Detroit DOT

[dtwtransit]

With this, the D40LFs are becoming more sparse as their April retirement looms. #1020 is the only unit I've seen in occasional TransSee checks over the past two weeks. I was lucky enough to catch it for a ride on route 40 yesterday, and got some interior pictures:

This one seems to be holding up okay aside from a dangling trim panel at the very rear.

[140 Southshore]

11 hours ago, dtwtransit said:

#2238-2239 actually exist. Is there any documentation that refers to them?

DDOT operator Donovan Rogers confirmed the existence of those two units when he and I were discussing the latest round of '22s in a Discord server.

[dtwtransit]

Confirmed today that the forthcoming XE40s and XE60s will be assigned to Shoemaker.

[dtwtransit]

It's April now, so I guess Oglesby didn't mean they'd be gone before April. #1030 and #1037 are running today for the first time in a while - I believe those are the last two active D40LFs out of Gilbert. On the Shoemaker side, I've surmised that #1001, #1011, #1012, and #1020 are the only remaining active units.

[New Yorker 2001]

On 2/15/2023 at 9:56 AM, 140 Southshore said:

DDOT operator Donovan Rogers confirmed the existence of those two units when he and I were discussing the latest round of '22s in a Discord server.

Hmm, guess this could be another case of WMATA #4599, but in DDOT instead. For those not in the know, back in 2021, WMATA had order 100 new XD40s for that year, numbered #4500-4599, but only up to #4598 was delivered. We suspected that either this bus was in an accident while in route to D.C., or it was never built/existed from the get-go(and all evidence seems to point to the latter as no real record of it appears to exist). The following year in 2022, WMATA ordered #4600-4700, so 101 buses came last year and it's suspected that #4700 might be a replacement for #4599 as #4700 was originally meant to be a 2023 unit, but came last year instead.

[dtwtransit]

#1015 has been wrapped and converted into DDOT's new Mobile Outreach Center, which kicked off an eight-week tour of the city today to gather public input on the DDOT Reimagined plan.

 

A DDOT employee manning the exhibit says they plan to keep this bus operational for future outreach programs after DDOT Reimagined is finished.

[UnitedTransit]

17 hours ago, dtwtransit said:

#1015 has been wrapped and converted into DDOT's new Mobile Outreach Center, which kicked off an eight-week tour of the city today to gather public input on the DDOT Reimagined plan.

 

A DDOT employee manning the exhibit says they plan to keep this bus operational for future outreach programs after DDOT Reimagined is finished.

Only issue is that DDOT is doing a terrible job of doing this "Reimagined" campaign to seek the input from the riders by not publicly announcing where they will be taking this bus. In fact, this entire rider input system is broken beyond belief.

[dtwtransit]

#2308 turned up on the 10 today; afaik, this was the first appearance of a '23 Xcelsior in the system so far.

It looks like they got the color scheme right on these ones. This unit's headsign was showing "22," the route's former number, which is a pretty common glitch when the 2022 units run on Greenfield.

I took it for a quick spin; aside from a strong "new car" smell, the interior was just the same as the last few rounds of Xcelsiors.

The only change I noticed was a different onboard display, just like this one on #2229. The font is a bit different on these, and the text scrolls faster. I think the second round of '22s all have these.

Not sure what other '23s there are. I believe they ordered ten of these XD40s, so #2300-2309 would make sense, but it's also possible that the forthcoming electric Flyers would go first. Or maybe the artics would get 236x numbers, like the 196x series. We'll see I guess.

No D40LFs (save #1015) have been seen since April as far as I know, so I think this latest round of Xcelsiors finally spelled their end. DDOT's tracking system has been having issues lately, so it's been hard to check for them, but even so, I haven't seen a D40LF on TransSee in over a month.

[Border City Transit]

15 hours ago, dtwtransit said:

This unit's headsign was showing "22," the route's former number, which is a pretty common glitch when the 2022 units run on Greenfield.

It's possible to configure the CAD/AVL system to supply the latest destination sign program every time the bus starts up.

Even if they're not using that option, it takes like 30 seconds per bus to upload the program manually. I sure hope they invest the one hour of staff time to carry out this fix. Then, make sure New Flyer has the latest program, too -- the last three or four batches have come factory-fresh with an old Luminator program.

