Nothing has been as reliable and rugged as the GM New Look. The "fishbowl" buses were still in service long after these "improved" buses were scrapped.
Having ridden the RTS-1 (SPEED movie bus), the RTS-2 (RTS-1 replacement several years on) in various versions. Mostly the ones I saw were all turbo-charged 6 cylinder models. Then also the Grumman Flexible busses. I came to the conclusion that the RTS-1 was the best of them all. The RTS-1 was built for a maximum of 44 passengers. The ones I rode in Dallas in the early 1980's, we regularly stuffed closer to 80 people on because this was on a very popular route and you just could not put enough busses on the route. RTS-1 came in 2 models, a 6 cylinder turbo-charged model and an 8 cylinder non-turbo version. Coming out of downtown Dallas there was a slight hump in US 75 that made it difficult for the non-turbo busses to make it up and over. Once past that, the run was okay.. The turbo version had no problem making the hump as long as we had fewer than 70 passengers. With the large number of people, every stop meant 20 or more people having to get off the let the riders that wanted to get off, then load up and go to the next stop. Fortunately, the stop I got off was number 3. It just worked, albeit the AC's couldn't handle the heat unless the bus was parked inside during the early heat of the day. The RTS-2 models had lots of problems, mostly known for doors that didn't want to open. They were a vacuum assisted system and there was often too little vacuum for the doors to work. Later models had the doors replaced by motor driven bat wing type doors and those worked fairly well. The Grumman busses were trash from the beginning. Although not noticeable to the riders, there were all these rumors about cracked frames and engines that overheated. An overheated bus can't run and without the engine running, the AC didn't work, so they worked fine in the morning, but were useless after lunch due to the Texas heat. Note also that in the years since, Dallas has replaced all the high volume routes with commuter trains and it seems to work much better. During construction of the train lines, a contractor plugged up a major storm drain, which caused flood water to back up into downtown and flood the basement of several buildings. Since the electrical was usually in the basement, this resulted in shorted electrical systems that in a couple of cases took the buildings out of service for years while the lawyers and insurance companies argued over who would pay how much. Also, for those of you that remember the early Compaq luggable PC, imagine trying to carry home this 30+ pound beast on a bus with 70+ people on it. It wasn't fun.
WOW great article. Thank you. I was a big fan of the RTS-2 as a kid. I remember with the Baltimore MTA got it's first order of 60 RTS's . These were fantastic because the AC worked very well. At the time Baltimore had the old classic GMC and old running flexible buses. The Baltimore order from news paper reports i can remember were shorter than the regular buses. They were 35 feet not 40. I don't know why they decided to go short maybe because of oil prices. They were ordered in 1978 and delivered into 1979. They got an additional order of 41 buses that came on line in 1980-82. These buses were different because they had been turbo charged. You can also tell because they did not have the noticeable arched back. They had a flat rear back of engine design. They did not stay long in Baltimore. They then went with the new Flexible designed at 40 feet. My school piggy backed on the Baltimore MTA order and got 30 870 flexes in 1985-86 for delivery in 1987. They then got 10 more with 8 30 footer and two 40. All were wheel chair kneeling designed. I loved driving them. Watching this video reminded me of my younger days watch buses and driving buses. Great video. One last thing those RTS-2 must be tanks because i have seen them everywhere. Disney transportation, Rental car agencies, I even saw a few in Tajuana Mexico with hubcaps on Ha Ha Ha. Cheers!
Doesn't the government get any heat for changing the requirements everytime they got a new department head or did they not bring it up because they were paying for the report?
Thanks for your comment and for watching! Good question! My own opinion is that the Transbus program was not made resistant to politics. It also existed through three administrations in Washington. I think it had to do with taking too long with little results, hence multiple changes. Typical government ineptness, most likely.
Some transit systems like Appleton, Wisconsin's Valley Transit decided to continue with that which was working fine -- the good 'ole GM New Look bus. General Motors continued to manufacture these city transit coaches in Canada. Valley Transit saw benefit in having a unified look (all GM New looks with some old looks in the secondary fleet) to the fleet as well as parts interchangeability. Valley Transit's first-ever, brand-new buses, 1981 New Looks, were delivered in April 1981.
Funny thing from the beginning of the article. The two other "failed" projects are still in service today. The PRT in Morgantown WV (WVU) is still in operation as the WVU's primary people mover and the basis for most PRT and airport people movers. The C5, after some modifications, is expected to serve to 2040.
The simplest way to make a bus more attractive: Put it on railroad wheels, roll it along railroad tracks, and power it with electricity. Call it "Light Rail Transit." Smooth, quiet, and comfortable public transportation.
That was a very interesting and informative video. I watched the whole thing. It’s a shame it was so expensive and so disorganized. The RTS and 870’s were very popular and proved to be successful.
