new york city transit - energy.gov...real-world account of the obstacles that were encountered and...

DOE/NREL Transit Bus Evaluation Project

by

Kevin Chandler, BattelleKevin Walkowicz, National Renewable Energy LaboratoryLeslie Eudy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

July 2002

The authors wish to acknowledge the help and cooperation of the staffat the host site, New York City Transit, especially significant input fromDana Lowell and Bill Parsley. Tom Webb from BAE SYSTEMS providedsignificant input for this evaluation effort. The authors also acknowledgethe editorial contributions of Vincent Brown at Battelle and Jarett Zuboyat NREL.

World Wide Web: http://www.afdc.doe.govNational Alternative Fuels Hotline: 1-800-423-1DOE

NEW YORK CITY TRANSITDIESEL HYBRID-ELECTRICBUSES: FINAL RESULTS

ii

Notice

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibilityfor the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein toany specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, orotherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authorsexpressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or anyagency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.doe.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Scientific and Technical InformationP.O. Box 62Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062phone: 865.576.8401fax: 865.576.5728email: [email protected]

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of CommerceNational Technical Information Service5285 Port Royal RoadSpringfield, VA 22161phone: 800.553.6847fax: 703.605.6900email: [email protected] ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/index.asp

Hybrid-ElectricTransit Buses

Final Results

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Alternative Fuel Projects at DOE and NREL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2The Transit Bus Evaluation Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Host Site Profile: NYCT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

NYCT’s Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4NYCT’s Involvement in Air Quality Improvement . . . . . . . . . . .5

Project Design and Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5NYCT’s Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Project Start-Up at NYCT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Goals of the Orion VI Diesel Hybrid-Electric Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . .9Challenges Encountered during Start-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Evaluation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Actual Bus Use in Revenue Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Fuel Economy and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Fuel Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Fuel Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Engine Oil Consumption and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Factors Affecting Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Maintenance Costs by Vehicle System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Warranty Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Roadcalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Overall Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Overall Operating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Emission Testing Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Testing for NAVC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Testing by Environment Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Future Hybrid Vehicle and

Alternative Fuel Operations at NYCT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30References and Related Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31Appendix A. Fleet Summary Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-1Appendix B. Emission Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-1

iii

Table of Contents

v

New York City Transit (NYCT), part of theMetropolitan Transportation Authority inNew York, began operating the first of 10 heavy-duty diesel hybrid-electric transitbus prototypes (Model VI) from OrionBus Industries in 1998. All 10 buses werein revenue service by mid-2000. The hybridbuses are intended to provide NYCT withincreased fuel economy and lower levelsof harmful exhaust emissions, comparedwith NYCT’s diesel transit buses.

Between 1999 and 2001 (over variouspredefined fuel and maintenance evalua-tion periods), these first 10 hybrid buseswere part of a data collection and analysis project sponsored by the U.S. Departmentof Energy (DOE). The operating costs,efficiency, emissions, and overall perfor-mance of these low-floor hybrid buses werecompared against those of 14 conventionalhigh-floor diesel transit buses (7 eachfrom NovaBUS Corporation and Orion)operated by NYCT in similar service.

Results indicate that the hybrid busesoperate with greater fuel efficiency andmuch lower emissions, compared withthe diesel buses. Maintenance costs for theprototype hybrid buses were significantlyhigher than those of the diesel buses during this evaluation. However, thesecosts are expected to decline for the next-generation Orion VII buses, currentlybeing procured by NYCT, as repair technicians become more familiar withthe advanced hybrid propulsion systems.

ObjectiveThe objective of the DOE research project,managed by the National Renewable EnergyLaboratory (NREL), was to provide trans-portation professionals with quantitative,unbiased information on the cost, main-tenance, operational, and emission char-acteristics of diesel hybrid-electric systems asone alternative to conventional diesel enginesfor heavy-duty transit bus applications.

In addition, this information should benefit decision makers by providing areal-world account of the obstacles thatwere encountered and overcome and thelessons that were learned in adaptinghybrid buses to a transit site previouslygeared toward conventional diesel buses.The field study at NYCT was conductedas part of DOE’s ongoing Transit BusEvaluation Project.

MethodsData were gathered from fuel and maintenance tracking systems daily formore than 1 year. Examples of the dataparameters included:

• Fuel consumption

• Mileage and route information

• Engine oil additions and oil/filterchanges

• Preventive maintenance action records

• Records of unscheduled maintenance(such as roadcalls) and warranty repairs.

The data collection was designed to causeas little disruption for the host site aspossible. In general, staff members at NYCTsent copies (electronic or paper) of datathat had already been collected as part ofnormal business operations to Battelle,which handled and analyzed the data.

Special chassis dynamometer tests ofexhaust emissions and fuel efficiency ofthe hybrid and conventional diesel buseswere also conducted.

Executive Summary


Final Results

vi

Goals of the Orion VI Hybrid FleetAt the time that the 10 Orion VI hybridbuses were delivered, this was the largeststandard 40-foot hybrid bus fleet in theUnited States. Hybrid buses were not astandard configuration for transit applica-tions. BAE SYSTEMS, Orion, and NYCTset out to design, build, and implementthe use of hybrid buses into standardtransit service. All parties were aware thatthis was an investment into unproven technology, and this project was intendedto develop this technology. NYCT set specific goals for the implementation ofhybrid buses in order to measure the success of this development project:

1. Reduce emissions, specifically oxidesof nitrogen (NOx <15 g/mi) and particulate matter (PM <0.06 g/mi)

2. Significantly increase fuel economy3. Show that the hybrid buses can

operate in regular revenue service with no route or driver restrictions

4. Show that the hybrid bus performance(e.g., acceleration, gradability, andrange) was equal to or better than thatof conventional diesel buses and that drivers can switch from one to theother with no significant difference in operation

5. Demonstrate that drivers and passengersperceive hybrid-electric buses positively

6. Significantly increase brake life7. Improve the design of the hybrid bus;

promote the development of the technology through investment

8. Help put the industry in a position tobuild and sell “production” hybrid buses.

All indications from the NYCT programand this evaluation show that this implementation of diesel hybrid-electricbuses has met or exceeded all goals.

Results NYCT, BAE SYSTEMS, and Orion are commit-ted to operating the Orion VI diesel hybrid-electric buses in service, as well as the newOrion VII hybrid buses currently on order.The Orion VI hybrid bus has met all basic“White Book” performance expectations

and requirements, such as gradability,acceleration, low noise, and emissions.

Facility conversion for accommodatinghybrid buses was minor compared topreparing for compressed natural gas(CNG) vehicles.

The hybrid buses had lower mileage(miles driven) on a monthly basis compared to the NovaBUS RTS dieselbuses at the same NYCT depot. Thereduction in usage of the hybrid buseswas a direct result of the need to servicethe buses and the extra time required tocoordinate with the manufacturers totroubleshoot and fix those problems. Thelower mileage for the “pre-production”hybrid buses was expected by NYCT andthe manufacturers.

The hybrid buses had 10% higher in-servicefuel economy on average for the entireevaluation period compared to the NovaBUS RTS diesel buses. Looking at fueleconomy per month, the fuel economyadvantage of the hybrid buses went as highas 22% during one month of the evaluationperiod. The hybrid bus fuel economyimproved during the evaluation period.No external charging was required forthe hybrid buses.

The hybrid buses had a fuel cost permile 9% lower than the NovaBUS RTSdiesel buses.

Chassis dynamometer emission testresults with and without regenerativebraking on the hybrid buses showed thatthe fuel economy increase from thehybrid configuration alone is about 6%.Fuel economy is improved even further(23%–64% higher depending on testcycle) through regenerative braking,which stores energy that would other-wise be wasted heat energy in the brakes.

Maintenance costs for the hybrid buseswere 76%–150% higher than those ofthe NovaBUS diesel buses. The mainte-nance data show that, for the hybridbuses, maintenance costs were much


Final Results

vii

higher for all bus subsystems, even thosethat have nothing to do with the hybridpropulsion system and are virtually identi-cal to the same subsystems on the dieselbuses. This is a strong indication thatthe cost differences between hybrid andstandard diesel will fall significantly forthe next generation of vehicles (OrionVII hybrid), which will be deployed inmuch greater numbers.

For the evaluation period, the hybridbuses had a rate of miles between roadcalls that was 54% lower than theNovaBUS RTS diesel buses for all road-calls and 80% lower for engine and fuel-related roadcalls.

The hybrid buses had operating costs46%–92% higher than the NovaBUS RTSdiesel buses.

Emission testing at NYCT was conductedby West Virginia University on theirmobile chassis dynamometer, for theNortheast Advanced Vehicle Consortium.On the Commercial Business Districttest cycle, for the hybrid buses com-pared with the diesel buses, carbonmonoxide (CO) was 97% lower, NOxwere 36% lower, hydrocarbons (HC)were 43% lower, PM was 50% lower, andcarbon dioxide (CO2) was 19% lower.

Emission testing was also conducted byEnvironment Canada on the new OrionVII diesel hybrid buses and the con-ventional Orion V diesel buses, with andwithout a catalyzed diesel particulate fil-ter (DPF) installed. The new hybrid bushad 94% lower CO, 49% lower NOx,120% higher HC, 93% lower PM, and37% lower CO2 than the Orion V dieselwithout the catalyzed DPF. The newhybrid bus had 38% lower CO, 49%lower NOx, 450% higher HC, 60% lowerPM, and 38% lower CO2 than the OrionV diesel with the catalyzed DPF.

NYCT has ordered 125 Orion VII dieselhybrid buses to be delivered in 2002and another 200 Orion VII diesel hybridbuses to be delivered in 2003 and 2004.Fifty more hybrid buses are to be

ordered in 2002. NYCT has reportedthat they are pleased with the progressmade to date in developing the heavy-duty diesel hybrid bus into a full-servicecommercial product to be used in revenue service at the agency.

Lessons LearnedThe diesel hybrid-electric bus evaluationproject provided NYCT, DOE, and otherparticipants the opportunity to learn manylessons about alternative propulsion systems. Some highlights follow:

• A team effort is required to developand field test a prototype system intoa proven, off-the-shelf system.