 

15 hours ago, dtwtransit said:

I took it for a quick spin; aside from a strong "new car" smell, the interior was just the same as the last few rounds of Xcelsiors.

The interior is spot on (and the back window complements it significantly). I'll have no complaints if they keep using this interior package. It's clean, open and upbeat. On the list of things DDOT does right.

 

15 hours ago, dtwtransit said:

DDOT's tracking system has been having issues lately, so it's been hard to check for them, but even so, I haven't seen a D40LF on TransSee in over a month.

Any transit system... is only going to get -out- of a CAD/AVL system what they put -in- to it. Will leave it at that.

I believe the last 1000-series New Flyers have left regular revenue service. They had a good run. Funny -- I won't miss them as much as I miss the 4100-4200 New Flyers.

Here is 1001 hurtling through Downtown, earlier in 2023. A so-so pic -- but probably the last time I'll catch a DDOT D40LF in the wild:

She looks a little tired, though not too bad for -the- very oldest bus in the fleet.

Next up for retirement: 1200-series Gilligs. That day can't come too soon, When those things are removed for good, we'll have reason to celebrate.

[140 Southshore]

19 hours ago, dtwtransit said:

No D40LFs (save #1015) have been seen since April as far as I know, so I think this latest round of Xcelsiors finally spelled their end. DDOT's tracking system has been having issues lately, so it's been hard to check for them, but even so, I haven't seen a D40LF on TransSee in over a month.

Actually this is not true, as there are still a handful of Gilbert D40LFs in service. 1001 and 1011 did see service this month, but I think they might be retired now.

[dtwtransit]

#2300, #2302, and #2305 all hit the streets today. I think it's safe to assume they're numbered #2300-2309, and given their use on western routes, they all seem to be assigned to Gilbert; that'd make sense since the last order of ten went to Shoemaker.

8 hours ago, Border City Transit said:

The interior is spot on (and the back window complements it significantly). I'll have no complaints if they keep using this interior package. It's clean, open and upbeat. On the list of things DDOT does right.

Agreed- the interiors on these are very nice. They give their suburban counterpart Gilligs a real run for their money. Some more comfortable seats would be nice though.

[Border City Transit]

15 hours ago, dtwtransit said:

Agreed- the interiors on these are very nice. They give their suburban counterpart Gilligs a real run for their money. Some more comfortable seats would be nice though.

I know this is an unpopular sentiment, but I will go on record: DDOT offers a significantly better riding experience than SMART. There. I said it. Better buses. Better drivers. And, as of 2023, service reliability isn't really any worse than SMART.

When DDOT falls short, it's mighty frustrating -- but you generally have some options. Whether another route or the next trip.

When SMART falls short, it can easily ruin your entire day.

Seats... yes, I wish they'd try a lightly padded vinyl. It offers greater comfort while avoiding most pitfalls of fabric. It would be useful to compile a list of which systems use that style. Off the top of my head, I can think of one near (CATA / Lansing) and one far (King County Metro / Seattle). Any others come to mind?

 

 

[New Yorker 2001]

1 hour ago, Border City Transit said:

I know this is an unpopular sentiment, but I will go on record: DDOT offers a significantly better riding experience than SMART. There. I said it. Better buses. Better drivers. And, as of 2023, service reliability isn't really any worse than SMART.

When DDOT falls short, it's mighty frustrating -- but you generally have some options. Whether another route or the next trip.

When SMART falls short, it can easily ruin your entire day.

Seats... yes, I wish they'd try a lightly padded vinyl. It offers greater comfort while avoiding most pitfalls of fabric. It would be useful to compile a list of which systems use that style. Off the top of my head, I can think of one near (CATA / Lansing) and one far (King County Metro / Seattle). Any others come to mind?

 

 

Any reason why DDOT never ordered (atleast so far) another fleet of Gillig Advantages?

I noticed over the years that for the most part, wheneve a TA buys a fleet of Advantages, they tend to get hooked (with the sole exceptions of DDOT, Foothill Transit, and SCT on Long Island).

[ns8401]

5 hours ago, New Yorker 2001 said:

Any reason why DDOT never ordered (atleast so far) another fleet of Gillig Advantages?

I noticed over the years that for the most part, wheneve a TA buys a fleet of Advantages, they tend to get hooked (with the sole exceptions of DDOT, Foothill Transit, and SCT on Long Island).

