TTC: Other Items (catch all)

[RapidTransit]

V

Didn’t NYC MTA had problems with Artics before? It wasn’t until 1996 that they got their first D60HFs basically high floor Artics with wheelchair lifts. Although I wonder what made the MTA to buy D60HFs in the first place? Considered they never had the Ikarus buses or the MAN buses at the time.

I'm sure they did they're own compressive study and test. A lot of transit agencies have their own engineering department.

Im not too familiar with NYC, but from my understanding, the buses they has the biggest issues with were the Grumman 870. But a lot of what they've ordered have lasted a long time.

Same NYC was getting C40LF even after production ended in 2010. So it helps they've gone with proven models. The D60HF was 6 years old in production by the time NYC got them, so NFI had time to work out some weak points.

Ans transit agencies are always in communication with each other sharing info.

 

[Toffy]

When everyone can only keep artics are 12 years, there’s no magic that can allow them to mysteriously keep them running for 18 years. It’s no surprise to anyone that they are near the end of life.

There are countless examples of articulated buses in North America that are well over 12 years old and still in service. Calgary has a fleet of 60+ D60LFRs from 2007 to 2009 that are still in service, New York and Montreal have Nova LFSAs from 2009-2010 still in service, Ottawa has D60LFs from 2008 still in service and the list goes on.

You are right though about there being no magic to keep artics running to 18 years. Instead real tried and true solutions are applied that help keep any piece of equipment going and articulated buses are no different. Simply put you fiix what's broke.

To that end and to steer this conversation back on topic, while the TTC's budget did make reference to the retirement of the 2013-2014 Nova LFSA fleet, those plans are clearly changing to a degree. Since the end of November the TTC has awarded 3 contracts for the supply of various parts to make repairs to the articulated joints on the Nova Artics. One contract for the supply of 55 replacement articulated joint structures, more specifically the front section which connects the front section of the bus to the slewing ring (main bearing) of the joint. Two other contracts for a total of 70 replacement hydraulic dampening cylinders.

A fourth tender closes this Friday and titled: REQUEST FOR BIDS FOR THE SUPPLY OF HUBNER PARTS FOR TTC'S NOVA ARTIC PROJECT This tender is for a further 50 articulated joint structures, again the front section, which theoretically puts the total at 105 buses that they plan on repairing.

A fifth tender was released last Friday for even more parts for articulated joints on the Nova LFSAs. This one for the supply of a wide range of parts for the articulated joints with the supply to start this year and extending out to 2028.

 

[81-717]

Personally a Classic with a S50 ain't the same.

Yeah, I can't imagine it either, almost the same thing as a Fishbowl with an S50 (I'll see myself out now, lol).

And, to add, if I were superstitious, I would say that every confident assertion you make that the T1 replacement will go off without a hitch and be completed on time and the H5s will be avenged is tempting fate to make the replacement contract into an unmitigated disaster.

Funny, I feel the same about your confident assertion (and secret wish) that the new trains will be delayed to oblivion and the T1s will be around forever, adding insult to injury to the H5s. At least I hope this situation would be a far greater disaster than if the new trains get here ASAP even with teething pains.

But no, there's no reason why they'd be an unmitigated disaster in 2030, when the TRs weren't, despite being delivered in the same timeframe.

 

[Bordercollie]

Yup, after 1995, S50s were available for the Classic. A few Quebec agencies and in the US have Classics with S50. Some even have CAT engine.

Personally a Classic with a S50 ain't the same. But I'm weird like that. I prefer the 6v92TA.

I believe the last year of the 6v92 was 1998. And possibly marine application till the early 2000s.

They are slow as molasses without a better engine. You have to build up speed to make it up the hill.

 

[Bordercollie]

There are countless examples of articulated buses in North America that are well over 12 years old and still in service. Calgary has a fleet of 60+ D60LFRs from 2007 to 2009 that are still in service, New York and Montreal have Nova LFSAs from 2009-2010 still in service, Ottawa has D60LFs from 2008 still in service and the list goes on.

You are right though about there being no magic to keep artics running to 18 years. Instead real tried and true solutions are applied that help keep any piece of equipment going and articulated buses are no different. Simply put you fiix what's broke.

To that end and to steer this conversation back on topic, while the TTC's budget did make reference to the retirement of the 2013-2014 Nova LFSA fleet, those plans are clearly changing to a degree. Since the end of November the TTC has awarded 3 contracts for the supply of various parts to make repairs to the articulated joints on the Nova Artics. One contract for the supply of 55 replacement articulated joint structures, more specifically the front section which connects the front section of the bus to the slewing ring (main bearing) of the joint. Two other contracts for a total of 70 replacement hydraulic dampening cylinders.

A fourth tender closes this Friday and titled: REQUEST FOR BIDS FOR THE SUPPLY OF HUBNER PARTS FOR TTC'S NOVA ARTIC PROJECT This tender is for a further 50 articulated joint structures, again the front section, which theoretically puts the total at 105 buses that they plan on repairing.

A fifth tender was released last Friday for even more parts for articulated joints on the Nova LFSAs. This one for the supply of a wide range of parts for the articulated joints with the supply to start this year and extending out to 2028.

There are some units that feel like the joint will come apart when going over big bumps.

 

[RapidTransit]

They are slow as molasses without a better engine. You have to build up speed to make it up the hill.

