News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.7K     0 
T3G said:
How often did people stand in the stepwells on other high floor buses?
Click to expand...
It depends on how much of a rush you are in and how packed the bus was.

Before the Sheppard subway you had 85,10, and 139 leaving Sheppard going east and during a snowstorm only one MCI Classic would show up so everyone would clammer on and the bus couldn't leave until people got off or lifted their feet so that doors could close.

When the Orion V's showed up the 7000 and 9000 series has push bars so standing on step didn't engage the door.
 
CMQSD402F9011 said:
Question, I heard TTC after 1998 was banned from buying high floor buses especially with wheelchair lifts. I wonder why though, even TTC missed out on getting the NFI D60HF Artics which would’ve been better hence the D60HFs were found to be performed better on NYC streets.
Click to expand...
No, the TTC wasn't "banned" from buying high-floor buses.

But there was definitely friction between The Commissioners - lead by Howard Moscoe - and the staff in the mid-to-late 1990s. Staff wanted high-floor buses - they were a known commodity - and The Commissioners wanted low-floor buses to try and drag the TTC out of their old-school way of thinking. The orders for the RTS and D40LF were the result of this. Instead of a single order for 100 buses, the order was split between high-floor and low-floor buses.

Richard White said:
Having wheelchair lift on a high floor bus was misleading.

Just because you can get on a high floor bus with a wheelchair doesn't mean you can get off it.

If the lift fails after a wheelchair user gets in it is problematic.
Click to expand...
While there are certainly issues with wheelchair lifts and high-floor vehicles....

Passenger safety is not one of them. If the lift fails - which it did not infrequently - there were and are manual bypasses that allow any wheelchair-bound passengers off the vehicle.

CMQSD402F9011 said:
Back in early 1997. TTC had a D60LF demo on their property and used on tests. And then later had plans to buy 155 artics in 1999-2001. Per the UCRS February 1997 pdf online
Click to expand...
Sure, they were shown one. Manufacturers and dealers frequently bring by equipment to show off and try and impress.

But no, there were never any definite plans to buy artics. The UCRS is incorrect in that measure. What was planned was that the order that eventually became the first order of Orion VIIs was worded loosely to allow an option for articulated buses - should there be any that were capable of meeting the TTC's spec's. And at the end of the day, there were not.

As for artics in general, and why the TTC has been so gun-shy about them over the years......their experiences with them have not been great. The found that the GM artics cost 3 times more in maintenance per year than a then-standard bus. The Orion IIIs were no better in that regard. They used a lot more fuel, and had difficulty keeping up with the schedules that were designed for 40 foot buses. And things haven't really changed in that regard with the Nova and New Flyer artics that they have today, which is why it doesn't appear that they are looking to get replacements for them.

Dan
 
Last edited:
Bordercollie said:
The RTS was the only model to have a rest wheel chair lift, which prevented people from standing on the rear step wells. That's at least two people during crush loads.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I didn't bother including the RTS since it was the only exception with a rear door lift, all other lift-equipped buses had a front door lift.
Bordercollie said:
When the Orion V's showed up the 7000 and 9000 series has push bars so standing on step didn't engage the door.
Click to expand...
I don't remember which buses were the 1st to have push bars, now that I think of it you're probably right that the 'bowls, Classics, D901/40s didn't have them, but I'm pretty sure the 1991 Vs did. Definitely remember the signs saying "to open door stand on step", pretty sure the old trams had that too. One thing I didn't like about those doors is how they were designed as 2 sets of narrow flip doors, rather than a single wide folding door (think front door of the CLRV).
 
smallspy said:
No, the TTC wasn't "banned" from buying high-floor buses.

But there was definitely friction between The Commissioners - lead by Howard Moscoe - the staff.


While there are certainly issues with wheelchair lifts and high-floor vehicles....

Passenger safety is not one of them. If the lift fails - which it did not infrequently - there were and are manual bypasses that allow any wheelchair-bound passengers off the vehicle.


Sure, they were shown one. Manufacturers and dealers frequently bring by equipment to show off and try and impress.