Thank you for your comment, and for watching the entire video - I'm glad you enjoyed it! Unfortunately, there's not much info out there about Transbus...but as you mention, we did get the RTS and 870 shortly afterward!
@@JeffreyOrnsteinExcellent Video! Thank you for sharing the creation of the Transbus. I’ve been a fan of the Flxible 870 and the GM RTS ever since when they first came out.
There were major design flaws with both models. the 870 had major issues with the A-Frame structures cracking. so much so that both DC Metro and NYCMTA had to pull them from service. the RTS had issues with the HVAC system and had high failure rates with both the 01 and 03. Grummann resold the design rights back to Flxible and thus the Metro-B emerged. While that was going on, Green and Jamaica Bus companies in NYC took their RTS 03 demos and tweaked them enough for GM to redesign the AC units and in this case, the RTS-04 emerged. The biggest noticeable change was the switch from the "slope" back to the "square" back.
Two of the models served as the basics for the GM RTS, and the FLXIBLE 870/METRO. The RTS was a hit across the country, while the Metro was a close second.
Thank you for watching and for your comment! Yes, you are right about the RTS and 870....too bad AM General left the bus business before they could introduce a new model.
@@JeffreyOrnstein After the RTS-01 rollout in 1977, GM introduced the 03. D-DOT (Detroit) got the very first order of T8J-203s off the Pontiac assembly line. NFTA (Buffalo) got the first T8J-603s.
My favorite RTS is the GMC sloping back models and septa had those buses 35 and 40 foot city cruisers before they went to the square back models in 1980 and 1977-87 from GMC RTS T8J201-04 1988-94 which it was sold to MCI/TMC known as T80206 and 08 and it was again sold to Nova Bus from 1995-2002 and the last is the Millennium was the last purchase from 2003-08 or later
As soon as the government says something along the lines of "you'll only be allowed to make x" anyone's immediate reaction should be to tell them to go stuff it. The fact that GM just took the money and used it to continue developing an update of the RTS is hilarious.
The engine choices between GMC NCI/TMC Nova bus and Millennium were 6V71 N or TA 8V71N 6V92TA Detroit Diesel and DDS50 engine and 8.3 Cummins diesel engines and V730-731 Allison Voith D8.63 and ZF ecomat 5HP 592 Transmission options between 1977-2008 or later
Duluth, MN used to run many short RTS buses. I liked them, the few times I rode them. On the other hand, the AM General buses in Minneapolis-St. Paul, were so terrible, the MTC eventually sued the company.
@@JeffreyOrnstein It was quite striking when MTC put refurbished 1962 vintage GMC New Look buses, along with Flxibles back into service during the 1980s to make up for the failing AM General buses. But the truth is that I have been forced to leave a disabled bus many times over the last 50 years, but not one light or heavy rail vehicle. Bus design is apparently much more challenging than people realize.
@@pacificostudiosI remember MTC experimenting with several different bus manufacturers in the 80’s. They bought a few Scania buses, apparently they weren’t satisfied with them bcuz they never bought any more. And they had a large fleet of German MAN buses. They had nice interiors and they were quiet inside and rode nicely. But I was on one once that overheated and puked out several gallons of green coolant on a hot day. I heard somewhere that the A/C coils were positioned so they increased the engine compartment temperature, so that running the A/C in hot weather and heavy traffic was a recipe for overheating.
@@pacificostudios right. They were among the first articulated buses the MTC bought. And some were straight 40’ buses too. The one I was on that overheated was on the 35 express route from downtown Mpls to the park & ride lot at Metropolitan Stadium.
To provide public transportation in a practical way it must be separate service for able and dis-abled just like the study concluded. Unless you have worked with scooters and wheelchairs etc you have no idea of the verity that exists. There needs to be a government subsidized service
So they still have some of those Transbus demonstrators? Would be cool if that original 1968 RTX was preserved! Hard to believe that existed right in the middle of the era when the new look was universal (and even some old looks still around).
I wonder what makes these buses "freakish-looking". Or "futuristic". And the article, unfortunately, doesn't tell us why experienced bus builders, who, it seems, could design their own version of fulfilling the specs, had such trouble doing so. Also, I don't see how this could ever be "start from scratch" if you ask the incumbents to design it. There's a lot there that doesn't make sense, and I get the impression that US buses still don't match the requirement ... while a number of today's European buses do. In my city, for example, lots of buses "kneel" at the bus stop (lower down the side with the doors), and there are simple wheelchair ramps to cover the gap to the curb that you can simply pull up from the floor and flip to the outside (if you even need them). And there is space for more than one wheelchair, stroller, or bicycle in that bus. I think I've seen at least three strollers at the same time ... though that did fill up a lot of space. I don't know.