From everything I’ve ever heard their batch of Gilligs have been absolutely terrible and haven’t held up very well under their underwhelming maintenance practices.

[dtwtransit]

I'd guess the Gillig order had a lot to do with the city's finances at the time. They were ordered with ARRA funding in '09, when DDOT was cutting service due to budget cuts; so I figure they probably bought the Gilligs because they were cheaper than Flyers.

DDOT initially went back to New Flyer in 2014 specifically for their quick turnaround time, after a planned Nova order was delayed. More federal funding probably allowed them to go with Flyers, even though the city was still in bankruptcy when the first Xcelsiors rolled out. I guess they just stuck with NFI from then on.

 

Truthfully as much as I don't care for Gilligs, I've never minded the ones on DDOT that much. Maybe the overwhelming Flyer majority balances them out; plus they're at least a little bit different from the dreary Gilligs I'm subjected to on SMART on a daily basis, lol.

[dtwtransit]

As for the '22s' screen issues... yeah, those are something.
These seem to be a common thread with the '23s as well, and moreso with Gilbert's '22s nowadays than those from Shoemaker.

When the first '22s were rolling out, there were oddities for sure. A lot of them definitely had what looked like stock Luminator programming; the font used for the destinations wasn't the bold font used on DDOT's older units. Oddly, the route numbers on the front headsigns seemed to use that bold font, though.

Unlike the others in the fleet, most of them didn't include the word "to" in their destinations: "4 to FAIRGROUNDS" became simply "4 FAIRGROUNDS."

This one in particular (2204) split the 31's usual two-line "to DOWNTOWN | ROSA PARKS TC" into "ROSA PARKS" and "TRANSIT CENTER," sans route number.

All of those were shot in August, and those issues have largely been fixed, but there are still a few stragglers: this was seen on #2219, as well as #2305, just today.

This sequence went "16 DEXTER VIA" "SOUTHFIELD" "PROVIDENCE" "HOSPITAL" and finished with the usual "WELCOME ABOARD." Both showed the "A3 ME" error code on their rear headsigns.

Similarly, the '22s' and '23s' rear headsigns didn't have the bold font, and still don't: for comparison, here's a side-by-side of a '20 and a '22.

 

And, of course, the wrong route numbers/names:

10 being incorrectly signed as 22 seems to be the most common, though I might be a bit biased since I ride/spot the 10 more than most other routes. I think I've seen this more on #2225 than any other bus; here it is, signed as the 22, on two separate occasions (in the same place):

I've also noticed the '22s show outdated names for a destination: they frequently sign the 10 as being bound for "Northland," which, while true, is different from the usual "9 Mile" destination.

Today while chasing the '23s, I caught #2307 calling route 8 the "Crosstown." Very odd to see a brand-new bus use a route name that hasn't been used in years.

On a couple of occasions, the '22s have even revived the Gratiot RefleX. I once caught #2225 signed as the 599, and #2219 pulled into Fairlane yesterday masquerading as a 598.

#2308 briefly flashed a "598" on Monday too, before changing to show 22.

[Border City Transit]

15 hours ago, dtwtransit said:

I'd guess the Gillig order had a lot to do with the city's finances at the time. They were ordered with ARRA funding in '09, when DDOT was cutting service due to budget cuts; so I figure they probably bought the Gilligs because they were cheaper than Flyers.

You're on the right track.

I don't know the full story myself -- but the Gilligs had a twisted, unlikely and somewhat extralegal path to DDOT.

In 2011 or so, there was a big shift of ex-SMART maintenance staff over to DDOT. Both systems were in freefall (perhaps even worse then than in 2023). The ex-SMART people thought they could "clean up" the DDOT fleet by inviting bids from multiple manufacturers. A sugarcoated way of saying, they wanted Gilligs.

The City's panicked staff had no clue how FTA funding worked. The Feds, for their part, were actually somewhat lenient -- with ARRA money flowing and aware of the City's dire circumstances.

Through a series of oversights -- both accidental and "intentional" -- funding was approved for the order.

Note that much of this stems from DDOT's status as a City department. An independent transit agency -- unmoored from the goings-on of a larger, more complex municipal government -- would not have been able to bend the rules like this.