But no, there were never any definite plans to buy artics. The UCRS is incorrect in that measure. What was planned was that the order that eventually became the first order of Orion VIIs was worded loosely to allow an option for articulated buses - should there be any that were capable of meeting the TTC's spec's. And at the end of the day, there were not.

As for artics in general, and why the TTC has been so gun-shy about them over the years......their experiences with them have not been great. The found that the GM artics cost 3 times more in maintenance per year than a then-standard bus. The Orion IIIs were no better in that regard. They used a lot more fuel, and had difficulty keeping up with the schedules that were designed for 40 foot buses. And things haven't really changed in that regard with the Nova and New Flyer artics that they have today, which is why it doesn't appear that they are looking to get replacements for them.

Dan
Click to expand...
The 6000 series did not use push bars. It was the 7000's and 9400's.

Orion VI had the worst ride. Baffles me that they would build a bus that requires ballast to be put on a lift to prevent it from tipping over.
 
smallspy said:
Sure, they were shown one. Manufacturers and dealers frequently bring by equipment to show off and try and impress.

But no, there were never any definite plans to buy artics. The UCRS is incorrect in that measure. What was planned was that the order that eventually became the first order of Orion VIIs was worded loosely to allow an option for articulated buses - should there be any that were capable of meeting the TTC's spec's. And at the end of the day, there were not.

As for artics in general, and why the TTC has been so gun-shy about them over the years......their experiences with them have not been great. The found that the GM artics cost 3 times more in maintenance per year than a then-standard bus. The Orion IIIs were no better in that regard. They used a lot more fuel, and had difficulty keeping up with the schedules that were designed for 40 foot buses. And things haven't really changed in that regard with the Nova and New Flyer artics that they have today, which is why it doesn't appear that they are looking to get replacements for them.

Dan
Click to expand...
If so, wouldn’t the NFI D60HFs and D60LFs meet the TTC’s specs(?) for the NYC’s MTA, the D60HFs performed better on their roads. They did avoided the Ikarus Artics in NYC in which they first got Artics in 1996 for the D60HFs.
 
CMQSD402F9011 said:
If so, wouldn’t the NFI D60HFs and D60LFs meet the TTC’s specs(?) for the NYC’s MTA, the D60HFs performed better on their roads. They did avoided the Ikarus Artics in NYC in which they first got Artics in 1996 for the D60HFs.
Click to expand...
In a word - no.

The TTC required a whole bunch of things on their buses at the time, but the major deal breakers were a stainless steel frame and a "lifetime" warranty on the frame. Orion was the only one to offer both of those.

That's why the TTC only bought from Orion until their demise. And had to hold their nose when giving the tenders to Nova since.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
In a word - no.

The TTC required a whole bunch of things on their buses at the time, but the major deal breakers were a stainless steel frame and a "lifetime" warranty on the frame. Orion was the only one to offer both of those.

That's why the TTC only bought from Orion until their demise. And had to hold their nose when giving the tenders to Nova since.

Dan
Click to expand...
At least the Nova Frames held up.
 
smallspy said:
In a word - no.

The TTC required a whole bunch of things on their buses at the time, but the major deal breakers were a stainless steel frame and a "lifetime" warranty on the frame. Orion was the only one to offer both of those.

That's why the TTC only bought from Orion until their demise. And had to hold their nose when giving the tenders to Nova since.

Dan
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t NYC’s MTA require stainless steel on their buses? I know their climate might be different there. And as for Orion, they never offered any Artic models when they existed. Although I would assume had they did. TTC would’ve been the only customer. Although I do believe it was the III failures that made Orion hesitant to offer any Artics.

I do recall that MiWay and YRT D40LFs outlived the first TTC Orion VIIs in the last couple of years. With 7400-7881 being built with DDEC S50 EGRs while theirs had Cummins engines. In fact YRT’s D40LFs from 2005-06 outlived the TTC VIIs from 2006-07 to this day. Not sure if both MiWay and YRT D40LFs were built with carbon steel?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top