Thank you for watching and for your comment! I guess in an attempt to make the buses look 'futuristic,' they were designed rather ungainly. Maybe it looked good on paper, but in reality, they were very strange. As for American transit buses, kneeling buses have been in use since the mid-1970s. All of the buses now are low-floor and have a ramp that deploys at the front door for wheelchairs, etc (requirements for federal funding). On the inside, there are fold-up seats for wheelchairs. It is not politically expedient to remove seats in buses for this purpose in the USA. Why? Because many senior citizens ride the bus in many cities, and they are a very loud and sometimes powerful lobby. So the elimination of seats is a no-no. Low-floor buses also eliminate seats in the front over the front wheelwell, and I remember this was an issue here at first. So, low-floor buses, like the previous high-floor buses are compromises in their own way. There are many US transit systems that have bike racks at the front of the bus - something I don't think I've seen on European buses. Since Americans like big, oversized things, low-floor buses were seen as a strange oddity at first, but now as it's a government requirement, it is commonplace everywhere.
Typical government waste. Instead of trying to force unworkable designs they should have fielded improvements and change suggestions to companies to see what could be applied by the market. As it was, production busses already were pretty solid and reliable, and incorporating changes in new designs would be more effective than bureaucrats trying to design something they literally have no understanding of and likely had never even been on trying their greasy paws at forcing impractical designs! You would think GM, Flxable and AM General who were already building busses would have been able to handle this better. This is just like the DOT's creation of a "safety motorcycle", it was an over complex nightmare that ended up steering from the rear wheel and had a cage around it larger then a car. Government runs on committees usually made up of people with no idea of what they've been put together for in the first place, and they come up with useless wasteful ideas.
Thank you for watching and for your comment! Yes, totally agree...don't give the government the job to design a bus. Maybe this is why it has not happened since!
@JeffreyOrnstein I'm sorry, I really am not trying to be mean. Ty for your reply and I wish u success in the future. The video is very good otherwise, and no one else has covered the topic.
Whatever it is, no matter how bad it is, the federal government can make it infinitely worse. $212 million inflation adjusted dollars, a revolving door of unelected overseers, and essentially zero consequences for ineptitude. What could possibly go wrong?
I agree with @oldbmwr and @papawoody9597. This is a textbook example of government in action. Politically appointed department heads and bureaucrats stepping in to try to fix something that isn’t broken, or just needs a little tinkering and fine tuning, and screwing up the whole idea. No wonder our transportation system is screwed up. And our educational system, and just about everything else that’s run by the government. And to think some people want the government to run our health care system and screw that up worse than it already is…smh.
They and the idea look to me like the current deal with the EV busses that don't and won't work. The idea is alive and well and we'll pay for what or doesn't work, never fear.
Oh the politics, I had gone to a Auto Diesel college in Pheonix AZ in the early 80s, and they were always talking about all these bus repair jobs that ere out there, looking back, now i understand what, and why they were talking all these jobs were out there, and all the new engineering on them that was not working
The Canadian factories continued making New Looks well into the 1980s for the Canada market, and many American operators bought these in preferdnce to the Transbus models.
Prototype buses exploding on a highway ain't uniquely Transbus or American thing. Serbian Ikarbus had the same thing happen with Ikarbus 112. These buses were cobbled together with Mercedes badges stuck onto them during President Vučić's election campaign, when a bunch of last generation Mercedes engines left over in the factory were purchased by Serbian government to be used in "Serbian Mercedes" program as part of Vučić's personality cult. His party newspaper published pictures of him posing with 12 hastily cobbled buses, it was published on state television and the whole operation was completely shambolic and about as atrocious as Turkish Devrim car program where cars were not filled up with gasoline for ceremonial ride. Engines in Ikarbus 112 buses were not positioned properly, rear doors opened weirdly narrowly only to access tall rear staircase leading above the engine, and most importantly, electrical systems were assembled by a team of what I can only believe to be chimpanzees with ADHD. One of the key things was that ECU (electronic control unit) guiding fuel supply into the engine was not connected as it should and that, due to the strange engine positioning fuel line ran too close to hot exhaust pipes. That led to a bus with such an issue ending up as a test unit with GSP (Gradsko Saobraćajno Preduzeće - City Traffic Enterprise, Belgrade City transit operator), and on a hot summer day, with GSP driver and engineer on board as well as test crew of Veliki Točkovi (The Big Wheels, country's only magazine about trucks and buses), 5 people in total, Ikarbus 112 bus burst in flames like Southern California. State media blamed Mercedes for delivering faulty engine due to West not wanting Serbia to be successful and presented buying a bunch of stupidly made Russian and Belarusian busses from "friendly Orthodox countries" as a victory of Serbo-Russian friendship. I have a misfortune of using Belarusian MAZ bus for my daily commute and a running joke around suburban area of Železnik, neighbourhood served almost exclusively by MAZ vehicles is that "homophobes should not be allowed to make buses"....
