| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
wrenchmen
Senior Member
USA
115 Posts |
 Posted - 01/26/2001 : 11:51:22 AM
|
What does your school district or contractor use...Transit style {flat front} or conventional style buses?????.....and if they are Transit, are they front or rear engine?.....there seems to be a large debate over which buses are safer, there are pro's and con's to each style....In our school district we have all transit, both front and rear engine, and we are considering conventionals for our next purchase. In the past, conventional style hoods were large and bulky, which was a problem for driver visability, Now ,hoods are more aerodynamic and visibility is improved, and the addition of the front bumper mounted crossing gate eliminates the problem of children in a blind spot, not to mention the "dolly-parton" style mirrors which enables the driver to see all around the nose of the bus. From a maintenance point of view, in our mechanics opinions, the conventional is far less labor consuming to maintain and repair, components are more accesable, decreasing downtime and front mounted engines are in a cleaner enviroment, which will increase life expectancy and require less maintenance. Parts are also avalable from sources other than the bus manufacturer or dealer, which can relate to a substantial savings in cost. not to mention the approx. initial savings of about 20,000.00 as opposed to purchasing a rear engine transit.....now the con's, they say conventionals are not as safe because the front wheel rolls up to the bus stop before the entrance door, decreased visibility, far more noise inside the bus, decreased turning radius...cant turn around in a court or cul-de-sac {in my opinion, routes should be laid out so buses do not go down courts or cul-de-sacs}...windshield designs create blind spots...and we would basicaly be taking a step "back in time" by purchasing these "dinosaurs"........if they are that un-safe, why are they even allowed to be used as school buses? and are there any real statistics to prove that an accident would not have occured if the bus was not a conventional???? and why are school districts contracting with vendors who use nothing but conventionals???.........What is your opinion to this Great controversy??????
|
|
|
wagonmaster
Top Member
USA
2298 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2001 : 5:25:50 PM
|
Hey Wrenchmen,
I don't think theres any great controversy, just differing needs and opinions. We are currently buying Type "D" buses for several reasons;
1. More passengers per bus. The same number of drivers can safely transport more children. (Can never hire enough drivers)
2. Excellent visability
3. Handling/manueverability they will go places you'd think they wouldn't!
We are using the front engine transit style for ESE/wheelchair lift applications, simply because it makes more sense! Can't utilize the rear engine any better, the front engine units are more maneuverable, paticularly when you must pick up house to house, and they cost less. That means I can buy more buses at a time.
We use rear engine buses for regular route service because of the volume of passengers. We also plan to keep them longer than we did the conventionals. 10 years for the conventionals and the plan is 15 years for the type "D" rear engine. Heavier chassis help make this possible and we spec the DT466E engine with 250 H.P. to pull this 40 footer with A/C. We use the MD-3060 Allison overdrive transmission on both units. My mechanics really like the rear engine Amtran for its wide open access. You can literally walk right up to the engine! The good news is that you seldom have to do anything to them except change the oil!! The front engine units are a little tougher, but again, you don't have to do a lot. Brakes are brakes on either unit, and thats a lot of the wear and tear right there. Conventionals are fine if all you need is a 65-77 passenger unit. but even those are so long 276-290" wheelbase that they won't fit in some tight sub-divisions. The Transits have a much better turning radius to go with all that visability, and my drivers love them!! Unfortunately we have had some accidents, as most large fleets will. On some transits hit so hard they were "totaled" (in the FRONT END) in every case the drivers and passengers were able to walk away!!! It doesn't get any better than that!!!
Got kinda long winded,but I hope I shed some light on issues important to you!!Good Luck!!
Joe
|
 |
|
|
thomas86_a
Top Member
USA
4413 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2001 : 09:38:10 AM
|
Our School District is currently using all Conventional Style busses, International Chassis Thomas Bodies. The early to mid 90's are blue-bird. (I prefer Thomas)
The main reason schools use Transit style is because of the increased seating capacity. Some drivers like Transits because you can see the passengers better, some like the conventionals because if you are in an accident their is an engine in front of you to protect you.
On the issue of being able to see the passengers in front of the bus, the cross arm puts them out in front of the bus so you can see them. None of our busses have the crossing arm, and I transport K-12 students, with the cross-view mirrors I have never had a problem.