• Vendor, manufacturer, and in-housemanagement support are critical during the learning curve at the transitdepot, as maintenance personnel diagnose, troubleshoot, and adapt tothe new systems, especially when thenew systems represent a small fractionof the total bus population at the depot.

• Operators reported that the hybrid buseshad better acceleration, better tractionin bad weather, and smooth braking.

• Riders noticed the quieter ride, and manyexpressed interest and enthusiasm in the“electric power” system on the buses.

• Some obstacles to the commercialgrowth of hybrid bus technologyinclude the performance of currentlead-acid batteries, the availability ofmedium-duty engines certified fortransit bus applications, and the highpurchase cost of the first generation of production vehicles. This high purchase cost is exacerbated by thesmall size of the transit bus market,which cannot support the developmentof new technologies on its own.

• The prospects for greater commercialsuccess would be improved by the availability of low-cost advanced energy storage devices and lower production costs based on theincreased production volume that mayresult from greater penetration of thetruck and military markets.


Final Results

viii

Obstacles OvercomeA number of changes to equipment andsoftware were made in the course of projectstart-up at NYCT. These upgrades helpedthe later Orion VI hybrid buses, and allimprovements are being incorporated intothe design of the new Orion VII hybridbuses ordered by NYCT from Orion. Thesechanges and upgrades were expected forthese pre-production vehicles and are consistent with the first generation of amaturing technology.

Future Diesel Hybrid-Electric Operations at NYCTNYCT has continued its commitment to acleaner emission fleet of buses. The NYCTbus fleet currently consists of 4,489 buses:

• 10 diesel hybrid-electric

• 221 CNG

• 4,258 diesel.

NYCT plans to purchase more CNG andhybrid buses as well as retrofit the remaining diesel buses with catalyzedDPFs. The bus fleet at NYCT in 2006 willconsist of the following buses:

• 385 diesel hybrid-electric

• 646 CNG

• 3,458 diesel with catalyzed DPFs.

The next fleet of hybrid buses at NYCT (an order of 125 Orion VII hybrid buses) is expected to be a nearly full-service, commercial product for NYCT (deliveryplanned to start in mid-2002). The OrionVII hybrid bus has been designed to incorporate all of the technical lessonslearned from the experience with theOrion VI pilot hybrid buses.

The Orion VII diesel hybrid-electric busdesign is expected to be more fully optimized for fuel economy and emissions.With the new order of 125 Orion VII dieselhybrid-electric buses at NYCT, the goals of their hybrid program have progressed.The goals for the operation of the newerhybrid buses are similar to those for theoriginal 10 buses but are now morefocused on reliability and optimization for cost of operations:

1. Continue to significantly reduce busfleet emissions

2. Continue to significantly increase fueleconomy

3. Show that the hybrid buses are com-mercially viable, i.e., hybrids can be purchased in volume with standardterms and conditions to replace conventional diesel buses

4. Demonstrate rapid deployment of alarge number of hybrid buses with minimal infrastructure investment or service capacity interruptions

5. Demonstrate that hybrid buses can bereliable and cost-effective in providingregular revenue service.

NREL plans to implement a follow-up evaluation of the Orion VII hybrid busorder at NYCT, starting as soon as early 2003.

NYCT is converting various depots toaccommodate hybrid and CNG buses andhas specified ultra-low sulfur diesel (lessthan 30 ppm sulfur) fuel for all of its dieseloperations. A new capital spending plan for NYCT will be finalized in 2004 for bus purchases from 2005 through 2009. Thisplan may include more CNG, hybrid, andpossibly fuel cell bus purchases (at least for demonstration purposes).


Final Results

1

New York City Transit (NYCT) is a part of the Metropolitan Trans-portation Authority (MTA) in NewYork. NYCT is the largest agencyin the MTA and includes morebuses than any other publicagency in North America. Its areaof operation and bus terminallocations are shown in Figure 1.

NYCT started a pilot test of dieselhybrid-electric buses in 1998 withthe first 4 of 10 buses it wouldeventually receive from Orion.This fleet of 10 heavy-duty dieselhybrid-electric buses was the subject of the U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)/National RenewableEnergy Laboratory (NREL) TransitBus Evaluation Project.

The hybrid buses were operatedfrom Manhattanville Depot dur-ing the evaluation presented inthis report. The hybrid buses arecompared to 7 NovaBUS dieselbuses operating from the samedepot as the hybrid test busesand 7 Orion diesel buses operat-ing from a nearby depot.

This report summarizes the resultsof the diesel hybrid-electric studyat NYCT. Further technical back-ground, research methods, extensive original data, anddetailed discussions are presentedin a companion document (NewYork City Transit Diesel Hybrid-Electric Bus Site Final Data Report,NREL, February 2002), which isavailable from the National Alternative Fuels Hotline (1-800-423-1363) and on the Web (www.afdc.doe.gov).

OverviewWhat Is a Hybrid Propulsion System?

A hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV) combines an electric propulsion system(electric motor or motors driving the wheels) with another power plantsuch as a conventional internal combustion engine in order to use theadvantages of each.

The series hybrid vehicles at NYCT have a smaller-than-standard dieseltransit bus engine, which uses ultra-low sulfur fuel. The diesel engineoperates within a narrow speed range, so it uses less fuel.

In general, electric propulsion vehicles arevalued because they reducemobile vehicle emissions.However, all-electric vehi-cles usually are limited byrange and onboard energy storage. The use of apower plant in the HEV allows an extendedrange compared with all-electric vehicles. In a transit bus, the power plantis usually an internal combustionengine that is smaller than a standard transit diesel engine.

The hybrid system evaluated at NYCT works in general as follows:1. The diesel engine powers a traction generator that provides primary

power through the propulsion control system to the traction motorand recharges the batteries. The range of the bus is limited by theamount of diesel fuel stored onboard, not by a need to recharge the batteries.

2. The traction motor drives the wheels and regenerates power duringbraking.

3. Batteries provide supplemental power to a traction motor duringacceleration and grade climbing.

4. The propulsion control system manages the flow of power to makethe bus move as the driver commands and uses regenerative brakingto slow the bus and simultaneously recharge the batteries. (Hybridbuses also have conventional brakes.)

5. The system is integrated. During acceleration, power flows from thetraction generator and battery pack to the traction motor; duringcruise mode, power flows from the traction generator to drive thetraction motor and recharge the batteries as needed; and during braking, the traction motor acts as a generator, sending power to thebatteries for recharging.

6. The smaller diesel engine, operating at a more constant speed andwith better overall fuel economy, can significantly reduce overall bus emissions.

BAE SYSTEMS HybriDrive™ Propulsion System


Final Results

2

Alternative Fuel Projects atDOE and NREL

NREL managed the data collection,analysis, and reporting activitiesfor the NYCT Diesel Hybrid-Electricevaluation on behalf of DOE. NRELis a DOE national laboratory. Sup-port was also provided by Battelle.

One of NREL’s missions is to assessthe performance and economicsof alternative fuels and advancedtechnology propulsion systemsobjectively so that

• Fleet managers can makeinformed decisions when purchasing new vehicles.

• Advanced technology vehicles canbe used more widely and suc-cessfully in the future to reduceU.S. consumption of importedpetroleum and to benefit usersand the environment.

Besides the advanced dieselhybrid-electric propulsion system,alternative fuels being evaluated byNREL and participating companies

across the United States includeliquefied natural gas (LNG), compressed natural gas (CNG),biodiesel, ethanol, and propane(liquefied petroleum gas, or LPG).

The Transit Bus EvaluationProject

The overall objective of the ongoingDOE/NREL Transit Bus EvaluationProject is to compare heavy-dutytransit buses using alternativefuel or advanced propulsion tech-nology with those using conven-tional diesel fuel. Specifically, theprogram seeks to provide com-prehensive, unbiased evaluationsof the newest generation of fuel,engine, and vehicle technologies.

Heavy-duty alternative fuel buseshave been evaluated across theUnited States through data collection and analysis since1993.The bus program has included 14 demonstration sites (Table 1).

Sites have been selected accordingto the kind of advanced technologyin use, the types of buses and

Figure 1. New York City Transit bus depot locations

DART (Dallas, TX) LNG

Pierce Transit (Tacoma, WA) CNG

Miami MDTA (Miami, FL) CNG, Methanol

NYCDOT/Triboro Coach Methanol(New York, NY)

NYCDOT/Command Bus CNG (New York, NY) (emissions only)

GP Transit (Peoria, IL) Ethanol

MCTO (Minneapolis, MN) Ethanol

Bi-State (St. Louis, MO) Biodiesel

Atlanta, GA CNG/Dieseland Flint, MI (emissions only)

Long Island, NY CNG/Dieseland Cincinnati, OH (emissions only)

GO Boulder (Boulder, CO) CNG

NYCT (New York, NY) Diesel hybrid-electric

Site/Operator Fuel/Technology

KingsbridgeGun Hill

Mother Clara Hale

Manhattanville

Amsterdam

Michael J. Quill

Hudson Pier

Jackie Gleason

Castleton

YukonUlmer Park

Flatbush

East New York

Fresh Pond

Jamaica

Queens Village

Casey Stengel

126th Street

Bronx

Manhattan

Staten Island

Brooklyn

Queens

Table 1. DOE/NREL Transit Bus EvaluationProject Demonstration Sites


Final Results

engines, the availability of dieselcomparison (“control”) vehicles,and the host site’s interest in usingalternative fuels and advancedtechnology.

The data collection and evaluationefforts are subject to peer reviewand DOE approval. The results ofthe evaluation at each site havebeen published separately andare available from the NationalAlternative Fuels Hotline (1-800-423-1363) and on the Web at www.afdc.doe.gov.

The objective of this project atNYCT is to provide a reasonablecomparison between currentlyavailable advanced propulsiontechnology and standard dieseltransit buses. This comparisonincludes economic, technical,emissions, and safety factors.

