Talk:San Francisco Municipal Railway fleet

Muni Routes that uses 40ft and 30 ft [XD40 Buses]
Prepare for a large information update those routes. Coming in the future — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Images
It seems that I accidently deleted one of the images from this article--it was the second image under the 'historical fleet' section. I meant to move it to the 'diesel' section, but the copy and paste function in my computer grayed out on me. Feel free to add that image back. --Kannie | talk 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct Year In Service According to the SFMTA Fleet Management Plan?
According to this, are all the years the vehicles start service correct or incorrect? Because of this edit, it may make sense that the Neoplan 40-footers are from 2000-01, and the 60-ft ones are from 2002-03. The Good Guy (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This page needs to be protected.
I'm not an administrator, but this page needs to be protected indefinitely because too much false info has been put into this page. I reverted them though. Blame Twinkle. The Good Guy (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If anything, it should be split between the buses and streetcars/cable cars. -User:DanTD (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is another helpful option. The Good Guy (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

SF Muni XT40 Fleet Numbers
, 5701-5884 are 184 units; Muni ordered 185, so these are 5701-5885.The Good Guy (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Neoplan AN460 Retirement
, can you please discuss why the Neoplan AN460s have retired with source from Detroit Diesel 6V92TA from CPTDB? If you don't have it, then you're in trouble. The Good Guy (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

LRV2/3 premature retirements
I am curious which specific Breda cars have been retired so far. You recently edited the article to note that one LRV3 (#1474) was permanently retired after a 2017 collision with a truck. Previously, the article stated that two LRV2s had been retired. Is it possible to confirm if the two retired LRV2s are #1407 and #1433, which were involved in the collision at West Portal on July 18, 2009? Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, 1494 is the LRV that hit a truck and is tarped off at MME. It's not been officially retired yet but we are salvaging parts from it to keep the rest of the fleet rolling. So it is in effect retired, there is a very low chance that we'll repair it given the replacements arrive within 2 years. As to the west portal accident, 1429 and 1435 are retired. 1429 is 1407A and 1429B, 1435 is 1433A and 1435B. 1407 and 1433 are in service, 1429 and 1435 are retired. So there are three total retired, 1429 (composed of 1407A and 1429B), 1435 (composed of 1433A and 1435B) and then 1494. Hope that helps, https://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/09/SFMTA-Item-14.pdf -thats the contract for the repairs. It's importaint to note, the reason it says 7 lrvs in thac contract is because the 8th heavily damaged one (1428) was repaired under a provision in the origional contract 309, mod 10 or 12.


 * Thanks! That makes sense and satisfies my curiosity. Like the earlier Boeing/Vertol LRV1s, since there is an "A" end and "B" end on each car, the ends that were damaged in the 2009 West Portal collision (1407A and 1433B) were removed and the "good" ends were spliced onto other "good" ends from cars 1429 and 1435. As you explained above, according to the contract amendment, this means there is a "rebuilt" 1407 (1407B+1429A) and a "rebuilt" 1433 (1433B+1435A).
 * As identified in the contract amendment (page 60), 1435A had been stripped of parts but had no structural damage. Parts were taken from damaged 1433A to complete 1435A prior to joining 1435A to 1433B and making a rebuilt car 1433.
 * Similarly, 1429A had been stripped of parts, so it was completed using parts from damaged 1407A prior to joining 1429A and 1407B to make rebuilt 1407.
 * Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that all of the LRV2 vehicles are off-property and retired as of 2/29/2024, at some point it would be worth the time to go through and separate out the LRV2s and LRV3 fleets in the tables in the main article, as the LRV3 fleet is now receiving several upgrades that make them differ from the LRV2 fleet, (security camera software, payment systems to name a few examples), and it would be inaccurate to state that the LRV2 fleet is currently running when no LRV2 has been in service since the night of December 12, 2023. Best,CPS.OAK 18:44 UTC, 15 April, 2024

Bus retirement reasons?
Can you tell me why each of every bus has retired and been replaced if necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Typically buses are retired at or near their mandated age. The Federal Transit Administration provides subsidies for transit agencies making transportation purchases that qualify under "Buy America", which means vehicles that undergo final assembly in the US with a preponderance of American-sourced components (axles, wheels, engines, transmissions, etc.). In return, the FTA mandates a service life of a subsidized vehicle. For most heavy-duty transit buses, that life is 12 years. For rail vehicles, it's around 25 years. FTA will occasionally reduce the life to allow the use of subsidies if the vehicle proves to be problematic (e.g. the Boeing/Vertol US SLRV) but most transit agencies plan their procurements around the mandated service lives. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify one point, I'm sure meant the FTA mandates a minimum service life (of 12 years for heavy-duty transit buses).  In some large transit systems, such as those in Portland and Seattle, buses are commonly kept in service for about 18 years, and buses are very rarely retired an age of less than 15 years. For trolleybuses, the lifespan is typically around 20–25 years. But I realize this talk page is only about Muni. SJ Morg (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)