Ask you drivers, ask your mechanics for there opnions. I am sure your school district would love to save the 20k, but it depends if you can afford to lose the extra 10 passenger seating on every transit you replace with a conventional.
"Thomas Built Busses-The best busses on the Road." |
|
|
|
Bus Boy 39
Top Member
USA
1315 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2001 : 04:28:21 AM
|
In our fleet we have both, conventional and transit style. The conv.'s are mainly GMC Blue Birds and the transit styles are mainly Blue Bird All Americans and some TC/2000 (all front engines). We have the transit styles because of the turning radious. Our district area is mainly back, cruvy roads and the All Amer.'s handle much better. The All Amer.'s are also used because of the setting cap. The conv. on the other hand go one the shorter runs w/less students and less curvy roads. 
|
|
|
|
wrenchmen
Senior Member
USA
115 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2001 : 11:23:10 AM
|
Bus Boy....in your mixed fleet, would you be able to form an opinion on which type was more reliable, had less breakdowns, or reqired less or easier maintenance?....and do your drivers have any preference on which type bus they would rather use on a long trip???
|
|
|
|
wrenchmen
Senior Member
USA
115 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2001 : 6:38:47 PM
|
wagonmaster,..I can see your advantage as far as capacity using a transit style, But our situation in N.J. is different...by state law all buses are limited to a maximum capacity of 54 passengers,Transit or Conventional!!!! and we are the only state that has 3x2 seating, we have an off-set aisle,45" 3 seater on drivers side and 30" 2-seater on pass. side!!...N.J. state law also limits us to how long we may keep a bus in service,a Conventional style bus is only allowed for 12 years, A Transit style, if its G.V.W. is over 25,000 lbs. is allowed for 20 years.
|
|
|
|
wagonmaster
Top Member
USA
2298 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2001 : 10:02:38 AM
|
Hey Wrenchman,
We had 3-2 seating in Florida available for years, but it never caught on, probably due to the loss of capacity. The law limiting length of service is not a bad thing, in my opinion. Here we have several districts that keep them way too long! Not only are they horribly inefficient, but they keep maintenance crews working too many hours trying to keep them in service!
See ya' around the forums!
Joe
|
|
|
|
wrenchmen
Senior Member
USA
115 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2001 : 1:31:37 PM
|
wagonmaster, yes i agree, 20 yrs. is a long time!...that is one of the reasons I would like to include Conventionals in our fleet!!...
|
|
|
|
thomas86_a
Top Member
USA
4413 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2001 : 6:36:43 PM
|
I like the law of not allowing over 54 passengers on a bus, many schools in MI go over the bus limit. Our school hasn't had a problem with this, but it would help control the schools that are trying to put 75 kids on a 65 passenger bus.
I don't know how much I like the 12 year law, as our busses are inspected every year and must pass to transport students. We have an 85 chevy blue bird that does a 10 mile run once a day, and it passes inspection every year. Inspection is not always easy to pass as the buses can not have any violations. We also have an 86 and 87 we retired in the fall of 98, the 86 was twelve years old, but we still use it as a spare, and it is a safe bus.(wouldn't be using it in NJ.) It also passes inspection. It is now 15 years old, and it will be going in about a year, but until then it will serve its purpose.
I do not think any bus body built before 1977 should be used for school service, as the body standards were revised in that year making them safer.
I also have a question how come you can use a Transit for 20 years,but can only use a conventional for 12? What is the difference?
"Thomas Built Busses-The best busses on the Road." |
|
|
|
Mike
New Member
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2001 : 7:33:48 PM
|
I have driven both transient(FE only) and conventional; Bluebird and Thomas for the past 16 years. The main differences I have noticed are visibility, capacity, maneuverability, ride comfort and noise level.
Visibility - the transient is by far the best.
Capacity - the transient can transport more students, irregardless of capacity limits, in a smaller vehicle length than a conventional.
Maneuverability - No Contest; the transient.
Ride comfort - New Freightliner/Thomas Conventional w/Airliner is fantastic, especially for the kids. The Bluebird transient(TC's)is okay. The Thomas Saf-T-Liner(FE) is good, but the front end bouncing is a problem.