Data are collected on the opera-tional, maintenance, performance,and emission characteristics ofeach alternative fuel or advancedpropulsion fleet and comparablediesel fleet operating at the samesite. Transit agencies consideringthe use of advanced propulsiontechnology buses are the primaryintended audience for this infor-mation.

Host Site Profile: NYCT

The MTA, of which NYCT is thelargest agency, had an annualbudget of $7.3 billion for 2001and provides transportation fornearly 7.8 million passengers.The MTA provides rail and busservice in the New York City area,using 4,871 buses and 7,849 passenger rail and subway cars.

The NYCT Department of Busesoperates more buses than any

3

other public agency in NorthAmerica. Its 4,489 buses serveNew York City from 18 depots.These buses cover 235 routes,which total 1,871 miles each day.The NYCT bus fleet operates 115 million miles annually andserves an estimated 2.2 millionpaying customers daily.

Like most other transit companiesin the United States, NYCT hasbeen testing clean emission transitbuses over the past 10 years.NYCT plans to purchase CNGand diesel hybrid buses, as wellas retrofit the entire existingdiesel bus fleet with catalyzeddiesel particulate filters (DPFs).Lower sulfur content diesel fuelhas also been used since 2000.

The use of natural gas has been increasing significantly in the transitbus market since 1994 because natural gas engines can have signifi-cantly cleaner emissions than standard diesel engines. The majordownside with natural gas for transit companies is the extra costs for vehicles, fueling facilities, and maintenance facility upgrades toaccommodate the use of natural gas. These investments are substantial.

Both propane and electric vehicles have been available for smaller thanfull-size transit buses. All-electric vehicles have an issue of reducedrange compared to conventional diesel vehicles of a similar size.

Hybrid-electric buses are expected to allow the use of cleaner electricpower, require a smaller engine or power plant compared to a standardvehicle, and extend the range of an all-electric vehicle by use of thepower plant and regenerative braking. The challenge with hybrid-electric vehicles is the complexity of using electric motors, energystorage devices such as batteries, a power plant such as a small dieselengine, and regenerative braking all in one vehicle.

One purpose of the DOE/NREL Transit Bus Evaluation is to determinethe commercial potential, cost, emission reduction benefits, technicalhurdles, and economic challenges affecting the adoption of advancedtechnology buses.

Emission Reduction Options for Transit Vehicles

Comparison Items Low-Floor Hybrid High-Floor Diesel (Orion) High-Floor Diesel (Nova)

Operating Facility (Depot) Manhattanville Amsterdam ManhattanvilleNumber of Buses 10 7 7Chassis Manufacturer/Model Orion VI Orion V NovaBUS RTSPassenger Capacity Based on GVWR 64 75 79Number of Seats 32 39 40Free Floor Space* (ft2) 87 83 73Chassis Model Year 1998, 1999 1998 1998Engine Manufacturer/Model Navistar/DDC S30 DDC S50 DDC S50

Rated Horsepower 230 bhp @ 2300 rpm 275 bhp @ 2100 rpm 275 bhp @ 2100 rpmMaximum Torque 605 ft-lb @ 1500 rpm 890 ft-lb @ 1200 rpm 890 ft-lb @ 1200 rpm

Compression Ratio 17.5:1 15.0:1 15.0:1Generator Manufacturer/Model BAE SYSTEMS N/A N/A

Maximum Rating 170 kW @ 2000 rpm N/A N/ABattery Pack Manufacturer/Model Hawker

Sealed Lead Acid N/A N/ABattery Pack 2 roof-mounted tubs,

23 batteries each tub, N/A N/A580V Total

Battery Capacity 64 A-h for each N/A N/Abattery at C/3 rating

Regenerative Braking Yes No NoRetarder No Yes YesTransmission Manufacturer/Model -- Allison/B-500R Allison/VR731-RHCatalyzed DPF Used (Y/N) Yes (NETT Technologies) No NoFuel System Capacity (gal) 100 150 150Curb Weight (lb) 31,840 28,500 27,500Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 41,640 39,930 39,500Bus Purchase Cost ($) 465,000 290,000 290,000

Table 2. Vehicle System Descriptions

*NYCT standard for scheduling service is 3.7 ft2 per standee.

RTS hybrid bus from Allison wasoperated until 1999.

NYCT ordered 10 Orion VI hybridbuses in 1997. The first four OrionVI hybrid buses were originallyplanned for delivery to New JerseyTransit but were instead purchasedby NYCT. The fifth Orion VI hybridbus started service in March 1999.The other five Orion VI vehicleswere placed into service in mid-2000. In general, NYCT consideredthis fleet of 10 Orion VI hybridbuses to be a test (or pilot) fleet.These buses are considered byNYCT and the manufacturers(Orion and BAE SYSTEMS) to beprototypes. As shown in Table 2,the 1998 and 1999 model hybridbuses were compared with 14conventional diesel transit buses.


Final Results

4

The overall goal of the NYCTplan includes having 385 dieselhybrid buses and 646 CNG busesin service by 2006. NYCT alsoplans to have the entire existingdiesel bus fleet converted tousing catalyzed DPFs in 2004.

NYCT’s Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses

NYCT introduced heavy-duty hybridtechnology into its operation in1998 with one retrofitted NovaBUSRTS bus with a prototype Allisonseries hybrid system and with fournew Orion VI hybrid buses with theLockheed Martin Control Systems(now BAE SYSTEMS) HybriDrive™propulsion system. The HybriDrive™buses were placed into service inSeptember 1998. The NovaBUS


Final Results

5

The comparison or diesel controlbuses, all model year 1998, werelocated at two NYCT depots.

The first 10 hybrid buses cost an average of $465,000 each. Atypical diesel bus at NYCT costsabout $290,000. For comparison,the next-generation hybrid busesordered by NYCT had a purchaseprice of $385,000 each, and aCNG bus purchase price at NYCTis about $320,000. Figure 2 showsthe Manhattanville Depot.

NYCT’s Involvement in AirQuality Improvement

NYCT is committed to usingclean fuel vehicles: it purchased34 CNG buses in 1995 and added another 190 CNG buses in operation in 2000. In early2000, New York GovernorGeorge Pataki and NYCT com-pleted a clean air plan that pro-vides funding through 2004 toNYCT to purchase CNG andhybrid buses, use ultra low-sulfurdiesel fuel (ULSD) for the entirediesel fleet, retrofit diesel buseswith catalyzed DPFs, and convertseveral depots to accommodateCNG buses.Table 3 illustratesNYCT’s commitment to hybridand CNG bus technology.

Project Design and Data Collection

One goal of the DOE/NREL TransitBus Evaluation Program is tocompare advanced technologyvehicles with nearly identicaldiesel “control” vehicles operatingin the same duty cycle. The dieselcomparison vehicles in this evaluation were in two groups:NovaBUS RTS diesel buses fromthe Manhattanville Depot andOrion V diesel buses from theAmsterdam Depot. Both of the

comparison bus models havesome significant differences fromthe hybrid buses.

The Orion V diesel buses at Amsterdam were chosen to compare to the hybrid busesbecause the vehicle chassis werebuilt by the same manufacturer in nearly the same model year;however, the duty cycle at Amsterdam was slightly differentthan the cycle at Manhattanville.

The NovaBUS RTS buses at Manhattanville were chosen tocompare to the hybrid busesbecause the operating dutycycle was essentially the samefor both fleets, and they wereoperated from the same depot;however, the bus chassis is significantly different.

The two diesel study fleets startedoperations at about the sametime in March and April 1999, sotheir respective ages are similar.

Figure 2. Manhattanville Depot in New York

Table 3. Recent and Planned Hybrid and CNG Bus Purchases by NYCT

Delivery Year Number of BusesHybrid CNG

As of 1998–2001 10 2212002 125 125

2003–2004 200 1302006 50 170Total 385 646

PIX

1087

8


Final Results

6

Because of major hardware changes(including a new engine), the firsthybrid bus (6350) was removedfrom the evaluation. Data areincluded in the report but not inthe totals for the hybrid buses.

The nine other hybrid buses havebeen split in two groups for theevaluation—four of the five olderhybrid buses versus the five newerhybrid buses. All of the hybridbuses had the same general spec-ifications, but the split into twosubsets for analysis was made toexplore the improvements madeto the newer buses after the startof testing of the fifth hybrid bus.The older buses are 14–20 monthsolder (based on date placed intoservice) than the last five hybridbuses in the group. Although theolder and newer hybrid busesrepresent the same Orion VIchassis, they have some differ-ences, as described in the sectionbelow on Lessons Learned.

The evaluation period for the fueland maintenance analyses waschosen to make sure that data weretaken for all of the hybrid busesonly while they were operating atthe Manhattanville Depot.

Data were gathered from NYCT’sfuel and maintenance trackingsystems daily. Examples of thedata parameters included:

• Diesel fuel consumption byvehicle

• Mileage data from every vehicle

• Engine oil additions and oil/ filter changes

• Preventive maintenance action(PMA) work orders, parts lists,labor records, and related documents

• Records of unscheduled maintenance (e.g., roadcalls)

• Records of repairs covered bymanufacturer warranty.

The data collection was designedto cause as little disruption forNYCT as possible. Data were sentfrom the transit site to Battellefor analysis. In general, staff atNYCT sent copies (electronic orpaper) of data that had alreadybeen collected as part of normalbusiness operations.

NYCT staff had access to all databeing collected from their siteand other data available from the project. Summaries of thedata collected, evaluations, and analyses of the data were distributed to designated staff at NYCT for review and input.

The study design included thetracking of safety incidents affecting the vehicles or occurringat NYCT’s terminal facilities.However, no reportable safetyincidents occurred during thedata collection period.


Final Results

7

NYCT operates 246 buses fromthe Manhattanville Depot in WestHarlem (Figure 3) including the10 Orion diesel hybrid-electricvehicles. The ManhattanvilleDepot opened for bus operationsin November 1992.

The building has four levels andprovides 340,000 square feet ofworking space inside. The first floorhouses the diesel fueling station, buswash, and maintenance area. Thefueling lanes are shown in Figure 4.The second and third floors areused to store the buses. Thefourth floor contains offices anddrivers’ rooms, with some outsideemployee parking. There is a mod-est outdoor apron on the first floorfor moving and storing vehiclesoutside the building (Figure 2).