My issues are twofold: Those AWFUL heavily tinted windows (as only the driver could enjoy CLEAR windows! (Well the only reason the driver's windows are clear has been mandated by law and not design choice). WHY NOT the same for the passengers? Same holds true of the seating, the drivers soft cushiony seat vs those hard plastic seats for the public! Really? Two - and most important - WHERE has any consideration of ELECTRIC buses, either trolleybuses or indeed battery buses? ZERO NADA DE NADA! Zilch! Why? THE INFLUENCE OF THE OIL INDUSTRY of course! You can have your bus powered in any manner -- so long as it was DIESEL! With four wheels six wheels, eight wheels, fifty wheels, so long it was powered by FOSSIL FUEL! NO WONDER the public at large HATED them! Who wants to be stuck in a carbon fibre box creaking about as if it were to break apart at any moment, with dark windows, sitting on HARD plastic seats, breathing in diesel fumes? REALLY! Hey! Folks, you can go to Europe or Japan, and see and experience REAL public transport! Public transport in North America over all with a few exceptions (like New York City, and San Francisco)is a sad JOKE! Ever since the General Motors NCL scandal, PT in Amerika has NEVER been the same! PT in li'le ole Amerika shall NEVER hold a candle to Europe, Japan, or even Canada!
This was extremely difficult to listen to. Sorry pal. The I for is good, but bruh…hire a voiceover guy and a good audio engineer and editor. Way too many audio mistakes and emphasis was used on words that didn’t needed emphasis. Just hard to listen to. The info was good. But it was also something that anyone could have googled and found for themselves. Too many stops and starts with you reading things.
![Coheed and Cambria - Searching for Tomorrow [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hDsYGLbmadg/mqdefault.jpg)
![Would You Fall for It? [ST08]](/img/1.gif)
Nothing has been as reliable and rugged as the GM New Look. The "fishbowl" buses were still in service long after these "improved" buses were scrapped.
Yes, and some still exist from 1959 in the NYCTA museum bus fleet. They still look great and run good, too.
TTC in Toronto didn't retire their fishbowls until 2012! They retrofitted their fleet with power steering, so life was a lot easier for the drivers.
$145,000 for an early GM-built RTS bus and agencies didn't even get their choice of GMC or Chevrolet badging!
Thank you for watching and for your comment! A Chevy badge on an RTS would have been cool to see!
@@JeffreyOrnstein That and a GMC-branded LUV pickup.
@@nlpnt, pre- S15 Sonoma...
Having ridden the RTS-1 (SPEED movie bus), the RTS-2 (RTS-1 replacement several years on) in various versions. Mostly the ones I saw were all turbo-charged 6 cylinder models. Then also the Grumman Flexible busses. I came to the conclusion that the RTS-1 was the best of them all. The RTS-1 was built for a maximum of 44 passengers. The ones I rode in Dallas in the early 1980's, we regularly stuffed closer to 80 people on because this was on a very popular route and you just could not put enough busses on the route. RTS-1 came in 2 models, a 6 cylinder turbo-charged model and an 8 cylinder non-turbo version. Coming out of downtown Dallas there was a slight hump in US 75 that made it difficult for the non-turbo busses to make it up and over. Once past that, the run was okay.. The turbo version had no problem making the hump as long as we had fewer than 70 passengers. With the large number of people, every stop meant 20 or more people having to get off the let the riders that wanted to get off, then load up and go to the next stop. Fortunately, the stop I got off was number 3. It just worked, albeit the AC's couldn't handle the heat unless the bus was parked inside during the early heat of the day. The RTS-2 models had lots of problems, mostly known for doors that didn't want to open. They were a vacuum assisted system and there was often too little vacuum for the doors to work. Later models had the doors replaced by motor driven bat wing type doors and those worked fairly well. The Grumman busses were trash from the beginning. Although not noticeable to the riders, there were all these rumors about cracked frames and engines that overheated. An overheated bus can't run and without the engine running, the AC didn't work, so they worked fine in the morning, but were useless after lunch due to the Texas heat. Note also that in the years since, Dallas has replaced all the high volume routes with commuter trains and it seems to work much better. During construction of the train lines, a contractor plugged up a major storm drain, which caused flood water to back up into downtown and flood the basement of several buildings. Since the electrical was usually in the basement, this resulted in shorted electrical systems that in a couple of cases took the buildings out of service for years while the lawyers and insurance companies argued over who would pay how much. Also, for those of you that remember the early Compaq luggable PC, imagine trying to carry home this 30+ pound beast on a bus with 70+ people on it. It wasn't fun.
