Jump to content

NABIs Pulled from Service


Kevin

Recommended Posts

BTW, how about we call him "Former CTA President Ron Huberman", huh? People who visit this site from other cities, perhaps countries, will think the head of the Chicago Public Schools is in charge of the Chicago Transit Authority(which he isn't, but your posts sure make like it look like the CPS Chief is).

We could call him "The Artist formerly known as President Huberman". :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

If the nabis dont go back in service soon,U are saying we are going to be 200 buses down. I dont think so if the tmc and flxs we have left at south shops run i bet u see them. I dont think cta is going to run 200 buses down knowing there have some buses that can be used! But i forgot i dont have 1000+ post on here!

208 of the NABI 60LFWs are being replaced with New Flyer DE60LFs but when the NABI 60LFWs were removed from service CTA informed customers of a fleet shortage. So that was resulting in overcrowded buses and no shows on certain runs. But at least CTA was hones that there were going to be missing departures. If this was Baltimore chances are they would pretend there were delays and passengers would find out the hard way that service is barely operating. Which can cause ridership to decrease and hopfeully CTA ridership did not decrease as the result of the NABI 60LFWs being pulled from service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Sorry to resurrect a old thread, I came to Chicago looking forward to ride these buses only to find out from a bus driver I had a lenghty chat that these buses have been parked for 2 1/2 years.

From what I gather there are structual problems in the articulated joint prompting early retirement, I also learned that theres an ongoing lawsuit against NABI filed by the CTA.

Anyone have any updates on the lawsuit that is going on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to resurrect a old thread, I came to Chicago looking forward to ride these buses only to find out from a bus driver I had a lenghty chat that these buses have been parked for 2 1/2 years.

From what I gather there are structual problems in the articulated joint prompting early retirement, I also learned that theres an ongoing lawsuit against NABI filed by the CTA.

Anyone have any updates on the lawsuit that is going on?

It was a bad, bad deal! They were good looking buses but then the structural failure incident happened and the buses were pulled from service almost immediately. I didnt get a chance to ride them often, I probably only got about three rides on them in their brief 5 year history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NABI=FAIL

I wonder what the outcome of the lawsuit was, since the last time this was discussed was in July 2009. It's got to have a judgement rendered by this time. I think it was downright stupid for NABI to counter-sue the CTA for not paying for these dangerous vehicles.

If the lawsuit was settled then wouldn't they be off CTA property with the money given back instead of parked at 77th and 103rd?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Junk buses !!!

One caught on fire (video on youtube),They always rattled and broke down like crazy ( not acceptable for a then 4-5 year old bus rolleyes.gif ).And I remember riding one on the 147 it was raining bad outside and water

started to leak from the roof inside and onto my lapangry.gif .Oddly enough the 436 artic's that SAMTRANS has here in the San Francisco bay area have been GOOD reliable buses Good ole' high floors !!!!!!cool.giftongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the lawsuit was settled then wouldn't they be off CTA property with the money given back instead of parked at 77th and 103rd?

The answer to that would be yes.

Anyone have any updates on the lawsuit that is going on?

I was going to do my usual foaming, but actually found the case on the Circuit Court docket online. It would be a heck of a lot more fun if the actual documents were also on line. The case number is 2008-L-009867.

The best I can tell is that the Tribune reported that CTA filed an amended counterclaim, around May, 2010, alleging that Cerberus should be brought into the suit, because it deprived NABI of the money to fix the buses. This was probably to find an entity that has money.

The docket then shows that on 6/21/2010, the motion to strike the counterclaim was denied, so the counterclaim is still good.

Then there were various motions to comply, I presume to discovery requests, so any pap about "CTA not letting us inspect" is pap.

Then, on 8/1/2011, there was a motion for summary judgment, which was continued. What summary judgment means is that after all the discovery (inspection of things, depositions of parties, answers to interrogatories) are completed, one side or the other files a motion saying that there is no need for a trial because those documents mean that there is no dispute over the facts, and one side is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

So, that's where we are right now. The judge could grant summary judgment and that would be the end of the case in the Circuit Court. On the other hand, the judge could decide that there are disputed questions of fact, and then a trial would have to be held. Since NABI filed a jury demand it would have to be a jury trial, unless they withdrew it. So, you might be called to the Daley Center to sit on that jury. Of course, anything could be appealed.