So, at this incredibly difficult time, DDOT ended up with 46 Gilligs. Here is 1210 sitting idle at Shoemaker. The dreary day is a fitting accompaniment for the experience offered by these dreary vehicles:

 

Somehow, it was later determined that DDOT "should not have" purchased these buses. In other words, the whole process should have followed FTA guidelines in the first place. The Gillig order was one item on a long list of transgressions revealed by DDOT's 2012-2013 FTA Triennial Review. That review went down in history as one of the worst ever, anywhere.

Remember -- FTA formula allotments operate at the metropolitan level. Even if there are multiple FTA direct recipients in a single MSA, the federal government does not get involved with slicing the pie -within- a metropolitan area. By now, the Feds were looking to even the score in the Detroit MSA. Troubles over at SMART -- with their 2002-2003 Gilligs -- presented an opportunity.

FTA approved (possibly even orchestrated) a complex maneuver engaging DDOT and SMART. DDOT would be "forgiven" for the Gilligs. In exchange, they'd sell off 40 or so middle-age New Flyers to SMART. With federal funding of about $100k per unit, those buses would receive new engines and various other updates -- and SMART would have a stopgap fix for its issues.

Good enough for DDOT. They had plenty of other work to do.

SMART... went along with the deal begrudgingly. It took effect in 2013, but the rehabbed New Flyers didn't see service until late 2015/early 2016. Even then, SMART only used them in a limited capacity -- and, a few years later, COVID gave SMART an excuse to remove them permanently. But, for four brief years, the arrangement resulted in occasional sightings of a an ex-DDOT D40LF in SMART colors -- as shown by 6015 on its way to a single outbound trip of peak-only Route 635 from Downtown Detroit:

SMART took assorted DDOT buses from 2003 to 2005 and numbered them 6001-6040. I came across multiple operators who liked them -- "they feel like real buses," one driver told me -- but behind the scenes, maintenance remained under Gillig's spell. It was very, very rare to see one of these on an all-day route. I need to see if I have a better picture...

 

18 hours ago, ns8401 said:

From everything I’ve ever heard their batch of Gilligs have been absolutely terrible and haven’t held up very well under their underwhelming maintenance practices.

Yep.

Despite the ploys of the ex-SMART staff, Gilligs never hit a stride at DDOT.

They're loud, rough, cramped, and not well suited for the pothole-pocked streets of DDOT's service area.

I can remember exactly two operators who liked them and requested them. The other 500+ operators detested them. Some even had legit doctor's notes that they could not drive a Gillig. The nonexistent suspension and cost-engineered, zero-designed cockpit was literally causing them injury.

Maintenance was indifferent to them -- but most of DDOT's better maintenance staff instinctively preferred New Flyers.

By 2014, things were finally looking up at DDOT -- and a "root for the underdog" narrative had emerged that the Feds bought into. FTA authorized funding for new buses, and, to my knowledge, Gillig didn't even bid.

This action led to the flood of Xcelsiors in 2014-2015. Some (all?) of these were diverted from other New Flyer customers. Several other agencies agreed to delay their deliveries to help DDOT get its act together. I recall RGRTA in the mix -- I believe DDOT's first 10 XD60s from 2015 were originally destined for Rochester.

Here is 1542 trudging up Woodward while the Q line is under construction (that's its own sordid saga...). This lone unit wore an extra-big, extra-ugly DDOT "pumpkin dome" logo -- obviously designed in Microsoft Paint. Also visible is the word "Detroit" -- in a Windows font befitting of a quick office memo -- haphazardly slapped above the rear door:

 

By 2017 and 2018, DDOT was regaining its footing. To speed up delivery, there was still need to piggyback from other agencies' orders -- but the sense of emergency had eased. Orders from these years borrowed specs from elsewhere -- I do know the back window was a last-minute spec change that New Flyer was able to accommodate.

As 1700 shows us, there was a brief period where you'd see the old paint scheme, the "transitional" logo and -some- new specs on a single bus:

The 1700 and 1800 series still used fabric seats, too:

 

Finally, in 2019, with a competent maintenance staff and stable, compliant funding streams, DDOT put together its own professional spec for a large, multi-year order. Needless to say, New Flyer won the RFP (conditioned to DDOT's quirks, I think they were the only company to bid...)

When 1900 showed up (the 2019 XN40, not the 1986 GMDD Classic!) -- and continuing right up to the new 2300 series -- we started to see a "fully DDOT bus" that did not reflect rushed adjustments, elaborate production slot trade-offs or specs from other agencies.