Wow...thank you for watching and for that incredibly detailed comment! I have to go through it for all of the great info you provided!
I thought the bus in the movie Speed was a GM fishbowl
There was no RTS 2, They went from RTS 1 to RTS 3 in 1978.
WOW great article. Thank you. I was a big fan of the RTS-2 as a kid. I remember with the Baltimore MTA got it's first order of 60 RTS's . These were fantastic because the AC worked very well. At the time Baltimore had the old classic GMC and old running flexible buses. The Baltimore order from news paper reports i can remember were shorter than the regular buses. They were 35 feet not 40. I don't know why they decided to go short maybe because of oil prices. They were ordered in 1978 and delivered into 1979. They got an additional order of 41 buses that came on line in 1980-82. These buses were different because they had been turbo charged. You can also tell because they did not have the noticeable arched back. They had a flat rear back of engine design. They did not stay long in Baltimore. They then went with the new Flexible designed at 40 feet. My school piggy backed on the Baltimore MTA order and got 30 870 flexes in 1985-86 for delivery in 1987. They then got 10 more with 8 30 footer and two 40. All were wheel chair kneeling designed. I loved driving them. Watching this video reminded me of my younger days watch buses and driving buses. Great video. One last thing those RTS-2 must be tanks because i have seen them everywhere. Disney transportation, Rental car agencies, I even saw a few in Tajuana Mexico with hubcaps on Ha Ha Ha. Cheers!
Thank you very much for watching and for your very interesting comment about the RTS buses in Baltimore. I'm very happy of your positive feedback!
Doesn't the government get any heat for changing the requirements everytime they got a new department head or did they not bring it up because they were paying for the report?
Thanks for your comment and for watching! Good question! My own opinion is that the Transbus program was not made resistant to politics. It also existed through three administrations in Washington. I think it had to do with taking too long with little results, hence multiple changes. Typical government ineptness, most likely.
Some transit systems like Appleton, Wisconsin's Valley Transit decided to continue with that which was working fine -- the good 'ole GM New Look bus. General Motors continued to manufacture these city transit coaches in Canada. Valley Transit saw benefit in having a unified look (all GM New looks with some old looks in the secondary fleet) to the fleet as well as parts interchangeability. Valley Transit's first-ever, brand-new buses, 1981 New Looks, were delivered in April 1981.
Thank you for watching and for your comment! Interesting to hear the preference of Valley Transit holding on to buying the New Looks into the 1980s!
Here in Oshkosh, the whole fleet was replaced with the GMs. But they kept the old ones for special occasions, like EAA. Now we got the green ones.
Funny thing from the beginning of the article. The two other "failed" projects are still in service today. The PRT in Morgantown WV (WVU) is still in operation as the WVU's primary people mover and the basis for most PRT and airport people movers. The C5, after some modifications, is expected to serve to 2040.
Thank you for watching and for your comment! Very interesting info you gave about the other two projects mentioned!
Still miss the original GM fish bowl buses a lot were made in Montreal we had a ton of them in Toronto
Thank you for watching and for your comment! We all miss the fishbowls!!
The simplest way to make a bus more attractive: Put it on railroad wheels, roll it along railroad tracks, and power it with electricity. Call it "Light Rail Transit." Smooth, quiet, and comfortable public transportation.
The British already tried this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacer_(British_Rail)
It didn't work
Thank you for watching and for your comment! Interesting idea....
Thank you for watching! Yes, but I believe some are still in service??
@@JeffreyOrnstein I'm joking of course. But also pointing out that rail transit is inherently more comfortable and attractive than a comparable bus.
So like a pacer!
That was a very interesting and informative video. I watched the whole thing. It’s a shame it was so expensive and so disorganized. The RTS and 870’s were very popular and proved to be successful.
Thank you for your comment, and for watching the entire video - I'm glad you enjoyed it! Unfortunately, there's not much info out there about Transbus...but as you mention, we did get the RTS and 870 shortly afterward!
@@JeffreyOrnsteinExcellent Video! Thank you for sharing the creation of the Transbus. I’ve been a fan of the Flxible 870 and the GM RTS ever since when they first came out.
There were major design flaws with both models. the 870 had major issues with the A-Frame structures cracking. so much so that both DC Metro and NYCMTA had to pull them from service. the RTS had issues with the HVAC system and had high failure rates with both the 01 and 03. Grummann resold the design rights back to Flxible and thus the Metro-B emerged. While that was going on, Green and Jamaica Bus companies in NYC took their RTS 03 demos and tweaked them enough for GM to redesign the AC units and in this case, the RTS-04 emerged. The biggest noticeable change was the switch from the "slope" back to the "square" back.