The Manhattanville Depot operatesthree diesel fueling lanes and has40,000 gallons of diesel fuel storedon site in 10 underground tanks.The bus operation uses approxi-mately 9,000 gallons of dieselfuel per night.

For the hybrid buses, electricalcharging stations were added tothe third floor. These chargingstations were installed as anexperiment by the New YorkPower Authority for providinggrid electricity for charging thebus traction batteries. However,the hybrid buses do not requiregrid connection and were notcharged during this evaluation.

Battery conditioning is requiredon a 6-month basis to extend the

NYCT’s Facilities

Figure 4. Diesel fueling lanes at Manhattanville Depot

Figure 3. Manhattanville Depot, New York

PIX

1134

4PI

X 11

345


Final Results

8

life of the batteries in the hybridsystem. Battery conditioning consists of a very slow, controlledovercharging of the battery packin an attempt to equalize thecharge between batteries andclean off the plates within thebatteries. It takes 12–24 hours.

Equipment for battery conditioningis installed at the Manhattanvilledepot on the third floor near thecharging stations (Figure 5). Busesare parked near the overheadequipment and then plugged in.Figure 6 shows the battery condi-tioning port on a hybrid bus.

The depot also had a crane installedabove one of the maintenancelanes for easier removal andinstallation of battery packs onthe hybrid buses. Many bus main-tenance facilities may alreadyhave this type of equipment forservicing the equipment placedon the roofs of low-floor busesbecause of diminished space forequipment under the floor of the bus. No information oninstallation, operating, or energycosts for the electrical or craneequipment was available for this evaluation.

There are 763 employees at theManhattanville Depot, of whom600 are bus operators and 62 arebus maintainers (mechanics).

Figure 6. Rear quarter of hybrid bus showing battery conditioning port (top)

Figure 5. Ceiling-mounted charging hookup for hybrid bus batteries

PIX

1088

2PI

X 11

346


Final Results

9

Based on the success of an earlyprototype hybrid bus project in1996, NYCT ordered 10 dieselhybrid-electric transit buses, thefirst of which began operating in1998. The diesel hybrid-electricbuses were built by Orion, withpropulsion systems by BAE SYSTEMS (formerly LockheedMartin). NYCT brought hybridvehicles into its transit fleet toreduce emissions and increasefuel economy. Also, the cost ofthe fuel-related infrastructure waslower than that of other alternativefuel systems.

Goals of the Orion VI DieselHybrid-Electric Fleet

At the time that the 10 Orion VIhybrid buses were delivered, thiswas the largest standard 40-foothybrid bus fleet in the UnitedStates. Hybrid buses were not astandard configuration for transit applications. BAE SYSTEMS, Orion,and NYCT set out to design, build,and implement the use of hybridbuses into standard transit service.However, all parties were awarethat this was an investment intounproven technology, and this pro-ject was intended to develop thistechnology. NYCT set specific goalsfor this implementation of hybridbuses in order to measure the suc-cess of this development project:

1. Reduce emissions, specificallyoxides of nitrogen (NOx <15 g/mi)and particulate matter (PM <0.06 g/mi)

2. Significantly increase fueleconomy

3. Show that the hybrid buses canoperate in regular revenue service with no route or driverrestrictions

4. Show that the hybrid bus performance (e.g., acceleration,gradability, and range) wasequal to or better than that of conventional diesel buses andthat drivers can switch from oneto the other with no significantdifference in operation

5. Demonstrate that drivers andpassengers perceive hybrid-electric buses positively

6. Significantly increase brake life

7. Improve the design of the hybridbus; promote the developmentof the technology throughinvestment

8. Help put the industry in aposition to build and sell “production” hybrid buses.

All indications from the NYCTprogram and this evaluation showthat this implementation of dieselhybrid-electric buses has met orexceeded all goals.

Challenges Encountered during Start-Up

The challenges encountered during introduction of the hybridvehicles have been similar tothose encountered during anynew technology introduction: the need to develop new safety procedures and to ensure thatpersonnel are properly trained, a learning curve as mechanicsbecame familiar with new

Project Start-Up at NYCT

equipment and troubleshootingprocedures, and difficulty inidentifying and obtaining replace-ment parts for first-generationpre-production vehicles. Theseissues were exacerbated by thefact that the hybrid fleet repre-sented only a small fraction ofthe total fleet at the assignedoperating location. In addition,there were a number of prematurefailures of hybrid system compo-nents, including traction batteries,traction motors, and generators.Some of these failures were relatedto component design, and somewere related to the low volumemanufacture of these components.All of these issues have beenaddressed via redesign.

Among other differences, theroof-mounted battery tubs on thehybrid buses require the use of a crane in the maintenance area,and the traction generators, traction motors, and computercontrol system of the hybridbuses represent new technologiesfor diesel mechanics to learn.

A number of changes to equipmentand software were made in thecourse of project start-up at NYCT.All of the lessons learned withthe Orion VI hybrid buses (seebox) have been incorporated intothe next-generation (Orion VII)hybrid buses.


Final Results

10

• A team effort is required to develop a prototype system into a proven,off-the-shelf system.

• Vendor, manufacturer, and in-house management support are criticalduring the learning curve at the transit depot, as maintenance personnel diagnose, troubleshoot, and adapt to the new systems.

• Operators reported that the hybrid buses had better acceleration,better traction in bad weather, and smooth braking.

• Minimal special training for operators was required.

• The hybrids could be used on all of NYCT’s routes.

• Riders noticed the quieter ride, and many expressed interest in the “electric power” system on the buses.

• Some obstacles to the commercial growth of hybrid bus technologyinclude the performance of current lead-acid batteries, the availabilityof medium-duty engines certified for transit bus applications, and thehigh purchase cost of the first generation of production vehicles. Thishigh purchase cost is exacerbated by the small size of the transit busmarket, which cannot support the development of new technologieson its own.

• The prospects for greater commercial success would be improved by the availability of low cost advanced energy storage devices and lower production costs based on the increased production volume that may result from greater penetration of the truck and military markets.

*A report that focuses on NYCT’s start-up experienceis available from the National Alternative Fuels Hotline (1-800-423-1363) or on the Web(www.afdc.doe.gov).

Lessons Learned at Start-Up*


Final Results

11

from the Manhattanville Depot,and the Orion V diesel buses wereoperated from the AmsterdamDepot. The buses at the Manhat-tanville Depot are operated on 8 Manhattan routes 7 days perweek, up to 24 hours per day. Thebuses at the Amsterdam Depotare operated on 2 Manhattan and6 Bronx routes 7 days per week,up to 24 hours per day.

Buses are randomly dispatchedfrom each of the two depots.Based on the route assignments

The analyses in this report cover9 diesel hybrid-electric transitbuses and 14 diesel transit busesoperating over focus periods ofup to 12 months, as shown inTable 4. The fuel and maintenancedata collection periods were chosento analyze each vehicle over a similarrange of accumulated mileage.

Actual Bus Use in RevenueService

The hybrid buses and the NovaBUSRTS study buses were operated

Evaluation Results

Bus Operating Start Date of Fuel Data MaintenanceNumber Bus Model Facility Operation Period Data Period6350** Orion VI Hybrid Manhattanville 8/31/98 7/00–9/01 7/1/00–9/30/016351 Orion VI Hybrid Manhattanville 9/21/98 7/00–9/01 5/17/2000–7/23/20016352 Orion VI Hybrid Manhattanville 9/22/98 7/00–9/01 4/26/2000–5/20/20016353 Orion VI Hybrid Manhattanville 9/22/98 7/00–9/01 4/18/200–7/12/20016354 Orion VI Hybrid Manhattanville 3/12/99 7/00–7/01* 4/19/2000–6/19/20016355 Orion VI Hybrid Manhattanville 4/19/00 7/00–7/01* 6/20/2000–7/23/20016356 Orion VI Hybrid Manhattanville 4/21/00 7/00–7/01* 6/8/2000–7/7/20016357 Orion VI Hybrid Manhattanville 5/12/00 7/00–9/01 7/3/2000–7/26/20016358 Orion VI Hybrid Manhattanville 5/12/00 7/00–9/01 7/6/2000–8/9/20016359 Orion VI Hybrid Manhattanville 5/12/00 7/00–9/01 8/2/2000–9/9/20016069 Orion V Diesel Amsterdam 5/10/99 7/00–9/01 6/22/1999–6/6/20006073 Orion V Diesel Amsterdam 3/29/99 7/00–9/01 4/28/1999–4/12/20006086 Orion V Diesel Amsterdam 4/22/99 7/00–9/01 5/22/1999–5/19/20006088 Orion V Diesel Amsterdam 4/7/99 7/00–9/01 4/30/1999–5/19/20006092 Orion V Diesel Amsterdam 4/7/99 7/00–9/01 5/6/1999–5/25/20006114 Orion V Diesel Amsterdam 5/4/99 7/00–9/01 6/4/1999–6/26/20006118 Orion V Diesel Amsterdam 5/4/99 7/00–9/01 6/18/1999–6/2/20005127 NovaBUS RTS Manhattanville 3/22/99 7/00–9/01 4/15/1999–4/14/20005129 NovaBUS RTS Manhattanville 3/22/99 7/00–9/01 4/15/1999–3/29/20005130 NovaBUS RTS Manhattanville 3/22/99 7/00–9/01 4/23/1999–4/22/20005131 NovaBUS RTS Manhattanville 3/22/99 7/00–9/01 4/18/1999–3/25/20005134 NovaBUS RTS Manhattanville 3/22/99 7/00–9/01 4/14/1999–4/10/20005138 NovaBUS RTS Manhattanville 3/22/99 7/00–9/01 4/17/1999–4/1/20005143 NovaBUS RTS Manhattanville 3/22/99 7/00–9/01 4/20/1999–4/10/2000

Table 4. Start of Operation Date, Fuel Data Period, and Maintenance Data Period for Each Study Bus

* These three hybrid buses were moved to Mother Clara Hale Depot at the end of July 2001 for operation. The data from operation of these vehicles at this new depot have not been included in any of the analyses provided in this report.