Noise level - the conventional is much quieter for the driver than the transient. This is especially true concerning the Thomas Saf-T-Liner(FE). The engine noise the driver is subjected to is unbelievable. The Bluebird(TC)is better.
I hope that helps.
Mike
|
|
|
|
cowlitzcoach
Advanced Member
USA
325 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2001 : 7:34:23 PM
|
If you are comparing 12 row buses to 12 row buses, it is a little hard to justify the extra cost of a transit style bus, particularly a RE tranist style bus.
In days gone by when almost all conventional buses had gas engines and top speeds of 50-55 MPH were the norm, a justification for the Type 'D' with a diesel engine could be made. Now that virtually all buses come with diesel engines and all can keep up to highway speeds, unless you really need the extra two or three rows of seats it would be rather difficult to justify the added cost.
The new conventionals will turn almost as sharp as the transits so even that argument has become a thing of the past. The new designs of hoods and driver positions also combat the visibility argument.
Unless you really need the extra seats a conventional will turn in yeoman service at a much lower initial cost.
Mark O.
|
|
|
|
tony61
New Member
USA
1 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2001 : 3:16:34 PM
|
what is the state law for kentucky,concerning seating capacity.
|
|
|
|
B. Busguy33
Top Member
USA
3444 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2001 : 3:01:39 PM
|
I believe conventionals, FE's, and RE's are all great. It just depends on your district's needs.
If you want a relatively inexpensive bus, buy a conventional. If you need all the passenger capacity buy an FE or RE. However, some of the smaller back roads and side streets may be a little tricky to accomodate the bigger transit style buses though. But don't forget, they are also the ones to have a better turning radius.
My favorite out of all of them is the RE. With the RE, engine noise is reduced, it can hold many people, visibility is maximized, no engine hump in the front, and it drives better in the snow because of the weight of the engine that is keeping the back of the bus down and gives more traction to the tires. Just be careful if you have to brake going down a steep hill. It may get a little tricky.
The FE has the engine up front. The engine hump can be a safety hazard sometimes. If you are in an accident, it can be dangerous to have it there. In addition, it gets a little noisy up there too.
The conventionals are nice but you have a hood and engine in front of you which limits your visibility. The inside of a conventional is usually quiet though for the most part.
But like I said, it all depends on your district's needs and what they can afford to provide its drivers with.
|
|
|
|
Bus Boy 39
Top Member
USA
1315 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2001 : 3:30:45 PM
|
[quote]
Bus Boy....in your mixed fleet, would you be able to form an opinion on which type was more reliable, had less breakdowns, or reqired less or easier maintenance?....and do your drivers have any preference on which type bus they would rather use on a long trip???
Yes, I can and I did. All of the drivers I talked to who drove both conv. and transit styles said that all of them where pretty good on reliability, breakdowns, and easier maintenance. However, that did have some flaws on the buses! Mainly the ones who drove the transit styles buses. The ones who drove the All Am's. said that they weren't too fond of the air doors or the front beeing flat. This is our first year with a new contractor who has mostly transit (about 17). Last year all of the drivers had conv. styles and they didn't have the air door or flat front, so they weren't use to the BRAND NEW buses. The TC/2000's drivers had the same dislikes but, they didn't have air doors, and where upset because the had the "poorer/cheaper" transits. They thought the owners where favoring other drivers and rewarding them with nice buses. The conv.{about 13} drivers had no problelms with there buses! Thank heaven! Sorry for typing too much!! 
|
|
|
|
Bus Boy 39
Top Member
USA
1315 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2001 : 03:18:51 AM
|
OK, here's another stone in the pie! Which transit, Thomas Saf-T-Liner or All American/TC/2000 do you think is better?
|
|
|
|
ernestb
Senior Member
USA
145 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2001 : 1:42:00 PM
|
I have to say the Thomas Saf-t-Liner, its the best made bus in the market, HOWEVER for those districts that cant afford it can opt for the Bluebirds TC, since they are just as good.. Thomas willl last longer and much stronger
|
|
|
|
B. Busguy33
Top Member
USA
3444 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2001 : 3:46:01 PM
|
I believe that the all-new Thomas Saf-T-Liner ER's are indeed the BEST transit out of all of those 3. The second would be the Blue Bird All-American RE/FE and then, my personal favorite out of all of them the TC/2000 FE. It is too bad they discontinued the RE version of this model.