Two of the models served as the basics for the GM RTS, and the FLXIBLE 870/METRO.
The RTS was a hit across the country, while the Metro was a close second.
Thank you for watching and for your comment! Yes, you are right about the RTS and 870....too bad AM General left the bus business before they could introduce a new model.
Indeed, the "-II" in the "RTS-II" designation stood for two axles, as opposed to the 3-axle GM Transbus prototype.
@@JeffreyOrnstein After the RTS-01 rollout in 1977, GM introduced the 03. D-DOT (Detroit) got the very first order of T8J-203s off the Pontiac assembly line. NFTA (Buffalo) got the first T8J-603s.
Didn't AMG hook up with Flyer and co-develop the 800 and 900 models? (the 800 being like a cross between new look and ADB)
The last time I saw a GM RTS was as a dirty, smoky, tired airport shuttle somewhere, I think in Texas.
LOL, thank you for watching and for your comment!
Was that the bus that did the 180 spin in Beverly Hills Cop movie ?
You missed commentary on the fishbowl buses. In service until 1996 and I rode on them to school.
Thanks for watching and for your comment!
My favorite RTS is the GMC sloping back models and septa had those buses 35 and 40 foot city cruisers before they went to the square back models in 1980 and 1977-87 from GMC RTS T8J201-04 1988-94 which it was sold to MCI/TMC known as T80206 and 08 and it was again sold to Nova Bus from 1995-2002 and the last is the Millennium was the last purchase from 2003-08 or later
Thank you for watching and for your comment! I also really liked the SEPTA RTS with the sloped back!
As soon as the government says something along the lines of "you'll only be allowed to make x" anyone's immediate reaction should be to tell them to go stuff it.
The fact that GM just took the money and used it to continue developing an update of the RTS is hilarious.
LOL, thank you for watching and for your comment!
Given they subsidise bus companies... No.
If the bus operators in the US could buy what they wanted they would be purchasing MB, MAN Scania and Volvo from the 1970's
The engine choices between GMC NCI/TMC Nova bus and Millennium were 6V71 N or TA 8V71N 6V92TA Detroit Diesel and DDS50 engine and 8.3 Cummins diesel engines and V730-731 Allison Voith D8.63 and ZF ecomat 5HP 592 Transmission options between 1977-2008 or later
Thank you for watching and for your very interesting comment abou the engines of the RTS!
Duluth, MN used to run many short RTS buses. I liked them, the few times I rode them. On the other hand, the AM General buses in Minneapolis-St. Paul, were so terrible, the MTC eventually sued the company.
Thank you for watching and for your comment about the buses in Duluth - very interesting!!
@@JeffreyOrnstein It was quite striking when MTC put refurbished 1962 vintage GMC New Look buses, along with Flxibles back into service during the 1980s to make up for the failing AM General buses. But the truth is that I have been forced to leave a disabled bus many times over the last 50 years, but not one light or heavy rail vehicle. Bus design is apparently much more challenging than people realize.
@@pacificostudiosI remember MTC experimenting with several different bus manufacturers in the 80’s. They bought a few Scania buses, apparently they weren’t satisfied with them bcuz they never bought any more. And they had a large fleet of German MAN buses. They had nice interiors and they were quiet inside and rode nicely. But I was on one once that overheated and puked out several gallons of green coolant on a hot day. I heard somewhere that the A/C coils were positioned so they increased the engine compartment temperature, so that running the A/C in hot weather and heavy traffic was a recipe for overheating.
@@zyglo9826 The MAN buses were articulated. I remember those too. They rode relatively well, and were often on the 16A and freeway commuter runs.
@@pacificostudios right. They were among the first articulated buses the MTC bought. And some were straight 40’ buses too. The one I was on that overheated was on the 35 express route from downtown Mpls to the park & ride lot at Metropolitan Stadium.
I remember the transbus and what a turd!
LOL, thank you for watching and for your comment!
Just found your channel its great. I used to ride the b68 also. Great times back then
Thank you for watching and for your very positive comment, much appreciated!!
To provide public transportation in a practical way it must be separate service for able and dis-abled just like the study concluded.
Unless you have worked with scooters and wheelchairs etc you have no idea of the verity that exists. There needs to be a government subsidized service
Yes, how true! Thank you for watching and for your comment!
Some of the RTS buses in Houston had to have windows removed when the AC broke down.
Thank you for watching and for your comment about the Houston RTS buses!
So they still have some of those Transbus demonstrators? Would be cool if that original 1968 RTX was preserved! Hard to believe that existed right in the middle of the era when the new look was universal (and even some old looks still around).
Thank you for watching and for your comment! Unfortunately, all of the Transbus demonstrators have been scrapped.
