A Not-Nice Opinion of Gillig Transit Buses
Zack Willhoite
also it could be how your particular transit orderd their coaches in the first
place. i have found the newrer gilligs to be better than the older ones and a lot
of the concerns you adress have been fixed. and the Phantom model transit came
before the school model i belive.
JoePCC699 wrote:
> In my opinion, Gilligs are one of the worst transit buses made today. As one
> who has professionally driven them since their arrival on our property in 1988,
> the following are some of the problems I have personally encountered
> with these masterpices of the bus industry, and my opinions thereof:
> (1) there is no driver's platform; the driver's seat base rests on the
> passenger floor. This is an extremely dangerous situation. One day, a soda
> can rolled from the back to the front of the bus into the driver's area. I
> didn't realize exactly where it landed until I attempted to make a brake
> application. The brake pedal was jammed by the errant can. To stop the bus,
> it was necessary to use the ICC/parking brake, much to the discomfort - and
> potential injury - of the passengers. Any reasonable or even half-intelligent
> design engineer would have forseen this inherent danger. If these so-called
> "engineers" would have driven a prototype in revenue service for at least a few
> days perhaps they would have realized the error of their ways.
> (2) the driver's window is so poorly designed that it continues to come out.
> Some of our vehicles have been rerofitted with hold-in bars about 3 inches from
> the top. While holding the window itself in, a good quantity of outside air
> rushes in thrrough the top gap - an especially nice touch duiring the winter.
> (3) the driver's area is so small that any driver exceeeding 150 or so lbs.
> hasa very difficult time sitting down, and, if he/she has a little stomach
> pouch, this area of the body tends to hold the steering wheel in place. Due to
> the limited size of the driver's area, there is absolutely no room to store any
> of the driver's personal effects, such as a bag, clipboard, etc.
> (4) the bus inself looks like a milk carton turned on its side, and resembles
> the early-1940s era Macks. The front window glare is horrendous.
> (5) the so-called suspension "system" is rough, producing a very bouncy,
> uncomfortable ride, the subject of many negative passenger comments.
> (6) the bus does not appear to have and interior noise insulation and the
> engine/transmission noise resonates through the entire bus, making normal
> conversation quite difficult.
> (7) Perhaps Gillig builds a decent school bus, but using the same design as a
> transit vehicle just does not work.
JoePCC699
Steve Hoskins
In article <199804110215...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
joep...@aol.com (JoePCC699) wrote:
AGREED WHOLEHEARTEDLY!!!!!!! The Gillig Phantom is a genuine piece of crap.
I have driven them myself since 1990. The property where I drive has been getting New Flyers
since then, and I must say, for the driver, they are a thousand times better in all respects.
We just got another 117 low-floor buses, and I can't really say anything bad about them.
Robert Johnson
Joe:
You have it slightly backwards. For years Gillig manufactured high end school
buse, competing with Crown Coach in LA. The school buses they made didn't even
remotely resemble the Phantom of then or now.
After Prop 13 passed in California in the late 70's, making Gillig's unaffordable
to most school districts, Gillig quit making their school bus line, devoting their
line to the Phantom. Apparently they saw some demand for high end school buses
after Crown went bankrupt, and converted the Phantom over to a school bus. I
guess there wasn't as much demand as they thought though, and I think they dropped
school buses altogether.
I've never driven a Phantom, so can't comment on quality. Have driven both
Crown's and Gillig school buses though, and can tell you this. In just about any
district where the head of transportation used to be a driver there were mostly
Crowns. Drivers prefered them about 20 to 1. About the only contractors that ran
Gilligs bought them from districts as part of a fleet purchase to get a contract.
Contractors NEVER bought Gilligs.
Robert Johnson
Herc Wad
Robert Johnson wrote:
>After Prop 13 passed in California in the late 70's, making Gillig's
unaffordable
>to most school districts, Gillig quit making their school bus line, devoting
their
>line to the Phantom. Apparently they saw some demand for high end school
>buses
>after Crown went bankrupt, and converted the Phantom over to a school bus.
When did Crown go bankrupt? I thought that this was only a few years ago. In
about 1900-1991, they did sell full sized buses. They were squared off, but
kept the trademark single door which swung in.
Also, did Crown go banrupt because their product was too good? In California,
the old Crowns are still being actively operated by school districts. Average
age is 30 years.
> I
>guess there wasn't as much demand as they thought though, and I think they
>dropped
>school buses altogether.
The Phantom is a pretty popular school bus. Considering the competition
(Carpenter, AmTran, Blue Bird), I can see why.
SoCalTIP, Southern California's Comprehensive Transportation Information Page:
<http://socaltip.lerctr.org>
Brian Bradford
Greetings
JoePCC699 wrote in message
<199804110215...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>In my opinion, Gilligs are one of the worst transit buses made today. As
one
>who has professionally driven them since their arrival on our property in
1988,
>the following are some of the problems I have personally encountered
>with these masterpices of the bus industry, and my opinions thereof:
>(1) there is no driver's platform; the driver's seat base rests on the
>passenger floor.
Sir, I correct you on that. Ben Franklin Transit's Gilligs DO have a raised
driver platform.
I feel that the Gillig Phantom is a superior design to Neoplan AN440s. I DO
however, think that Flxible made a better coach. But the thing to remember
is, buses aren't all the same. There's such a thing as a crappy Gillig, and
there's such a thing as an exceptional Gillig.
>(2) the driver's window is so poorly designed that it continues to come
out.
>Some of our vehicles have been rerofitted with hold-in bars about 3 inches
from
>the top. While holding the window itself in, a good quantity of outside
air
>rushes in thrrough the top gap - an especially nice touch duiring the
winter.
If your transit's maintenance staff would concentrate on maintenance,
instead of union issues, the windows wouldn't be unlatching themselves...
Hehr emergency latches are susceptible to dirt buildup, which causes the
latch to open by pressure.
I much prefer Storm-Tite (unfortunately, Gillgs don't offer Storm-Tite
windows)
>(3) the driver's area is so small that any driver exceeeding 150 or so lbs.
>hasa very difficult time sitting down, and, if he/she has a little stomach
>pouch, this area of the body tends to hold the steering wheel in place.
Due to
>the limited size of the driver's area, there is absolutely no room to store
any
>of the driver's personal effects, such as a bag, clipboard, etc.
The driver's compartment is bigger than that of an RTS. Also, if the TA is
willing to lose a seat, the driver's compartment can be enlarged to the BC
Transit/Seattle Metro standard.
>(4) the bus inself looks like a milk carton turned on its side, and
resembles
>the early-1940s era Macks. The front window glare is horrendous.
Gillig buses look nicer than RTS's do.
>(5) the so-called suspension "system" is rough, producing a very bouncy,
>uncomfortable ride, the subject of many negative passenger comments.
Look at my comment about maintenance, above. It applies here, too...
Air suspensions can be tuned for ride quality.
>(6) the bus does not appear to have and interior noise insulation and the
>engine/transmission noise resonates through the entire bus, making normal
>conversation quite difficult.
Yeah, Gilligs made between 1988-1992 have a definate noise problem, but only
with the Detroit 6V92. An illustration is the 10 buses that Minneapolis
has, that seem to be missing their baffles.
>(7) Perhaps Gillig builds a decent school bus, but using the same design as
a
>transit vehicle just does not work.
Burbank, WA (about 10 miles away) has the only 4 Gillig Phantom School buses
in the state of Washington. There's a church, somewhere in the state, that
owns a few Gillig Phantom School Buses, converted for non-school use.
Brian Bradford
(bri...@gte.net)