The 6v92 from what I recall were powerful engines. The previous 6v71 were slower.

The later S50s in the 7400 had a slow start up, but once they got up to speed they can go. It was usually always the initial start up. The 7000s and 7300s had S50 engines and they were fast buses.

Detroit added the EGR and some engine defect with the 7400 as a result of EPA regulations.

 

[Bordercollie]

The 6v92 from what I recall were powerful engines. The previous 6v71 were slower.

The later S50s in the 7400 had a slow start up, but once they got up to speed they can go. It was usually always the initial start up. The 7000s and 7300s had S50 engines and they were fast buses.

Detroit added the EGR and some engine defect with the 7400 as a result of EPA regulations.

For whatever reason the EGR units smoked more the the PRE EGR units.

Also the Orion VII'S were stainless steelt frames making them heavier which could be why they felt slower than the Orion V's.

We never had any buses with 6v92.

The D40 90's were very fast but the engine literally shook the bus to pieces. They always had problems with the rear suspension bottoming out.

 

[CMQSD402F9011]

For whatever reason the EGR units smoked more the the PRE EGR units.

Also the Orion VII'S were stainless steelt frames making them heavier which could be why they felt slower than the Orion V's.

We never had any buses with 6v92.

The D40 90's were very fast but the engine literally shook the bus to pieces. They always had problems with the rear suspension bottoming out.

And unfortunately the TTC 7400-7881 series broke down a lot due to the S50 EGR engines being one of them I heard.

TTC did get buses with the 6V92TA which were the 1991 Orion Vs

Had the TTC D40-90s been built with DDEC 6V92TAs(?) wouldn’t they last long to like 2010-11?

 

[Bordercollie]

And unfortunately the TTC 7400-7881 series broke down a lot due to the S50 EGR engines being one of them I heard.

TTC did get buses with the 6V92TA which were the 1991 Orion Vs

Had the TTC D40-90s been built with DDEC 6V92TAs(?) wouldn’t they last long to like 2010-11?

Oh right. Those were rockets too.

But the D40 90's had other issues too. And the TTC was warned that the engines were too powerful.

Why wasn't 6V92 an option for the new flyer?

 

[81-717]

The 6v92 from what I recall were powerful engines. The previous 6v71 were slower.

The later S50s in the 7400 had a slow start up, but once they got up to speed they can go. It was usually always the initial start up. The 7000s and 7300s had S50 engines and they were fast buses.

Detroit added the EGR and some engine defect with the 7400 as a result of EPA regulations.

For whatever reason the EGR units smoked more the the PRE EGR units.

Also the Orion VII'S were stainless steelt frames making them heavier which could be why they felt slower than the Orion V's.

We never had any buses with 6v92.

The D40 90's were very fast but the engine literally shook the bus to pieces. They always had problems with the rear suspension bottoming out.

The 7400s are nicknamed "slowboxes", but many current buses (i.e. Novas) are just as bad, so annoying when the back door closes so slowly when there are only a few seconds of green remaining, inevitably making the bus just miss the green, and start moving right when it turns yellow, only to have to stop again after driving a few inches forward.

And unfortunately the TTC 7400-7881 series broke down a lot due to the S50 EGR engines being one of them I heard.

TTC did get buses with the 6V92TA which were the 1991 Orion Vs

Had the TTC D40-90s been built with DDEC 6V92TAs(?) wouldn’t they last long to like 2010-11?

Interesting random fact: the Orion VI was retired in November 2006, just a month or so before the TR contract was awarded, and the last 1991 Orion V was retired in early/mid 2010, just a few months before the first TR was delivered.

 

[urbanclient]

Pardon the interruption:
Late on finding this video. Wanted to piggyback on previous posts regarding lighting.

I know it's not apples to apples with the camera, the screen and platform screen doors affecting perceived lighting, but wow just look how dark the TTC is compared to a random Seoul Metro station (Pioneer Village is one of the brighter ones, but pretend it's one of the dimmer stations):

The darkest Seoul station from the video:

 

[nfitz]

Pardon the interruption:
Late on finding this video. Wanted to piggyback on previous posts regarding lighting.

I know it's not apples to apples with the camera, the screen and platform screen doors affecting perceived lighting, but wow just look how dark the TTC is compared to a random Seoul Metro station (Pioneer Village is one of the brighter ones, but pretend it's one of the dimmer stations):
View attachment 729491

It hasn't seemed anywhere near that dark when I've been there, but I haven't been there for a while. Do you find it looks like this now? Some of the stations with the older lighting seem a bit dim - but this doesn't have that pre-TYSSE lighting.

This is more how I remember it.

 

[urbanclient]

It hasn't seemed anywhere near that dark when I've been there, but I haven't been there for a while. Do you find it looks like this now? Some of the stations with the older lighting seem a bit dim - but this doesn't have that pre-TYSSE lighting.

This is more how I remember it.
View attachment 729505

I wasn't clear, so I'll clarify. Yes it's bright, hence all of my caveats implying camera differences and the bright screen making the rest of the shot look dark.

Most importantly: "Pioneer Village is one of the brighter ones, but pretend it's one of the dimmer stations" [like Dupont and St. Andrew; or Sheppard West and Lawrence West when all the skylights are covered in snow]