I wonder what makes these buses "freakish-looking". Or "futuristic". And the article, unfortunately, doesn't tell us why experienced bus builders, who, it seems, could design their own version of fulfilling the specs, had such trouble doing so. Also, I don't see how this could ever be "start from scratch" if you ask the incumbents to design it.
There's a lot there that doesn't make sense, and I get the impression that US buses still don't match the requirement ... while a number of today's European buses do. In my city, for example, lots of buses "kneel" at the bus stop (lower down the side with the doors), and there are simple wheelchair ramps to cover the gap to the curb that you can simply pull up from the floor and flip to the outside (if you even need them). And there is space for more than one wheelchair, stroller, or bicycle in that bus. I think I've seen at least three strollers at the same time ... though that did fill up a lot of space. I don't know.
Thank you for watching and for your comment! I guess in an attempt to make the buses look 'futuristic,' they were designed rather ungainly. Maybe it looked good on paper, but in reality, they were very strange.
As for American transit buses, kneeling buses have been in use since the mid-1970s. All of the buses now are low-floor and have a ramp that deploys at the front door for wheelchairs, etc (requirements for federal funding). On the inside, there are fold-up seats for wheelchairs. It is not politically expedient to remove seats in buses for this purpose in the USA. Why? Because many senior citizens ride the bus in many cities, and they are a very loud and sometimes powerful lobby. So the elimination of seats is a no-no.
Low-floor buses also eliminate seats in the front over the front wheelwell, and I remember this was an issue here at first. So, low-floor buses, like the previous high-floor buses are compromises in their own way. There are many US transit systems that have bike racks at the front of the bus - something I don't think I've seen on European buses.
Since Americans like big, oversized things, low-floor buses were seen as a strange oddity at first, but now as it's a government requirement, it is commonplace everywhere.
Typical government waste. Instead of trying to force unworkable designs they should have fielded improvements and change suggestions to companies to see what could be applied by the market. As it was, production busses already were pretty solid and reliable, and incorporating changes in new designs would be more effective than bureaucrats trying to design something they literally have no understanding of and likely had never even been on trying their greasy paws at forcing impractical designs! You would think GM, Flxable and AM General who were already building busses would have been able to handle this better. This is just like the DOT's creation of a "safety motorcycle", it was an over complex nightmare that ended up steering from the rear wheel and had a cage around it larger then a car. Government runs on committees usually made up of people with no idea of what they've been put together for in the first place, and they come up with useless wasteful ideas.
Thank you for watching and for your comment! Yes, totally agree...don't give the government the job to design a bus. Maybe this is why it has not happened since!
Transbus probably identified as a truck.
LOL, thank you for watching and for your comment!
I gave you a thumbs up but you really need to do the audio over. Kinda painful to listen about half way through.
Ok, thanks.
@JeffreyOrnstein I'm sorry, I really am not trying to be mean. Ty for your reply and I wish u success in the future. The video is very good otherwise, and no one else has covered the topic.
This bus looked very good! Compared to the chinese crap vehicles we use today they were sublime!
LOL, thank you for watching and for your comment!
NJ Transit purchase 600 ex NYCTA buses to serve New Jersey in 1986 to 2000 from Flxible corporation and it was a great deal
Thank you for watching and for your interesting comment about NJT Grummans!
Whatever it is, no matter how bad it is, the federal government can make it infinitely worse.
$212 million inflation adjusted dollars, a revolving door of unelected overseers, and essentially zero consequences for ineptitude. What could possibly go wrong?
LOL, exactly! Thank you for watching and for your comment!
I agree with @oldbmwr and @papawoody9597. This is a textbook example of government in action. Politically appointed department heads and bureaucrats stepping in to try to fix something that isn’t broken, or just needs a little tinkering and fine tuning, and screwing up the whole idea. No wonder our transportation system is screwed up. And our educational system, and just about everything else that’s run by the government. And to think some people want the government to run our health care system and screw that up worse than it already is…smh.
LOL, great comment! Thank you for watching and for your comment!
Why can't everyone just use scanias and Volvo's with a volgren body? The best body and chassis combination.
I guess it would have to be made in the US for that to happen...Thank you for watching and for your comment!
They and the idea look to me like the current deal with the EV busses that don't and won't work. The idea is alive and well and we'll pay for what or doesn't work, never fear.
Thank you for watching and for your comment!
@@JeffreyOrnstein U 2!
Oh the politics, I had gone to a Auto Diesel college in Pheonix AZ in the early 80s, and they were always talking about all these bus repair jobs that ere out there, looking back, now i understand what, and why they were talking all these jobs were out there, and all the new engineering on them that was not working
Very interesting statement about how all those bus repair jobs back in the early 1980s! Thank you for watching and for your comment!
never used in Canada.