Again, for all the challenges that DDOT still faces, their fleet is an absolute bright spot. From a customer standpoint, I'd put their buses up against any in the country.

Mention "Detroit city bus" to most people in the area... and their minds probably go right to a bleak, dirty, rodent-infested misery chamber that stirs unalloyed fear in all who dare to approach. (sounds like a Gillig...)

In realty, I find DDOT's buses pretty clean and happy. And -- on newer units -- thanks to the back window, bright yellow stanchions and spacious floor plan, I may even describe them as outright uplifting. A positive start to the day.

Here is an interior shot of a 1960-1964 batch artic. I imagine most ill-informed critics would have a hard time believing this is Detroit:

 

15 hours ago, dtwtransit said:

On a couple of occasions, the '22s have even revived the Gratiot RefleX. I once caught #2225 signed as the 599, and #2219 pulled into Fairlane yesterday masquerading as a 598.

Great catches!

When RefleX was on the drawing board, the first scenario had SMART running the Woodward route (498) and DDOT running the Gratiot route (598). SMART requested the switch; either way, the DDOT Luminator program contained both routes "just in case". Speaking of RefleX, here is 1408 on a maintenance movement, sporting the short-lived RelfeX look. She was one of five DDOT buses so wrapped:

 

16 hours ago, dtwtransit said:

When the first '22s were rolling out, there were oddities for sure. A lot of them definitely had what looked like stock Luminator programming; the font used for the destinations wasn't the bold font used on DDOT's older units. Oddly, the route numbers on the front headsigns seemed to use that bold font, though.

There was a time "last decade" when DDOT put effort into its Luminator program. That resulted in customer-friendly improvements like "4 to Fairgrounds", always displaying the route number, and more judicious use of the "flip". The idea was to not waste so many flips on useless content like "TRANSIT CENTER" on its own sign exposure.

I sure hope they maintain that effort.

Of course, as you likely know, the "A3 ME" on the rear sign means that -no- rear content was ever set up for that particular route/destination combo. By and large, you'll see these on route/destination combos that are outdated anyway... but still sit in the Luminator program.

 

On 5/24/2023 at 10:21 AM, New Yorker 2001 said:

I noticed over the years that for the most part, wheneve a TA buys a fleet of Advantages, they tend to get hooked (with the sole exceptions of DDOT, Foothill Transit, and SCT on Long Island).

Yeah.

Mercifully, that doesn't happen as much as it used to. The "hooked on Gillig" phenomenon was a raging force from about 2003 to 2018. Fortunately, the list of systems emerging from a Gillig coma is slowly growing.

In addition to the ones that you name, also consider places like Ann Arbor, Lincoln, Des Moines, Madison, Alexandria, South Bend, Torrance, Rochester, Buffalo, Columbus, Spokane. And -- in this way-too-long post about Detroit -- we'll conclude with another happy break from Gillig -- Long Beach.

Long Beach Transit was a long-time New Flyer customer (first full-size low-floors in SoCal in 1994!) then defected to Gillig for a few odd years. Their most recent quantity order of CNG buses is New Flyer XN40s. On the Transit Gallery, 1803 asserts LBC as a great spot for great transit:

 

[dtwtransit]

Those SMART D40LFs were oddballs for sure. They ran pretty regularly on the 400 for a couple years prior to the pandemic, but I don't recall having seen them on any other routes.

Since I didn't start spotting or riding SMART until Covid-19 rolled around, I never got a ride on one of these, nor any good pictures of them in service. I did catch a couple at WayneTerm in March 2021 (the time I went expecting to watch them deliver the new artics), but they were long gone from the garages by the time the Proterras were on property.

 

[dtwtransit]

On 5/25/2023 at 2:08 PM, Border City Transit said:

The idea was to not waste so many flips on useless content like "TRANSIT CENTER" on its own sign exposure.

I sure hope they maintain that effort.

Yeah that ship has definitely sailed. Every DDOT program nowadays throws in an exposure of "WELCOME ABOARD."

I find these pretty annoying because I like to include the route number/destination in my pictures.

[dtwtransit]

On 5/25/2023 at 2:08 PM, Border City Transit said:

Some (all?) of these were diverted from other New Flyer customers.
...we started to see a "fully DDOT bus" that did not reflect rushed adjustments, elaborate production slot trade-offs or specs from other agencies.

