Any online photos of Neoplan TT’s?

[FatNoah]

I've heard that the Authority was surprised how many riders continued to opt for the 77 instead of the 79.

It's really no big surprise. I used to live in East Arlington and took the 77 (mostly) and 79 or 350 occasionally. To me it seemed like the 77 was able to get to Porter Square much faster than the 79 or 350 go to Alewife. It wasn't uncommon to see people transfer from the 79 or 350 at the inbound stop before Alewife Brook Parkway.

can safely say that the NIMBY's there will never allow those unsightly trackless wires in their town now

You'd be surprised. My wife doesn't even notice the wires, especially since they are a log more discreet than power/phone/cable wires. For those who don't like the wires, take a look at Huron Ave. in Cambridge. They really don't stand out.

Finally, people on the busses that live on Mass. Ave that I talked to would LOVE TT's vs. diesels. Those diesels are loud when the accelerate.[/quote]

[jwhite07]

In any event, as a former Arlington resident, I can safely say that the NIMBY's there will never allow those unsightly trackless wires in their town now. Arlington has been gradually transformed over the past two decades from a Wonder Bread white-collar suburb to a trendy Starbucks town complete with coffeehouses and restaurants.

And Cambridge and Belmont aren't? Yet they have no problem with trackless trolleys... in fact, I think part of the reason the Harvard-based trackless lines continue to survive even after they were eliminated everywhere else is that Cambridge wanted them to stay!

The MBTA does not allow CNG buses to operate under trackless trolley wires for more than very short distances because they are concerned that if both wires came down for some reason and fell onto a CNG bus (which have roof-mounted fuel tanks) it might cause an explosion. CNG buses do run under trackless wire for a couple hundred feet from Cambridge Street to Dawes Island, whenever a New Flyer is used on the 86. I've also seen CNGs on the 57, where they'd be under wire at Watertown Yard. I guess that these very short durations and distances aren't much cause for concern, but the T would never assign a CNG bus to the 77, for example. CNG buses are also absolutely prohibited from operating into the Harvard Square tunnel.

[Ron Newman]

Does this mean that CNGs will never be used for Red Line Night Owl service?

[jwhite07]

I'd say so, unless they de-energize the wire at night, which I don't think they do... also, does the Night Owl bus run through the tunnel? If so, they wouldn't use CNGs whether the wire was energized or not.

[Ron Newman]

The Night Owl follows the Red Line from Central through Harvard to Porter, so it couldn't go through the tunnel, at least not outbound. I think Harvard Station is locked up during Night Owl hours, anyway.

[octr202]

I wouldn't expect to see CNG's on the Red Line Night Owl -- given the trip on Mass Av.

Are any of the Neoplan diesel's expected later this year to be assigned to Charlestown? if not, those Harvard Square diesel routes will quickly be home to the oldest buses in the fleet. I wonder if 77 riders will get 'bus envy' when they see the new TT's while they wait for the old RTS's...

[RailBus63]

In any event, as a former Arlington resident, I can safely say that the NIMBY's there will never allow those unsightly trackless wires in their town now. Arlington has been gradually transformed over the past two decades from a Wonder Bread white-collar suburb to a trendy Starbucks town complete with coffeehouses and restaurants.

And Cambridge and Belmont aren't? Yet they have no problem with trackless trolleys... in fact, I think part of the reason the Harvard-based trackless lines continue to survive even after they were eliminated everywhere else is that Cambridge wanted them to stay!

Those trackless wires have been up in Cambridge, Belmont and Watertown for 46 years (and a lot longer than that if you count the streetcar wires). Maybe I would be surprised. It’s just that I had a front-row seat as Arlington changed from being an unpretentious suburb into Cambridge Lite. I just have a hard time believing that those folks will gladly allow the MBTA to install the poles and hardware for trackless operation.

JD

[jwhite07]

Those trackless wires have been up in Cambridge, Belmont and Watertown for 46 years (and a lot longer than that if you count the streetcar wires). Maybe I would be surprised. It’s just that I had a front-row seat as Arlington changed from being an unpretentious suburb into Cambridge Lite. I just have a hard time believing that those folks will gladly allow the MBTA to install the poles and hardware for trackless operation.

Cambridge Lite. I love it! :D

All you have to do is pitch it as quiet, cheap, and environmentally friendly, and that ought to take out most of the oppositions. Slay the diehards by saying, "But Cambridge has them too... don't you want to be just like them?"

[vanshnookenraggen]

Id love to see TT's in Atown and there are probably alot of people who would too but I know there are alot of people who wouldnt that don't show up on the radar until it comes to a vote.

As for Cambridge Lite, ACE!

[octr202]

Not to stray from the good topic of expanding the TT system, there's been some odd operations tonight on the 71. From my apartment on Mt. Auburn St., I've seen at least five different RTS's operating tonight, including one at about 9:30 PM. This evening, my trip (after a LONG wait at Harvard, seeing 5 73's go by, including 4116), was an old 8700 (non-wheelchair lift -- so it wasn't a lift request assignment) RTS. Did the T lose a bunch of TT's tonight? Its clearly not the overhead that's down -- there are several old TT's running as well as the diesels tonight. Very odd -- makes me wonder if they've stopped doing repairs on many of the old Flyers at this point -- just yank them from service and substitute diesels until the new Neoplan's are ready to go.

[octr202]

Well, if we're going to be stuck with RTS's all summer, they could at least give us ones with AC!

[Reddy Rocker]

If this running of the RTS's is true, then it's another half-assed decision by the T. They should be running the old TT's until the new TT's are in service fully. Has anyone seen the four currently in serive new TT's lately? (That is, according to Scott Moore's site, four of the new TT's are in service now, but that could have changed.)

[jwhite07]

I've seen three of the four new ETBs in service so far, and the Flyers are still soldiering on, too. The T is not going to get rid of the Flyers anytime soon, because they need them to protect the Harvard-based service while the Neoplans break in, and also when some of the Neoplans get drawn off to protect service on the South Boston Piers Transitway until the new dual-modes arrive for that service.

The T has scrapped the worst of the Flyers (they had all been out of service for many years anyway), and stored some of the others recently. But there are still more active Flyers than are needed to cover the schedule, not to mention the four new ones in service as well. I fully expect it may be a year or even more before the last Flyer trackless trolley turns a wheel in revenue service and gets retired.

[octr202]

Well, yesterday seemed to be another bad day for the 71. There were severall diesel sightings during the day.

At night I arrived at Harvard a little after 11 PM. The 71 at that time is running every 30 minutes at the :00 and :30. 73's left at 11:15, 11:28 and 11:50, and finally the 4116 (which had been the 11:28 to Waverley) showed up at 12:10 AM (complete with non-functioning destination sign and ASA). The driver said that she had be switched to the 71 because one of the TT's running that route caught on fire (!!!!) at Watertown Square about 11:00 last night. So, anyone hear about that?

Also, they must have had the 4116 use the loop at Trapelo Rd. and Belmont St., because the 4038 left for Waverley before the 4116, but returned after it. Could this be the first use of that loop by a Neoplan? Some "rare wireage" there...

[octr202]

4108 was in service this morning on Rt. 73 (as was 4117 on Rt. 71) -- first time I've seen something other than 4116 & 4117 running. Since Friday, none of the three (4108, 4116, 4117) that I've seen in revenue service have had working destination signs.

And the cardboard sign department hasn't made it to North Cambridge yet.

Anyone think that the Neoplans should have had rollsigns in them?