** Hybrid bus 6350 was not included in the evaluation because of the repower of the engine.

Group

OlderHybrid

NewerHybrid

Diesel

Diesel


Final Results

12

and daily assignment of busesfrom each depot for operatingyear 2000, the average speed forbuses from Manhattanville was6.43 mph, compared with aspeed of 5.90 mph for busesfrom Amsterdam. These valueswere averaged over an entireweek of operation.

The buses operating from Amsterdam have an 8% loweraverage speed, which indicatesthat the fuel economy should beexpected to be slightly lower forthe buses operating from theAmsterdam Depot when com-pared to those operating fromthe Manhattanville Depot.

Figure 7 shows the averagemonthly mileage for each vehicleand fleet. Figure 8 shows thefleet average monthly mileageover time. The two diesel fleetshad essentially the same averagemileage. The older group of hybridbuses had an average mileage 45%lower than the diesel buses atManhattanville (NovaBUS). Thenewer group of hybrid buses hadan average mileage only 30%lower than the same diesel busesat Manhattanville.

The lower average mileage of thehybrid buses is an indicator ofhow much the hybrid buses wereout of service for maintenanceand upgrade issues. The newerhybrid bus group had a fewmonths where their usage wasnearly to the level of the dieselbus usage (December 2000 andMarch 2001), which indicates significant improvement in availability for service.

Fuel consumption records indicatethat when the hybrid buses wereoperated, they were used in nearlythe same service as the diesel

Figure 7. Average miles driven per month, by bus and fleet

6350*

6351

6352

6353

6354

AVERAGE

6355

6356

6357

6358

6359

AVERAGE

6069

6073

6086

6088

6092

6114

6118

AVERAGE

5127

5129

5130

5131

5134

5138

5143

AVERAGE

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

2,341

2,214

2,400

2,303

2,234

2,433

2,641

2,160

2,333

2,355

2,393

2,255

2,370

2,323

2,298

2,339

1,632

1,688

1,455

1,579

1,749

1,705

1,283*

1,423

1,206

1,186

1,303

947

No

vaB

US

Die

sel

Old

er H

ybri

dN

ewer

Hyb

rid

Ori

on

Die

sel

Average monthly miles driven

*Mileage for 6350 is not included in the average due to the repower of the engine. Older Hybrid group includes 6351-6354; Newer Hybrid group includes 6355-6359.


Final Results

13

buses at Manhattanville becausethe average daily mileage wasnearly the same. The hybridbuses had lower usage based onthe need for more maintenanceand downtime for servicing andparts supply; however, when thehybrid buses were in service, they were used at nearly thesame level as the diesel buses at Manhattanville.

Fuel Economy and Maintenance Costs

The diesel hybrid-electric buseshad greater fuel economy than thediesel buses, but maintenancecosts for the hybrid buses weresignificantly higher. The mainte-nance cost differences were mostlikely attributable to the noveltyof the hybrid propulsion systemat the Manhattanville Depot andthe difficulty in obtaining replace-ment parts for an unfamiliar bussystem.

Once a new generation of hybridbuses is deployed in greaternumbers, the costs for trouble-shooting and repair should decline.

Fuel Economy

NYCT uses Jet A diesel fuel, whichis designated as aircraft fuel. NYCTand the other transit bus operatorsin the area use Jet A diesel fuelbecause of its availability in thecity. This fuel designation is aslightly higher grade than diesel#1. NYCT uses ULSD fuel at lessthan 30 ppm sulfur content forits Jet A diesel fuel.

Fuel consumption and economyare shown for the study groupson a per-bus and per-fleet basis in Figure 9 for the evaluationperiod. Also, during the evaluationperiod, NYCT was not performing

Figure 8. Average monthly mileage per fleet, over time

Mile

age

per

Mo

nth

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0Oct-98 Jul-00 Oct-00 Jan-00 Apr-01 Jul-01

Older Hybrid Newer HybridOrion Diesel NovaBUS Diesel

any external charging of the traction batteries from the electricgrid; therefore, essentially all energyconsumed by hybrid buses camefrom the diesel fuel consumed bythe engine.

The two hybrid bus groups hadessentially the same fuel economyat an average of 2.65 mpg, whichis higher than the average fueleconomy of the diesel buses. Thediesel buses at Manhattanville(NovaBUS) had an average fueleconomy of 2.42 mpg, and thehybrid bus fuel economy was 10% higher. The diesel buses at Amsterdam (Orion) had an averagefuel economy of 2.17 mpg, andthe hybrid bus fuel economy was22% higher.

As mentioned earlier, the duty cyclefor the diesel buses at Amsterdamwas slightly more difficult than atManhattanville, which was expect-ed to make the fuel economy significantly lower. The averageoperating speed from the AmsterdamDepot was 8% lower, and thediesel buses had 10% lower fueleconomy than the diesel buses atManhattanville Depot.


Final Results

14

Figure 9. Fuel economy by bus and fleet

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

6350*

6351

6352

6353

6354

AVERAGE

6355

6356

6357

6358

6359

AVERAGE

6069

6073

6086

6088

6092

6114

6118

AVERAGE

5127

5129

5130

5131

5134

5138

5143

AVERAGE 2.42

2.40

2.38

2.64

2.44

2.35

2.42

2.34

2.17

2.17

2.16

2.21

2.20

2.14

2.19

2.14

2.66

2.52

2.75

2.71

2.78

2.57

2.58

2.64

2.52

2.76

2.71

2.75

Old

er H

ybri

dN

ewer

Hyb

rid

Ori

on

Die

sel

No

vaB

US

Die

sel

Miles per gallon

Figure 10 shows the average fleetfuel economies for each of thestudy fleets from the beginning ofoperation. The diesel buses atAmsterdam had the lowest fueleconomy. The diesel buses atManhattanville and the hybridbuses had similar fuel economiesuntil about July 2000. After July2000, the hybrid buses had high-er fuel economy than the dieselbuses at Manhattanville.

Larger fuel economy differencesbetween the hybrid and dieselbuses were observed during thecooler months, with smaller differences observed duringwarmer months. This reductionin fuel economy for the hybridbuses may be caused by air conditioning loads and/or thermal“foldback” of the hybrid tractionbattery operation in the proto-type buses.

If the batteries are too hot, thehybrid control system reducespower to help the hybrid systemrecover and cool the batteries.During this thermal foldbackoperation, the hybrid systemwould not be operating optimally.Specifically, the regenerative braking would not be in opera-tion, only the service brakes. Notusing the regenerative brakingwould reduce the fuel economy significantly. Based on specificchanges in design to improve battery pack thermal management,BAE SYSTEMS reports that thissituation should not occur withthe newer Orion VII hybrid busdesign. In addition, the Orion VIIhybrid will incorporate additionalchanges to the system that con-trols regenerative braking thatshould increase the total amountof regenerative energy that canbe effectively captured. The resultshould be an increase in fuel

*6350 not included in average or total; bus was repowered with a different engine than the other nine hybrid buses.


Final Results

15

efficiency and more consistent fuelefficiency throughout the year.

Fuel economy measurementstaken during emissions testingon the West Virginia University(WVU) chassis dynamometershowed fuel economy to be 23% greater for the hybrid buseson the Commercial Business District (CBD) controlled testcycle, compared to diesel buses.When tested without regenerativebraking, the hybrid’s fuel economyduring the CBD cycle was still6% higher for the hybrid busescompared to the NovaBUS RTSdiesel bus.

The NY Bus and Manhattan testingcycle fuel economy results were64% higher and 48% higher,respectively, for the hybrid buses.The results from these emissiontests should be considered themaximum results for the hybridbuses because the air conditioningand heating were not used duringthe testing, and the operation ofthe hybrid propulsion system wasmonitored to ensure that thermalfoldback did not occur during the testing.

Fuel Costs

The ULSD fuel at NYCT cost anaverage of $1.03 per gallon dur-ing the evaluation. For the evalu-ation period, the diesel buses atAmsterdam had a fuel cost of$0.474 per mile, the diesel busesat Manhattanville had a fuel cost of$0.426 per mile, and the hybridshad the lowest cost at $0.390 permile for the older hybrid group(8% lower than the fuel cost forthe NovaBUS RTS diesel buses)and $0.387 per mile for thenewer hybrid group (9% lowerthan the fuel cost for the Nova-BUS RTS diesel buses).

Figure 10. Fuel economy by month and fleet

Mile

s p

er G

allo

n

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Sep-98 Dec-98 Mar-99 Jun-99 Sep-99 Dec-99 Mar-00 Jun-00 Sep-00 Dec-00 Mar-01 Jun-01 Sep-01


Engine Oil Consumption and Cost

Engine oil consumption is measuredby recording the volume of engineoil added between oil changes. Formost heavy-duty engines, a certainlevel of engine oil consumption is expected.

The engine oil consumption for theSeries 30D engine used in the hybridbuses was tracked for the evaluationperiod. The overall oil consumptionwas 2.22 quarts per 1,000 miles or451 miles per quart of engine oil.The cost per quart of engine oil forthe buses was $0.64.

The engine oil consumption data forthe diesel buses in the evaluationwere not complete; therefore noresults were available for comparison.The usual engine oil consumption of the Series 50 diesel engine inNYCT service was expected to be 1.5 to 2.0 quarts per 1,000 milesbased on discussions with the enginemanufacturer.

Factors Affecting MaintenanceCosts

Maintenance data were collectedfrom NYCT for each bus back


Final Results

16

to the start of operation. Allmaintenance work orders andparts information available havebeen collected for the study buses.

In this maintenance cost discussion,all work orders marked as accidentshave been removed. In general,accidents are random as far as whichbuses have accidents and how muchthose accidents cost to repair. Acci-dent repair costs included mostlyexterior body damage repair.

