-06 in suburban configuration, with a Series 50 engine, Allison V731 V-drive transmission with retarder, and suburban seating. 

Powertrain

The RTS can be equipped with a wide variety of Detroit Diesel engines (6V-71N, 6-71N, 6-71T, 6V-71TA, 6V-71TA, 6V-92TA, Cummins L10, Series 50, etc.), and a variety of transmissions (V730, V731, VR731RH, 5HP590, 5HP592C).  Some operators, such as the one described here, have inherited buses with a 8.3 litre, 4-cyclinder, 4-cycle turbocharged Series 50 engine and a V-drive 3-speed VR731RH transmission.  In order to reach highway speeds (about 105 km/h), without having the engine spin too fast, a tall-ratio final drive (4.58:1) was fitted for suburban service.  The engine label reads a 277 horsepower output, but its actual output may be lower due to age, emissions adjustments and governed rpm.

Driving characteristics

With a tall final drive ratio and only 3 speeds in the transmission, the bus takes off from each stop slowly but smoothly in 1st gear.  It makes its shift to second gear at 38 km/h, locks up at 48 km/h and makes its final shift to third at about 55 km/h.  A healthy engine has plenty of torque for climbing slopes (like inbound approach to the Champlain bridge, in which 75 km/h was attained).  This powertrain is very quiet, making the same transmission sounds as a Classic with V-drive, minus the meowing of a 2-cycle engine.  The bus tops out at 103 km/h, its engine not spinning at full rpm.  This is not the right bus to drive through urban service with many closely-spaced stops (you'll be late!).

An engine in poor condition will have its poor performance amplified by tall suburban gearing and will leave its driver waiting for a long time to pick up speed or climb hills.  Turns are not as tight as a LFS and require a bit more room. The transmission has a retarder that is very easy and smooth to control, with no lurching.

Other drivers like its driving characteristics in deep snow, in which it struggles far less than the low-floor bus.

Driver station

The driver station is less ergonomic than the Classic or LFS workstation.  The driver station has a speedometer on the lower left dash, far from the driver's view of the road.  Where the Classic dashboard has controls that are logically placed,  switches and controls in the RTS are scattered and are placed both on the left and right of the driver seat, although the most important controls (door handle, parking brake, floor pedals for signals) are in the same place as the Classic and LFS.

Passenger experience

The RTS ride characteristics are pleasant and soft if the vehicle is well-maintained, but rough and jiggly if the bus is due for the shop.  Suburban seats are comfortable (as long as they are in good condition and not bottomed-out).  Stop-request strips line the walls and ceiling, and 80's-style woodgrain wall panels are apparently still a thing in RTS buses in the late 90's.

 

 

[Transitfan39]

16 hours ago, Jack 47 said:

Most people have posted their spottings of Novabus RTS buses, but very few people have described what they were like to ride (or drive).

Today's review, from a driver's perspective, is a 1999-model RTS-06 in suburban configuration, with a Series 50 engine, Allison V731 V-drive transmission with retarder, and suburban seatin

Passenger experience

The RTS ride characteristics are pleasant and soft if the vehicle is well-maintained, but rough and jiggly if the bus is due for the shop.  Suburban seats are comfortable (as long as they are in good condition and not bottomed-out).  Stop-request strips line the walls and ceiling, and 80's-style woodgrain wall panels are apparently still a thing in RTS buses in the late 90's.

 

 

When I was living in Ottawa I rode a RTS once right before it was retired and as a passenger it was very uncomfortable to ride, it was the suburban and when I sat at the front it was uncomfortable to enjoy the ride

[Mark Walton]

On 3/13/2017 at 0:35 PM, Transitfan39 said:

When I was living in Ottawa I rode a RTS once right before it was retired and as a passenger it was very uncomfortable to ride, it was the suburban and when I sat at the front it was uncomfortable to enjoy the ride

The RTS back door was just ahead of the rear wheels - something I haven't seen since the 1950s Macks.

[Oc4526]

Not sure if right place 

Found this on twitter 

 

 

[SMS]

This was demonstrated at UITP a few days ago