So, thank Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown for putting that much information online and me for your legal education for today. At least you now have an answer.:huh:

UPDATE: The docket reflects that someone sued Detroit Diesel, I would guess over the allegation that the particulate filters clogged up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Junk buses !!!

One caught on fire (video on youtube),They always rattled and broke down like crazy ( not acceptable for a then 4-5 year old bus rolleyes.gif ).And I remember riding one on the 147 it was raining bad outside and water

started to leak from the roof inside and onto my lapangry.gif .Oddly enough the 436 artic's that SAMTRANS has here in the San Francisco bay area have been GOOD reliable buses Good ole' high floors !!!!!!cool.giftongue.gif

Ill never forget what a CTA Bus Instructor told our class one day at Chicago Ave. Training. We were completing an "Ambassador Training" program to improve try to customer/employess relations! Yeah Right!!!! :) LOL!!! Anyway, this instructor told us a little secret which really isnt much of a secret to those of us who eat, sleep and live buses! :) He told us how CTA goes for the lowest cost for new vehicles, his quote was "you get what you pay for!" In other words he told us that whenever CTA would go for the lowest bid when purchasing new vehicles, 9 times out 10 they are expecting junk! He also told us how "CTA always wants to be different".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... In other words he told us that whenever CTA would go for the lowest bid when purchasing new vehicles, 9 times out 10 they are expecting junk! He also told us how "CTA always wants to be different".

However, Pace has said that low bid is about the only criterion, and they buy cheaper stuff than CTA does. You never saw CTA buy any Orion Is or VIs new. CTA has insisted on the Standard Bus Procurement Guidelines, and while it said that it was the first to use them in procuring articulated buses, it did not enforce them on this order. Also, NABI announced that it was the low bidder on the CTA 1050 contract, but didn't get that contract. We'll have to see what and if Pace announces for the 416 bus procurement on Wednesday.

One probably could say that NF was not the lowest bidder for the DE60LFs, and, in fact, it was not bid, but just assigned options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a hypothetical question....

Since the manufacturer will probably not buy the buses back. Has CTA ever thought about returning some of these buses back in service? Rather than letting them waste way like that? I mean millions of dollars have been wasted already buying these buses so why not make what's left of them.

I am sure some of the these buses can be used as parts to make the others of it's kind in roadworthy condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a hypothetical question....

Since the manufacturer will probably not buy the buses back. Has CTA ever thought about returning some of these buses back in service? Rather than letting them waste way like that? I mean millions of dollars have been wasted already buying these buses so why not make what's left of them.

I am sure some of the these buses can be used as parts to make the others of it's kind in roadworthy condition.

If CTA did that it would show the buses are safe and fixable. That's not a good legal strategy if there sueing the manufacturer. Like Hawk Harrelson says They Gone!! :lol:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If CTA did that it would show the buses are safe and fixable. That's not a good legal strategy if there sueing the manufacturer. Like Hawk Harrelson says They Gone!! :lol:

I agree with that. Look up at my report on the status of the case, including that someone is suing Detroit Diesel, so it can be assumed that the engine parts are no good.

What is going to happen is that the buses are going to sit there, either until discovery or the litigation itself is done. Then either NABI will haul them off, as it implied it would do two years ago, or CTA will sell them for scrap, per pound.

In the meantime, if you want to go all legal again, I don't think there is an obligation to mitigate damages. You learn the first day of law school that in a breach of warranty case like this (the allegation is that NABI breached the express warranty that the structure would stay sound for 12 years), the measure of damages is the difference between what the product would have been worth as warranted and what it was worth as delivered. The court would have to determine if it has any value in its current state.

In fact, since this is in the Law Division, the only question is how much CTA owes NABI or vice versa, not the disposition of the defective goods, unless NABI accepts their return, or as relevant to determine their value as noted above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then either NABI will haul them off, as it implied it would do two years ago, or CTA will sell them for scrap, per pound.

If either of these were to happen... would we see an order for more to replace those? Or maybe even to replace the NOVAs for their upcoming retirement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If either of these were to happen... would we see an order for more to replace those? Or maybe even to replace the NOVAs for their upcoming retirement?

Replace, no. This gets back to Huberman originally saying that the 150 leased DE60LFs were to replace the 6000 series 3 for 4, but when Carter or Rodriguez said that the NABIs were off the street, and Rodriguez cut routes and benched the 6000s, it was obvious that the 150 leased plus the 58 stimulus ones were to replace the NABIs. The various news articles at the time said that the artics on the street (DE60LFs) were not the ones that were recalled, and that while there would be a short term shortage, CTA was getting the rest of the 208.