For all maintenance cost compar-isons, the NovaBUS RTS dieselbuses at Manhattanville are used as the baseline. Also, the NovaBUSRTS diesel buses have a duty cyclesimilar to that of the hybrid buses.

In general, the hybrid buses havehigher maintenance costs than thediesel buses in all categories. Thishas been essentially caused bythree main issues: (1) The hybridbuses evaluated in this report areprototype technology; (2) Duringthe evaluation, the depot mechanicswere inexperienced with the Orionbus platform, DDC Series 30 engine,and hybrid propulsion systems;and (3) The hybrid buses were asmall fleet in a large standardNovaBUS diesel bus fleet (236 of246 buses at the depot weremanufactured by NovaBUS).Maintenance costs are expected todecline significantly when hybridbuses constitute a greater shareof the transit fleet at a given depot.

The low number of hybrid busescaused more troubleshootinghours for the mechanics for thebuses and the propulsion systemson the hybrid buses because ofbeing unfamiliar with the bus andpropulsion system. Also, themechanics required more time tospecify and receive parts for thehybrid buses because of the lack

of support for and familiaritywith Orion buses at this depot, inaddition to difficulty on the partof the manufacturer in providingtimely parts support for thesepre-production vehicles. This isconsistent with the significantlyhigher labor hours required forthe hybrid buses compared to thediesel buses at the same depot.

The hybrid buses have been splitinto two groups for this evaluation—older and newer hybrid buses.The older hybrid bus group consists of buses 6351 through6354 and includes 3 of the first 4 buses delivered to NYCT andthe pilot bus for this order. Eachof these buses is 14–20 monthsolder than the last 5 buses in the10-bus order. Bus 6350 has notbeen included in these analysesbecause the engine was replacedwith a Cummins ISB dieselengine in order to gain experiencewith that configuration for thenext order of hybrid buses. Thenewer hybrid bus group consistsof buses 6355 through 6359.These 5 buses all went into ser-vice within a 2-month period inApril-May 2000. This division isintended to show the significantprogress made in the develop-ment of this hybrid technologybetween the earlier and the laterdelivery within the evaluationdata period.

Maintenance Costs by Vehicle System

Figure 11 shows the major systemgroupings used for the mainte-nance cost analysis. Across all fleets,cab, body, and accessories andengine/fuel-related maintenancewere the highest rated cost cate-gories. Brakes, HVAC (heating,ventilating, and air conditioning),and preventive maintenance


Final Results

17

Figure 11. Share of maintenance costs across major systems

Older Hybrid

Cab, Body,Accessories,

and Hydraulics39%


and Hydraulics26%


and Hydraulics27%

Engine/FuelRelated

12%

Engine/FuelRelated

27%

Engine/FuelRelated

28%

Engine/FuelRelated

10%

PMI12%

PMI14%

PMI15%

Brakes12%

Brakes10%

PMI7%

Brakes9%

Brakes24%

HVAC13%

Newer Hybrid

Orion Diesel AMS

HVAC12%

NovaBUS Diesel

All OtherMaintenance

12%

HVAC9%


14%


and Hydraulics30%

HVAC8%


18%


12%

inspections also appeared amongthe top cost categories in one ormore fleets.

The following discussion of main-tenance by vehicle system focuseson the same 12-month evaluationperiod shown in Figure 11. Thefollowing discussion shows differ-ences in maintenance costs. Unlessotherwise indicated, the NovaBUSRTS diesel fleet at Manhattanville istaken as the baseline fleet.

• Total Engine- and Fuel-RelatedSystems – The two diesel fleetsare similar, with the Oriondiesel fleet having 4% lower costs.The hybrid groups had muchhigher costs than the NovaBUSfleet (6.8 times higher for theolder hybrid and 4.6 timeshigher for the newer hybrid).

Exhaust System – The exhaustsystem maintenance costs forthe Orion diesel fleet were verylow. The NovaBUS diesel fleethad significant exhaust systemrepair costs, and the hybridfleet had the highest costs at30% higher for the older groupand 2.8 times higher for thenewer group. The hybrid busgroup had catalyzed DPFsinstalled, and neither dieselfleet had DPFs.

Fuel System – The repaircosts for the Orion dieselfleet were very low. The olderhybrid group had costs 19.7times higher and the newerhybrid group had costs 10.8 times higher than theNovaBUS fleet.

Engine System – The Oriondiesel buses had the lowestrepair cost at 34% lower thanthe NovaBUS diesel fleet. Thehybrid buses were again thehighest at 4.8 times higher for

the older group and 4.1 timeshigher for the newer group.

Electric Motor, Generator,and Battery Repairs – Onlythe hybrid buses have thesesystems. The costs for thesesystems were significant at$0.241 per mile for the oldergroup and $0.080 per milefor the newer group. Thenewer hybrid group showedsignificant improvement inthis category.

Non-Lighting Electrical Systems – The NovaBUSdiesel fleet had the lowestcosts. The Orion diesel fleethad costs 12% higher, andthe hybrid bus groups hadcosts 2.8 times higher for theolder and 2.4 times higherfor the newer.

Air Intake System – TheOrion diesel buses had thelowest repair cost at 96%lower. The newer hybridgroup had the highest costsat 2 times higher and theolder hybrid group had costs41% lower than the NovaBUSdiesel buses.

Cooling System – The twodiesel fleets had about thesame cost for this system.The hybrid groups had significantly higher costs at3.6 times higher for the olderhybrids and 5.7 times higherfor the newer hybrids.

Transmission System –The hybrid buses do not havetransmissions. The Oriondiesel buses had repair costs32% higher than the NovaBUSdiesel buses.

• Cab, Body, and AccessoriesSystems – The hybrid groupshad the highest costs at 2.6 times


Final Results

18

higher for the older group and65% higher for the newer group.The Orion diesel buses had costs9% lower than the NovaBUSdiesel fleet.

• Frame, Steering, and Suspension System – Both ofthe diesel fleets had similarcosts. The hybrid groups hadthe highest costs at 3.5 times higher for the older hybridsand 2.2 times higher for thenewer hybrids.

• Axle, Wheel, and Drive ShaftSystems – The two diesel fleetshad low costs that were nearlythe same. The hybrid groupshad costs 4.9 times higher forthe older hybrids and 2 timeshigher for the newer hybrids.

• Brake System – The NovaBUSfleet had the highest cost forthe brakes. The Orion dieselfleet had costs 62% lower, andthe hybrid groups had costs11% lower for the older hybridsand 27% lower for the newerhybrids. However, one brakereline for bus 6359 has notbeen included in the analysis.The costs for the brake reline,which were removed from thisanalysis, were 60 labor hoursand $8,339 in parts. The costsfor this reline are much higherthan expected and have notbeen fully investigated.

• Tire Systems – Tire costs werelow because the actual cost ofthe tires is not included in thismaintenance analysis. Only therepair labor hours and a fewmiscellaneous parts related tothe tires have been includedhere. The older hybrid grouphad the highest cost at 2.3times higher and the newerhybrid group had 41% highercosts. The Orion diesel fleethad costs 80% lower.

• HVAC Systems – The twodiesel fleets had similar costs.The hybrid groups had costs75% higher for the older hybridgroup and 45% higher for thenewer hybrid group.

• PMA Inspections – PMA inspec-tions only include labor hoursfor inspections. The costs for theOrion diesel fleet were 37% lower.The older hybrid group costswere 15% higher. The newerhybrid group had higherinspection cost at 57% higher,which may have been causedby an accelerated PMA schedulefor four of the hybrids, whosehubodometers were found to bereading out in kilometers insteadof miles for part of the evaluationperiod.

• Lighting System – The Oriondiesel fleet had costs 78% higher, and the hybrid groupshad costs 3.4 times higher forthe older hybrids and 2.2 timeshigher for the newer hybrids.

Warranty Costs

All costs for repairs under warrantyhave been removed from analysesshown in this report. Warrantycosts are not included in the costanalyses because warranty exposure for the manufacturershas usually been included in theinitial purchase price of the vehicle.Including warranty costs in theanalyses here would be potential-ly counting those costs twice.Warranty repair information, how-ever, was collected to investigatelong-term reliability problemswith the vehicles; in other words,to answer the question, “Will thisproblem continue beyond thewarranty period?”

Many warranty issues with thehybrid buses caused configuration


Final Results

19

changes in the bus systems andsignificant repair costs. Most ofthe parts and repair costs havenot been included in the maintenance system at NYCT orin this report. Major changes tothe hybrid buses include the following:

• Traction batteries and trays

• Power controller cards

• Traction motors

• Traction motor coolant andmonitoring

• Catalyzed DPFs

• Traction generator and coupling

• Engine and control systemcomputer software upgrades.

Many other optimization problemswere addressed, including repairsto the interlock, doors, brakes(including ABS), suspensionhunting issues, air conditioning,and belts for accessories. Each ofthe hybrid buses appeared to haveits own specific problems at start-upthat were similar to other hybridbuses. This made troubleshootingand long-term optimization difficult.

Roadcalls

A roadcall is defined in this reportas an on-road failure of an in-service bus that requires the bus be taken out of service orreplaced on route. Roadcalls aredirect indicators of reliability fortransit buses. Figure 12 showsdistance between roadcalls forthe study fleets for all data. Figure 13 shows the same dataperiod for only the roadcalls thatinvolve the engine- and fuel-relatedsystems, which include the non-lighting electrical, air intake,cooling, exhaust, fuel, engine,electrical motors and traction batteries, and transmission. Note

that the scales for Figures 12 and13 are significantly different.The top three causes of roadcallsfor each study fleet are shown inTable 5. For all data, the Orionfleet had a mileage between roadcalls (MBRC) 38% better thanthe NovaBUS diesel buses for allroadcalls and 42% better for theengine- and fuel-related roadcalls.

Figure 12. Miles between roadcalls for all bus systems3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Mile

s


Sep-98 Jun-00 Sep-00 Dec-00 Mar-01 Jun-01 Sep-01

Figure 13. Miles between roadcalls for engine- and fuel-related bus systems

Mile

s

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000




Final Results

20

The older hybrid buses had anMBRC 52% lower than the NovaBUSdiesel buses for all roadcalls and81% lower for the engine- andfuel-related roadcalls. The newerhybrid buses had an MBRC 49% lower than the NovaBUSdiesel buses for all roadcalls and74% lower for the engine- andfuel-related roadcalls.