All of these buses are excellent. It just depends on what the driver prefers and most of all what the school district can afford. Hope this helps you all out.
|
|
|
|
svhockeyjock
Senior Member
USA
68 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2001 : 7:45:11 PM
|
Personally i prefer the conventional for one reason. About 2 years back our mechanichs decided to adjust the brakes on my bus just before i left on a good 60 mile (one way) charter, they told me take bus #24 (a 1998 TC2000) i had trained for my CDL School Bus lisence on these kinds of busses and tested in one. But the run i took had a conventional bus so i never drove a snub-nose after that. I learned real quick that i cannot drive snub busses as the proximity of me to the road and how close i am to the winshield literally make me physically sick. I spent most of the trip in bus 24 trying not to puke. So i prefer the conventional busses. And BTW i agree with Thomas86 "Thomas Built Busses by far are the best on the road"
John Scott Boreland |
|
|
|
SubaruBoy85
Active Member
25 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2001 : 08:44:17 AM
|
Our county is mainly Conventionals, w/ about 6 2000 Thomas Saf-T-Liner FE. I can't really say much about the transits b/c I have yet to ride on one, I think the drivers like them and they are putting more of them at the High School, b/c more students, less buses. All I have ever rode is Conventional style buses, and I see no faults w/ them.
|
|
|
|
John Farr
Top Member
USA
642 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2001 : 08:53:36 AM
|
You forgot the International RE. Drive one - you'll be impressed! If you have hilly terrain, the DT530 is best, Medium hills - the DT466, and flat - 444E.
We also like the All American RE with the John Deere 8.1 liter CNG, or the Cat 3126 diesel.
The new Thomas designis very attractive and has many improvements, including their suspension. We may be buying some now that they offer the John Deere CNG engine.
It boils down to driver comfort, intial purchase price, quality/integrity of dealer service, and predicted cost of parts and maintenance.
|
|
|
|
B. Busguy33
Top Member
USA
3444 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2001 : 4:23:50 PM
|
John,
I agree with you 110% on the International RE's. The newest ones are outstanding!!!!
For the rest of you who may not think so, go check them out at www.navistar.com to see what's new with them. I think you will be impressed over the MANY drastic improvements they have made with them.
|
|
|
|
Dianne
New Member
3 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2001 : 1:15:42 PM
|
Our drivers are sold on the transit style, either one - TC or A.A.- due to visibility. The only problem we have in SW Kansas with the TC's: they don't handle real well in the mud or the opposite - dry, washboard roads. In rural areas we use conventionals,
66-72 pass. GMC Blue Birds. I was apprehensive when it came to moving a driver from a transit bus to a conventional. But the new GMC's are so easy to manuever and the difference in visibility is so slight that the drivers don't complain! The conventionals are perfect in the rural and urban areas, mud or no mud/snow. The conventionals have 3126 CATs and 545 Allison Auto. The only complaint we have on transit style units is the low hanging stepwell. We have damaged the corner hitting dips in the streets, driver negligence. We've had a couple of replacements done when involved in an accident, expensive! We have a few air operated doors, the first ones did not have regulators, not good. In the future we plan on only using them on the units for out of town activity trips. The driver opens the door to activate the red 8-ways/stop sign and on windy days it is impossible to keep the weather (blowing rain, snow, dust) out while waiting for the students to reach the bus. With a manual door the driver can hold the door partially shut until the students are ready to step on board.
|
|
|
|
boomur
Senior Member
Canada
53 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2001 : 12:58:00 PM
|
I have driven both cab over and conventional and to be honest the each have thier advantages. The conventional is great in the snow, but if you spend alot of time driving in the city or have to get in and out of tight spots then you are definately gonna want the cabover(transit)style.
|
|
|
|
Shawn Weaser
New Member
USA
7 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2001 : 6:52:17 PM
|
Our fleet will soon be totally transit style.We own 125 buses and only 10 are conventional.From the mechanics standpoint the conventional is easier to work on hands down,but from the drivers standpoint the transit style is 100% better to drive and the turning radious is great!!Also the best from the safety standard--TOP PRIORITY!!
CDSDMECH87 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Transit style-vs-Conventional