Yes, it never was. Thank you for watching and for your comment!
The Canadian factories continued making New Looks well into the 1980s for the Canada market, and many American operators bought these in preferdnce to the Transbus models.
Prototype buses exploding on a highway ain't uniquely Transbus or American thing. Serbian Ikarbus had the same thing happen with Ikarbus 112. These buses were cobbled together with Mercedes badges stuck onto them during President Vučić's election campaign, when a bunch of last generation Mercedes engines left over in the factory were purchased by Serbian government to be used in "Serbian Mercedes" program as part of Vučić's personality cult. His party newspaper published pictures of him posing with 12 hastily cobbled buses, it was published on state television and the whole operation was completely shambolic and about as atrocious as Turkish Devrim car program where cars were not filled up with gasoline for ceremonial ride. Engines in Ikarbus 112 buses were not positioned properly, rear doors opened weirdly narrowly only to access tall rear staircase leading above the engine, and most importantly, electrical systems were assembled by a team of what I can only believe to be chimpanzees with ADHD. One of the key things was that ECU (electronic control unit) guiding fuel supply into the engine was not connected as it should and that, due to the strange engine positioning fuel line ran too close to hot exhaust pipes. That led to a bus with such an issue ending up as a test unit with GSP (Gradsko Saobraćajno Preduzeće - City Traffic Enterprise, Belgrade City transit operator), and on a hot summer day, with GSP driver and engineer on board as well as test crew of Veliki Točkovi (The Big Wheels, country's only magazine about trucks and buses), 5 people in total, Ikarbus 112 bus burst in flames like Southern California. State media blamed Mercedes for delivering faulty engine due to West not wanting Serbia to be successful and presented buying a bunch of stupidly made Russian and Belarusian busses from "friendly Orthodox countries" as a victory of Serbo-Russian friendship. I have a misfortune of using Belarusian MAZ bus for my daily commute and a running joke around suburban area of Železnik, neighbourhood served almost exclusively by MAZ vehicles is that "homophobes should not be allowed to make buses"....
Thank you for watching and that really interesting story/comment! The Ikarbus 112 sounds like a good idea for a video!
They must not have seen the movie the atomic bus
LOL, yes, The Big Bus! Thank you for watching and for your comment!
cool video on soac first subway train and do a video on the r46 and r211
Thank you for watching and for your nice comment!
I wonder you know BUS has front wheel drive in US?
Thank you for watching and for your comment!
Obviously this committee ALL took the "short" bus to school 🚍
Thank you for watching and for your comment! Haha!
trans 🤭
LOL!
The pop filter on the mic should probably be facing your mouth, just sayin.
Thanks for the feedback. If you watch my latest video(s), you will see that I improved, at least I think so.
@@JeffreyOrnstein Love all the content btw. You really do some thorough research snd I've learned a lot.
My issues are twofold: Those AWFUL heavily tinted windows (as only the driver could enjoy CLEAR windows! (Well the only reason the driver's windows are clear has been mandated by law and not design choice). WHY NOT the same for the passengers? Same holds true of the seating, the drivers soft cushiony seat vs those hard plastic seats for the public! Really? Two - and most important - WHERE has any consideration of ELECTRIC buses, either trolleybuses or indeed battery buses? ZERO NADA DE NADA! Zilch! Why? THE INFLUENCE OF THE OIL INDUSTRY of course! You can have your bus powered in any manner -- so long as it was DIESEL! With four wheels six wheels, eight wheels, fifty wheels, so long it was powered by FOSSIL FUEL!
NO WONDER the public at large HATED them! Who wants to be stuck in a carbon fibre box creaking about as if it were to break apart at any moment, with dark windows, sitting on HARD plastic seats, breathing in diesel fumes? REALLY!
Hey! Folks, you can go to Europe or Japan, and see and experience REAL public transport! Public transport in North America over all with a few exceptions (like New York City, and San Francisco)is a sad JOKE! Ever since the General Motors NCL scandal, PT in Amerika has NEVER been the same! PT in li'le ole Amerika shall NEVER hold a candle to Europe, Japan, or even Canada!
T hank you for watching and for your very interesting comment!
Battery powered buses currently are junk, prone to spontaneous combusting. I can only imagine how much worse they would have performed then.
They use diesel buses everywhere and always tint windows in sunny country's. You can still see out just fine but the cooling works better.
This was extremely difficult to listen to. Sorry pal. The I for is good, but bruh…hire a voiceover guy and a good audio engineer and editor. Way too many audio mistakes and emphasis was used on words that didn’t needed emphasis. Just hard to listen to. The info was good. But it was also something that anyone could have googled and found for themselves. Too many stops and starts with you reading things.
Thanks for watching!
The audio was just fine. The NYC accent is authentic.