For the evaluation period, the Orionfleet had an MBRC 27% better thanthe NovaBUS diesel buses for allroadcalls and 50% better for theengine- and fuel-related roadcalls.

The older hybrid buses had anMBRC 59% lower than the NovaBUSdiesel buses for all roadcalls and85% lower for the engine- andfuel-related roadcalls. The newerhybrid buses had an MBRC 50%lower than the NovaBUS dieselbuses for all roadcalls and 76%lower for the engine- and fuel-related roadcalls.

Overall Maintenance Costs

Figure 14 shows the total mainte-nance cost per bus, based onmileage, for the evaluation period.

For the evaluation period, the Oriondiesel buses from Amsterdamhad results compared to the NovaBUS diesel buses as follows:mileage 7% lower, parts costs 7% higher, labor hours 31% lower,and cost per mile 20% lower.

Compared to the NovaBUS maintenance costs, the olderhybrid fleet had average mileage51% lower, parts costs 10% higher,labor hours 20% higher, and costper mile 146% higher. The newerhybrid fleet had average mileage32% lower, parts costs 22% higher,labor hours 20% higher, and costper mile 76% higher.

Older Hybrid* Newer Hybrid Orion Diesel NovaBUSDiesel

Mileage Parts ($) Labor Hrs. Cost ($) per Mile0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

15

,23

62

1,3

26

29

,09

13

1,3

90

3,1

23

.92

3,4

61

.20 3

,04

8.4

1

2,8

38

.30

51

5.3

51

1.6

29

7.0

42

8.1

1.8

96

1.3

62

0.6

15

0.7

22

Figure 14. Average maintenance cost per bus,based on mileage (evaluation period)

Labor rate used for calculations was $50 per hour. Cost per mile calculation is (Part Cost + (Labor Hrs x 50))/ Mileage.* Bus 6350 is not included in the total rows for the hybrids.

Electric Electric Body Door and Propulsion Propulsion Exterior/ Interlock

Accidents

Door and Door and Wheelchair BrakesInterlock Interlock Lift

Engine Body Exterior/ Door and Body Exterior/Accidents Interlock Accidents

Older Hybrid

OrionDiesel

NovaBUSDiesel

NewerHybrid

Table 5. Top three causes of roadcalls (in order)


Final Results

21

Figure 15. Cumulative maintenance costs per mile

Co

st/M

ile ($

)

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000



These results for the hybrid busgroups show the progress madebetween the older hybrid busesand the newer hybrid buses inreliability and availability/usage.The newer hybrid buses have beenused in service much more than theolder hybrid buses, and the fleetaverage cost difference per mile,in comparison with the NovaBUSdiesel buses, has been cut almostin half.

The hybrid bus maintenance costsare significantly higher than thoseof the NovaBUS fleet. The hybridfleet required significantly morelabor to troubleshoot and repairfor nearly all systems on the buses;however, many of the systemswith higher costs were unrelatedto the hybrid propulsion system.

Many of the repairs for the hybridbuses required significantly moremechanic labor due to extra troubleshooting and more workin looking for and securingreplacement parts. Some hybridbus systems with significant repaircosts were the interlock system(which ensures that the bus cannot move when the doors areopen), air conditioning (motors),suspension, exhaust, brakes,windshield wipers, wheelchairramp, doors, and the hybridpropulsion system.

Figure 15 shows accumulatedrepair costs from the beginningof operation through May 2001for the two diesel fleets andthrough September 2001 for thehybrid groups. By accumulatingthe repair costs, the average costper mile becomes more and morea trend line from left to right.

The two diesel fleets have differenttotal maintenance costs becauseof different maintenance practices

and data recording practicesbetween Amsterdam and Manhat-tanville depots, as well as signifi-cant brake problems for the Nov-aBUS diesel buses at Manhat-tanville compared to the Orionbuses at Amsterdam. However, theupward slopes are nearly thesame on the right-hand side ofthe chart, indicating that themaintenance costs increasingwith age are about the same forthe two diesel fleets, as would beexpected.

The hybrid fleet groups, on theother hand, have a significantlyhigher/steeper slope upward earlyin the period, after which the slopelevels off. The chart shows that thehybrid maintenance costs werehigh at the beginning, but wereresolved, and the maintenancecosts came down to about thesame level as the diesel buses.Starting in about January 2000,the hybrid maintenance costsbegan to climb at a higher ratethan those of the two diesel fleets.Based on a review of the mainte-nance data for the hybrid buses,the major contributors to thisincreasing maintenance cost areas follows:


Final Results

22

• Cab and body (highest contrib-utors: doors, interlock, exteriordamage, mirrors, and sun visor)

• Accessories (highest contributor:wheelchair and electrical acces-sories)

• Electric drive and control

• Engine

• HVAC.

Manhattanville Depot personnelreported that they were takingover more troubleshooting andrepair activities on the hybrid busesduring 2001 from the manufac-turers (Orion and BAE SYSTEMS).Previously, the manufacturerswere responsible for nearly allmajor troubleshooting and repairsof the hybrid buses, even if thehybrid buses were out of servicefor several days.

Overall Operating Costs

Figure 16 shows a summary ofoperating costs (without driver

labor) based on vehicle mileage.The two diesel fleets have averageresults that are about the same,with the Orion diesel buses fromAmsterdam being 9% lower thanthe NovaBUS diesel buses fromManhattanville.

The older hybrid buses are muchmore expensive to operate becauseof the higher maintenance costsat 92% higher. The newer hybridbuses are also more expensive tooperate because of the highermaintenance costs at 46% higher.The newer hybrid buses have cutthe operating cost difference in halfcompared to the older hybrid buses.

Emission Testing Results

There are two main reasons forusing hybrid electric buses: (1) potential emissions reductions,and (2) potential fuel economyincreases. Although standard dieseltransit bus engines continue tomeet current emissions certificationstandards, there continues to bea desire by regulatory agenciessuch as the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency and the California Air Resources Boardto reduce transit bus (and truck)emissions well below levels possible with current diesel technology.

Several clean propulsion technolo-gies have been evaluated for transitbus service in the past 10 years,including the use of methanol,ethanol, natural gas, propane,electric, fuel cells, and hybridelectrics. In general, the onlyclean propulsion technologies thathave been available from an originalequipment manufacturer up toabout 2001 have been for naturalgas, propane, and electric. Startingin 2000, heavy-duty hybrid electrictransit buses have become available

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Figure 16. Overall operating costs (evaluation period)

MaintenanceCost per Mile

Fuel Costper Mile

Total Costper Mile

Cost per Mile in $

Orion DieselNewer HybridOlder Hybrid NovaBUSDiesel


Final Results

23

in numbers larger than one ortwo demonstration vehicles fromOrion and BAE SYSTEMS.

Emission testing performed onthe hybrid-electric buses fromNYCT has shown that the emissionsare considerably cleaner thanthose from a standard diesel bus,and the fuel economy is better. Theemission testing results that fol-low come from two main sources:(1) a Northeast Advanced VehicleConsortium (NAVC) report,“Hybrid-Electric Drive Heavy-DutyVehicle Testing Project, FinalEmissions Report” (M.J. Bradley2000), and (2) emission testingby Environment Canada foracceptance testing of the NYCTOrion VI and Orion VII hybridbuses. In both cases, the emissiontesting was performed on a chassis dynamometer.

Testing for NAVC

The emission testing program forNAVC was performed by M.J. Bradleyand Associates using the WVUchassis dynamometer laboratory.The testing was performed Sep-tember through November 1999in New York City. Several vehicleswere tested; however, the focushere is on the results from fourOrion VI diesel hybrids from theolder hybrid fleet and three NovaBUS RTS diesel buses fromthe same bus order as the dieselbuses tested in this evaluationfrom the Manhattanville Depot.The buses for the evaluationwere chosen at random from thefleet of that type.

The dynamometer testing for theNAVC report was completed onthree different bus duty cycles. TheCBD cycle has an average speed of12.6 mph, which is nearly doublethe average speed calculated for

the Manhattanville Depot (6.43mph). The CBD cycle is typicallyused for emission and fuel econ-omy testing for transit buses.

The New York bus cycle wasdeveloped from real in-service timeversus distance data collectionand has an average speed of 3.7 mph, which is 42% lowerthan the average speed calculatedfor the Manhattanville Depot.

The third cycle was developed bycollecting speed versus time datafrom one NYCT bus, before theNAVC testing. This cycle, theManhattan cycle, has an averagespeed of 6.9 mph. Of the threecycles, the Manhattan cycle is theclosest to actual operation evaluated in revenue service.

Figures 17 through 19 showresults from the NAVC emissionstests using the WVU chassisdynamometer across all three testcycles. The fuel used was typicaldiesel fuel at NYCT, which is a Jet A formulation fuel similar todiesel #1 with standard speci-fication for sulfur content. Thehybrid buses were equipped witha catalyzed DPF from NETT Tech-nologies, and the diesel buses hada standard catalytic converter.

The CBD cycle results (Figure 17)show that the CO was 97% lower,NOx was 36% lower, HC were43% lower, PM was 50% lower,and CO2 was 19% lower for thehybrids compared to the dieselbuses. For the CBD cycle, the fueleconomy (miles per gallon) was23% higher for the hybrid buses.

Results from the NY Bus cycle(Figure 18), with a much sloweraverage speed, show that CO was56% lower, NOx was 44% lower,HC were 88% higher, PM was


Final Results

24

77% lower, and CO2 was 40%lower. The fuel economy was64% higher for the hybrid buseson this slower operating cycle.The HC results were the onlyunexpected result, but the HClevels were relatively low to beginwith in both fleets.

The Manhattan cycle (Figure 19),which was about the same averagespeed as the in-service buses,showed that CO was 98% lower,NOx was 44% lower, HC were28% lower, PM was at least 99%lower, and CO2 was 33% lower.The fuel economy was 48% higherfor the hybrid buses.