I always found it interesting how different the interiors of their different series of Xcelsiors were. I always thought it was just gradual improvements in the model at New Flyer rather than changes in the order specs, but I guess it makes sense.

The 14-15s' cabins definitely seem a little older and cheaper, a far cry from the '19s, but still worlds nicer than the Gilligs. With that said, I do sort of like the old yellow-and-green livery on the Xcelsiors. Unfortunately, none of the '15 artics still have it, nor any '17s or '18s; those were all rewrapped with the first mint green design,  I'm glad it's still around on a few '14 and '15 units. From my own spots, I can confirm 26 units that still have those colors:

1403, 1404, 1412, 1414, 1416, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1423, 1424, 1427, 1428, 1505, 1509, 1514, 1515, 1519, 1520, 1523, 1531, 1532, 1533, 1534, 1536, 1537, 1538.

The Wiki has noted most of the ones that were rewrapped in mint green, but there are a few it doesn't yet have updated, so I've been trying to hunt down all the remaining units that aren't known to have been rewrapped. I've still yet to confirm current liveries for the following eleven:

1400, 1405, 1408, 1409, 1430, 1507, 1516, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1529.

 

All 33 of the other 40-foot 14s and 15s are now confirmed to be rewrapped in the new colors.

 

I used to really like the original mint livery; the color scheme is certainly unique and the Spirit of Detroit motif is cool. I think it's starting to look sort of worn-out on the Flyers though.

 

The black trim makes it look sort of tacky too. It works with the Proterras' frameless windows, but trying to get the same effect with paint just... doesn't work here.

 

It does look pretty nice on the electric '21 revival though.

One of these was spotted on the 17 for the first time last week. Now I have to wonder what livery the new electric Flyers will get...

[dtwtransit]

At long last I finally caught #2309 today, so I can confirm that all ten of the '23s are now in service.

Given that I spotted a couple of them on the street before they appeared on TransSee, I figure there were some tracker issues to start, so I'd assume this one has been in service for a little while by now.

Now I have to wonder when the electrics are going to roll out.

[dtwtransit]

On 6/5/2023 at 3:26 PM, dtwtransit said:

I've still yet to confirm current liveries for the following eleven:

1400, 1405, 1408, 1409, 1430, 1507, 1516, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1529.

Update: I've now only got six unknown buses: 1405, 1408, 1409, 1507, 1516, and 1525.

28 Xcelsiors - 1400, 1403, 1404, 1412, 1414, 1416, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1423, 1424, 1427, 1428, 1505, 1509, 1514, 1515, 1519, 1520, 1523, 1529, 1531, 1532, 1533, 1534, 1536, 1537, and 1538 - still have yellow-and-green stripes; all other '14-'15 Xcelsiors received the Spirit wrap.

[dtwtransit]

Ground was broken today on the new Coolidge Terminal. Plans call for a capacity of 216 buses, with completion in 2026. It will also include a new maintenance facility and administrative offices, which I believe will replace the current headquarters and maintenance garage on Warren.

 

[dtwtransit]

Through some sleuthing, I've found a couple of incorrect terminal assignments on the Wiki (either due to errors or bus reassignments): #1706 and #1905 are assigned to Shoemaker, and #1710 and #1714 are assigned to Gilbert.

All of these are listed on the Wiki as breaking from straight runs of assignments, but no such breaks actually exist in DDOT's assignments. Each series divided between terminals is, in fact, split into only two continuous groups (one per terminal, with lower numbers Shoemaker and higher Gilbert) except the 2017s, where #1700-1709 and 1725-1728 are Shoemaker, while #1710-1724 are Gilbert, and the 2022s, where #2228-2237 (the second order) are assigned to Shoemaker despite being higher-numbered than the series's highest Gilbert unit.

[dtwtransit]

Picking up the run number discussion from the People Mover topic.

So far, all I've picked up from DDOT's run numbers is that the first digit corresponds to the terminal and day of operation as follows:

1 - Gilbert weekday
2 - Gilbert saturday
3 - Gilbert sunday
4 - Shoemaker weekday
5 - Shoemaker saturday
6 - Shoemaker sunday

During the next run pick I plan to further study and decipher the numbers.