As far as replacing Novas, the only official word was last year's budget:

Nova buses, which will have reached their useful life in 2012, will begin to be replaced. However, the CTA does not have the total funds available in the current five-year program to fully replace all Nova buses.

Of course, Claypool is late with this year's budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that. Look up at my report on the status of the case, including that someone is suing Detroit Diesel, so it can be assumed that the engine parts are no good.

What is going to happen is that the buses are going to sit there, either until discovery or the litigation itself is done. Then either NABI will haul them off, as it implied it would do two years ago, or CTA will sell them for scrap, per pound.

In the meantime, if you want to go all legal again, I don't think there is an obligation to mitigate damages. You learn the first day of law school that in a breach of warranty case like this (the allegation is that NABI breached the express warranty that the structure would stay sound for 12 years), the measure of damages is the difference between what the product would have been worth as warranted and what it was worth as delivered. The court would have to determine if it has any value in its current state.

In fact, since this is in the Law Division, the only question is how much CTA owes NABI or vice versa, not the disposition of the defective goods, unless NABI accepts their return, or as relevant to determine their value as noted above.

I can only imagine what a PR disaster this would be for NABI. Obviously it didnt seem to affect the company too much, given that the CTA incident was posted for the whole country to read not to mention other bus manufaacturers, it must not have affected sales or production too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only imagine what a PR disaster this would be for NABI. Obviously it didnt seem to affect the company too much, given that the CTA incident was posted for the whole country to read not to mention other bus manufaacturers, it must not have affected sales or production too much.

One has to figure that most of their business is LA (which seems satisfied, and maybe their recalled BRTs were not as bad or were fixed) and NJ (fixated on high floor buses, and essentially NABI is the only provider of them).

Then the stimulus money ran out, and NABI tried peddling the LA options, including to Pace.

Since it is only selling to the government, the PR probably isn't an issue.

I see that the "Ordinance authorizing a contract for the purchase, manufacture and delivery of forty foot low floor diesel transit buses" is on the Pace agenda for tomorrow, so, probably within a week, we will have empirical proof of your proposition, one way or the other. In another month, it will be interesting if the Minutes show any discussion of this item.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If either of these were to happen... would we see an order for more to replace those? Or maybe even to replace the NOVAs for their upcoming retirement?

The way next years budget's going I wouldn't be surprised if half to 3/4 of the Novas got benched like the #6000's. That may be what happens with the #2200 railcars too, depending on if they can get that many #5000's out by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

You bring up an interesting point, Busjack. We certainly don't have this information, but it makes me wonder what the terms of Cerebus buying out the Hungarians were, whether Cerebus would assume any debt or responsibility for litigation for any actions under previous ownership. Is it possible that Cerebus could settle with CTA and go after the Hungarians, but then that might not be possible if that company doesn't exist anymore.

The original announcement was that the assets of NABI RT. were acquired by NABI Gyarto, and that those assets included NABI USA. There were the corporate layers that Gyarto was an affiliate of Traxis of Netherlands, but the NABI USA site said all were affiliates of Cerberus.

Whatever shell remained of NABI RT after the buyout was renamed as Exbus. Bloomberg report.

NABI Nyrt was organized by the First Hungary Fund, which was reported as having liquidated (no year on the article, though).

More than likely, Cerberus bought the assets and liabilities, sort of like what Bank of America apparently did with Countrywide. The CTA contract, and the warranties associated with it, undoubtedly were part of those assets and liabilities.

As I noted above with respect to the lawsuit. CTA brought in Cerberus because CTA alleged that Cerberus deprived its NABI subsidiary of the money to fix the buses.

So, basically you were right that there probably wasn't a way to get Exbus to pay.

I believe the CTA will not exercise all of its options at one time in the future, especially before it has even been satisfied with its first set of deliveries. Just imagine if these problems came up and CTA had stuck with just the base order. With funding still available, CTA could've put out another bid if necessary, and they still would have the choice of exercising the other options with Bombardier if CTA was satisfied with how this current fiasco was being handled.

In effect, CTA exercised all of its options with NABI before they delivered much of anything, but one would have to go through the Press Releases to verify that, and I'm too lazy at the moment.

The explanation for exercising the last 2 Bombardier options was that they were going to expire and rebidding would cost even more. 5 years after 2006 is 2011.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...