BusTalk

[Q65A]

The New Look era for NYCT and MaBSTOA ended when the last of the Generation 3 Flxible transits were delivered in 1977. In March of that same year, GM delivered their last U.S. built Fishbowls to Wausau Area Transit System in Wisconsin. Flxible finally discontinued production of their New Look transit buses in October 1978. More significantly from a bus history standpoint, the Federal government was taking a new, more assertive role in the design and development of U.S. transit buses. There arguably were many reasons for increased governmental involvement in the transit bus industry. Such involvement began in the 1960’s, when the U.S. witnessed many unprecedented economic and societal changes. In particular, sensitivity levels began to increase toward the less fortunate members of the American population, a demographic segment that traditionally is highly dependent on mass transit. This raising of awareness culminated in ratification of the Urban Mass Transportation Act in 1964, and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) was created to provide Federal funding for improvement of urban mass transit systems in the U.S. Established as part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the agency was renamed the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in 1991. UMTA was aware that traditional transit buses were not particularly user-friendly for elderly and physically-challenged passengers, and the agency sought to promote major engineering changes in transit bus design. In 1971, UMTA announced a radical standardized transit bus design called “Transbus”; it would facilitate entry and exit for elderly and handicapped passengers. The novel specification instigated a trio of very futuristic-looking 3- and 4-axle prototype buses (one from each of the 3 major transit bus manufacturers of the period: GM, Flxible, and AM General). These units saw service as demonstrators in various U.S. cities, including New York. Despite this flurry of early activity, the Transbus program languished. All 3 builders felt that the innovative Transbus design was much too risky, both financially and from an engineering standpoint. Flxible and GM kept on filling orders for their established lines of New Look transit buses, while newcomer AM General introduced its “interim design” Metropolitan series in 1974. The ultimate blow to the Transbus program arguably came in May 1975, when a consortium of U.S. transit operators floated a request for what would have been a large Transbus order. All 3 U.S. bus builders declined to bid on the proposal, and the order went unfilled. UMTA likely was both annoyed and alarmed by the total lack of builder support for Transbus, and the agency issued a detailed new revised specification for an interim transit bus design called the “Advanced Design Bus”, commonly abbreviated “ADB”. The Bus World Encyclopedia of Buses (Stauss, 1988) provided the following definition of an Advanced Design Bus: “Any bus meeting the performance requirements specified in the Baseline Advanced Design Transit Coach Specifications or ‘White Book,’ originally issued by the Federal Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation on April 4, 1977; originally known as the ‘interim bus,’ because the design was planned to be available only until the advent of the Transbus.” Clearly, the ADB was a compromise design that bridged the proven but aging technology of the New Look with the Transbus: ADB’s lacked low floors and early versions did not incorporate wheelchair lifts, but they did incorporate certain design features (e.g. kneeling suspensions) that would improve accessibility for physically-challenged bus riders. In response to this latest regulatory move Flxible and GM each developed their own distinctly different ADB design. Flxible introduced the boxy Model 870, while GM introduced the sleek RTS-II, signifying “Rapid Transit Series-2 Axle”. AM General’s response to the UMTA proposal was very different: thoroughly frustrated by the lack of progress on the Transbus project, they discontinued their Metropolitan bus line in 1978 and then quit the bus business entirely in 1979. For U.S. transit operators, the early ADB era definitely would be one of trails and errors, particularly in New York City. As will be seen in the next installment of this series, the former PBL's reacted to early ADB's very differently than did NYCT/MaBSTOA, and the experiences gained by the MTA operating agencies during this timeframe would help frame transit bus evaluation and procurement policies for many years.

[Mr. Linsky]

Bob,

I never knew of the problems that the first RTS II's had which were obviously widespread as is clearly noted below;

The following information and photo courtesy of the Baltimore Transit archive.


"Officially, the coaches were TDH-803's which stood for Transit Diesel Hydraulic Transmission bus with 8 modules [40 Foot Length] of the 03rd design (for some reason, there was no 02nd design).

The buses were equipped with the same powerful 8V-71 engines used since the mid 70's, this time with a Allison V-730 transmission. The coaches came delivered in a modification of the Light Blue and Chartreuse Green Scheme, with silver painted wheels, and a white body. As delivered, the coaches came with roller type destination signs that were later replaced with electronic displays.

Immediately upon delivery, problems became apparent. One challenge was their narrow width, which afforded a center aisle that was just about one foot wide. However, that summer would show the biggest setback for these buses.

As built, the coaches had a slim profile air-conditioning unit that allowed for a sloped, streamlined rear end. This low-profile unit also had a low output, and was no match for the humid Baltimore summers. In addition, the buses were built WITHOUT sliding window sashes. As a result, the only way to get ventilation was to pop the emergency exit latches!".



Mr. Linsky - Green Bus Lines, Inc., Jamaica, NY

[The Port of Authority]

It seems as though the Baltimore bus pictured has had a retrofitted air-conditioning unit installed -- many slope-back RTSs received these in response to the poor quality of the original air-conditioning units.

[ripta42]

And in addition to low output, the slope-back A/C units were notorious for causing the buses to overheat.

[Q65A]