[JSF-1]

Also they split the D40LF order with 50 RTS', I think that was due to delivery schedule?

They should have gotten the LFS instead of RTS. They were quite problematic and because of the design of the wheel chair lift it couldn't carry as many people.

They also got the Orion VI's at the time which were the last hurrah of CNG buses in the city and riddled with problems. At that time the TTC was testing out the New Flyer D40LF, the Orion VI, and they also had a demonstrator Nova LFS40. I know the TTC liked the D40LF's and would have preferred to buy more of them but they were compelled to also purchase Orion VI's because they were made in Mississauga which in the long-term was a poor financial decision. The Orion VI's barley lasted 10 years before being retired due to mechanical complications caused be there 100% low-floor design, the cost savings from CNG never really materializing, and other teething issues (I recall their ramp, and kneel functions being finicky). They weren't even really considered for diesel conversion like the older Orion V CNG buses. By comparison the D40LF's stuck around to like 2018 or something; it's just a shame they were confined to the city's west end because I really liked them but they disappeared from Scarborough when the Orion VII's started turning up.

Nova LFS40 demonstrator bus

NewFlyer D40LF

Orion VI

 

[Bordercollie]

Not at all true. Wheelchair lifts can be manually pumped. It's not very pleasant work, but it's definitely not entrapment. If it were, how would GO be allowed to still be receiving high floor coaches with lifts in the year 2026?

Obviously, low floors are better for accessibility, but try to remember that the wheelchair lift came about in an era where the low floor bus was in its infancy. A high floor vehicle with a lift is superior to one without.


???

How exactly did the design of the wheelchair lift affect passenger capacity???

The fact that you could not stand on the stepwells while the bus was in motion, and the awkward rear layout.

 

[81-717]

The fact that you could not stand on the stepwells while the bus was in motion, and the awkward rear layout.

Passengers aren't supposed to stand infront of the white line (which the front door steps definitely are) while in motion anyway.

They also got the Orion VI's at the time which were the last hurrah of CNG buses in the city and riddled with problems. At that time the TTC was testing out the New Flyer D40LF, the Orion VI, and they also had a demonstrator Nova LFS40. I know the TTC liked the D40LF's and would have preferred to buy more of them but they were compelled to also purchase Orion VI's because they were made in Mississauga which in the long-term was a poor financial decision. The Orion VI's barley lasted 10 years before being retired due to mechanical complications caused be there 100% low-floor design, the cost savings from CNG never really materializing, and other teething issues (I recall their ramp, and kneel functions being finicky). They weren't even really considered for diesel conversion like the older Orion V CNG buses. By comparison the D40LF's stuck around to like 2018 or something; it's just a shame they were confined to the city's west end because I really liked them but they disappeared from Scarborough when the Orion VII's started turning up.

I was never a fan of the kneel function because it just doesn't look right when a bus isn't standing straight & horizontal, and I'm not aware of it being a thing on European accessible buses either. Personally, if buses are to have a kneel function, I would've preferred it being a side-kneeling one, especially on the Orion VI or any other bus with a far back door. It's a shame they didn't/couldn't convert the VIs to diesel & have then last until around 2016 as well.

 

[Bordercollie]

Passengers aren't supposed to stand infront of the white line (which the front door steps definitely are) while in motion anyway.


I was never a fan of the kneel function because it just doesn't look right when a bus isn't standing straight & horizontal, and I'm not aware of it being a thing on European accessible buses either. Personally, if buses are to have a kneel function, I would've preferred it being a side-kneeling one, especially on the Orion VI or any other bus with a far back door. It's a shame they didn't/couldn't convert the VIs to diesel & have then last until around 2016 as well.

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.

 

[Steve X]

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.

You can't stand there on any high floor buses/streetcars either with treadle as that activates the rear doors.

 

[Bordercollie]

You can't stand there on any high floor buses/streetcars either with treadle as that activates the rear doors.

That's not correct, Orion V used push bars to open the door so you could have 4 people in the step wells. It's not pleasant but during snow storm and you wait 40min for a bus you make due what whatever.

Also even if the step triggers the door, people lifted themselves up until the door closes and then continued to stand in the step. Even on streetcars. On ALRV's that could be 8 extra people.

 

[T3G]

The fact that you could not stand on the stepwells while the bus was in motion, and the awkward rear layout.

How often did people stand in the stepwells on other high floor buses?

 

[T3G]

and I'm not aware of it being a thing on European accessible buses either.

It is.

 

[Bordercollie]

How often did people stand in the stepwells on other high floor buses?

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.

 

[smallspy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

 

[81-717]

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.

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.

When the Orion V's showed up the 7000 and 9000 series has push bars so standing on step didn't engage the door.

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).

 

[Bordercollie]

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

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.

 

[APTA-2048]

Baffles me that they would build a bus that requires ballast to be put on a lift to prevent it from tipping over.

I believe that’s typical of buses with the drivetrain offset to side of the rear.

 

[Bordercollie]

AG330?

 

[APTA-2048]

AG330?

Not sure. I don’t know anyone who has worked on one.