In general, these emission testresults show that the hybrid buseswere much cleaner than the dieselbuses tested, except for the HCon the NY bus cycle. Some of thebest emissions results were forthe Manhattan cycle, which is theclosest to how the buses areoperated in service.

Testing by Environment Canada

Figure 20 shows results for separate tests of Orion V dieselbuses with and without catalyzedDPFs installed, compared withresults for the next-generationOrion VII diesel hybrid-electricbus representative of the upcoming NYCT order.

Testing was performed by Environment Canada on one dieselhybrid-electric bus and two dieselbuses in February 2000 using theEnvironment Canada dynamome-ter located in Ottawa, Canada.

The Orion VII hybrid is config-ured with significant differencesfrom the Orion VI hybrid, includinga different engine (the CumminsISB diesel engine) and an Engel-

Figure 18. Emission testing results for NAVC, NY Bus cycle

Orion VI Hybrid NovaBUS RTS

CO g/mi NOx g/mi x 0.1 HC g/mi x 10 PM g/mi x 10 CO2 g/mi x 0.001 MPG0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Carbon MonoxideOxides of NitrogenHydrocarbonParticulate MatterCarbon DioxideMiles Per Gallon

CO-NOx-

HC-PM-

CO2-MPG-

Figure 17. Emission testing results for NAVC, CBD cycle


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

CO g/mi NOx g/mi x 0.1 HC g/mi x 10 PM g/mi x 10 CO2 g/mi x 0.001 MPG


CO-NOx-

HC-PM-

CO2-MPG-


Final Results

hard DPX catalyzed DPF. Thebuses were tested on the CBDcycle and used ULSD #1 fuel withsulfur content less than 30 ppm.

The results in Figure 20 includethe Orion V diesel buses beingtested first without the catalyzedDPF and then with a JohnsonMatthey CRT catalyzed DPF. Theresults of the Orion VII hybridcompared with the Orion V dieselwithout a catalyzed DPF are asfollows: CO was 94% lower, NOxwas 49% lower, HC were 120%higher, PM was 93% lower, andCO2 was 37% lower for thehybrid buses. The fuel economywas 54% higher for the hybridbuses. The HC results were higher for the hybrid buses, butboth buses had low HC results.

The results in Figure 20 for theOrion VII hybrid compared withthe Orion V diesel buses with acatalyzed DPF are as follows: CO was 38% lower, NOx was 49%lower, HC were 450% higher, PM was 60% lower, and CO2 was38% lower for the hybrid buses.The fuel economy was 59% higherfor the hybrid buses. With andwithout the catalyzed DPF, theHC emissions were lower for thediesel bus results; however, theHC results were very low for allresults shown.

Figure 19. Emission testing results for NAVC, Manhattan cycle


CO g/mi NOx g/mi x 0.1 HC g/mi x 10 PM g/mi x 10 CO2 g/mi x 0.001 MPG0

1

2

3

4

5

6Carbon MonoxideOxides of NitrogenHydrocarbonParticulate MatterCarbon DioxideMiles Per Gallon

CO-NOx-

HC-PM-

CO2-MPG-

Figure 20. Emission test results from Environment Canada, CBD cycle

Orion VII Hybrid1

CO g/mi NOx g/mi x 0.1 HC g/mi x 10 PM g/mi x 10 CO2 g/mi x 0.001 MPG

Orion V Diesel withcatalyzed DPF2Orion V Diesel2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. Results for the Orion VII hybrid are from Report #01-12, Environment Canada, “Emissions Evaluation of Orion VIIHybrid Bus with BAE SYSTEMS Controls HybriDrive™ Propulsion System.”

2. Results for Orion V diesel buses from the same order as the buses tracked in this report from Amsterdam Depot,SAE Paper 2001-01-0511, “Performance and Durability Evaluation of Continuously Regenerating Particulate Filterson Diesel Powered Urban Buses at NY City Transit.” These tests were also performed at Environment Canada.


CO-NOx-

HC-PM-

CO2-MPG-

25


Final Results

26

Based on the evaluation of theNYCT diesel hybrid-electric transitbuses, we can conclude that thepilot demonstration achievedalmost all of its original goals:

• Emission reduction goals, forboth NOx (<15 g/mi) and PM(<0.06 g/mi), were easily met.

• In-service average fuel economyfor the hybrid fleet was 10%greater than that of the compar-able diesel bus fleet; however,the in-service data showed that,in some months, the hybridbus fuel economy reached ashigh as 22% better than thediesel buses operating in similarservice. Fuel economy, as mea-sured during emission testing,showed a potential improve-ment for the hybrid buses of23%–64% compared to dieselbuses of a similar age. In-servicefuel economy improved and isexpected to continue to improvewith the Orion VII.

• The hybrid buses have beenoperated in a seamless fashionfrom the Manhattanville Depot;drivers and dispatchers report norestrictions for the hybrid buses.

• Drivers reported that thehybrid bus performance (e.g.,acceleration, gradability, andrange) was as good or betterthan the diesel buses and thereare no significant differences in operation.

• Drivers reported that they likedthe hybrid buses, and that passengers usually do not notice

that the buses are hybrid-electric.When passengers do notice,they appear to be impressedwith the new technology.

• The goal to increase brake lifesignificantly has not been provenin this evaluation because theduration of this data collectionand evaluation was not sufficientto compare bus brake lifetimes.The maintenance staff at Manhattanville Depot indicatesthat the brake life on the hybridbuses may be two to three timeslonger than on the diesel buses.

• NYCT is heavily invested inhybrid bus technology withorders of 325 more hybrid busesand a planned order of another50 hybrid buses.

In addition, the following conclusions were reached:

• During the evaluation, the hybridbuses had overall operatingcosts (excluding driver labor)46%–92% higher than the NovaBUS RTS diesel buses.Much of this difference wascaused by higher labor hoursrequired to repair and maintainall bus subsystems on the 10prototype hybrid buses, includ-ing the hybrid propulsion system.

• The hybrid buses were driven30%–45% fewer miles duringthe evaluation period, com-pared with the diesel buses,because of the need to servicethe prototype hybrid buses and the extra time required to

Summary and Conclusions


Final Results

27

coordinate with the manufac-turers to troubleshoot and fixthose problems.

• Maintenance costs were76%–150% higher for the hybridbuses than for the diesel buses,owing mostly to early problemswith the engine and fuel-relatedsystems (primarily the hybridpropulsion system), the unfa-miliarity of the system to theservice technicians at NYCT, difficulty in troubleshootingproblems and in obtainingrepair parts for the hybrid

vehicles due to their pre-produc-tion status, and the fact that thehybrid fleet represented only asmall percentage of the totalbuses at the operating location.Maintenance costs for hybridbuses are expected to fall significantly for the second generation of vehicles, whichwill be produced and deliveredin much higher quantities.

• The facility conversion foraccommodating hybrid buses wasminor compared to preparingfor CNG facilities.

Final Results

28


NYCT continues its commitmentto a cleaner emission fleet ofbuses. The NYCT bus fleet currently consists of 4,489 buseswith 10 hybrid buses, 221 CNGbuses, and 4,258 standard dieselbuses. NYCT plans to operate 385diesel hybrid buses, 646 CNGbuses, and the remaining dieselbuses retrofitted with catalyzedDPFs by 2006. NYCT also plans topurchase additional new dieselbuses with catalyzed DPFs installed.

To support the use of catalyzedDPFs, NYCT specified ULSD fuelwith sulfur content less than 30ppm. This fuel allows the use ofmore active catalysts in the cat-alyzed DPFs and a greater reduc-tion of PM and HC in the exhaustof the bus engine.

As of the end of the data collectionperiod (mid-2001), NYCT has 10 Orion VI diesel hybrids with aBAE SYSTEMS HybriDrive™ propul-sion system and a DDC/Interna-tional Series 30D/T444E engineused as the power plant. The nextorder of hybrid buses is for

125 Orion VII diesel hybridbuses, to be delivered starting in2002, with a BAE SYSTEMSHybriDrive™ propulsion systemand a Cummins ISB engine usedfor the power plant. Other ordersfor 250 diesel hybrid-electricbuses are in progress, for deliverybetween now and 2006.

The Manhattanville Depot is tobe converted to accommodateCNG buses. The 10 Orion VIhybrid buses and the 125 newhybrid buses will be split betweentwo other depots, Mother ClaraHale and Queens Village. Thehybrid bus fleet will soon makeup about 30% of the fleet at eachdepot and will require thedepot’s close attention to keepthe buses in service as staff learnabout the new technology.

A new capital spending plan forNYCT, for bus purchases from2005 through 2009, may includemore CNG, hybrid, and possiblyfuel cell bus purchases (at leastfor demonstration purposes).

Future Hybrid Vehicle and Alternative FuelOperations at NYCT


Final Results

29

The next fleet of hybrid buses at NYCT (the order of 125 hybrid buses)is expected to be a nearly full-service, commercial product. The OrionVII hybrid bus uses the BAE SYSTEMS HybriDrive™ propulsion systemand has been designed to incorporate all of the technical lessonslearned from the experience with the Orion VI hybrid buses. Some ofthe design changes include the following:

• The Cummins ISB engine with an Engelhard DPX catalyzed DPF isbeing used for the power plant.

• The traction motor and generator design have been improved forreliability and performance.

• The connection of the engine and the generator has been changedto allow the hybrid diesel engine to be mounted in a similar fashionas a standard diesel bus engine. This should provide easier access tothe engine.

• The rear axle is standard, since the bus design has a step up in theback, rather than fully low floor.This should reduce brake repair costs.

• Many software changes have been made to optimize the operationof the hybrid propulsion system.

The Orion VII diesel hybrid-electric bus design is expected to be morefully optimized for fuel economy, specifically regenerative braking andhybrid controls. Future design changes may include ultracapacitors inconjunction or in place of the batteries to more efficiently and quicklycontrol the flow of power to and from the drive train.

The goals for the operation of the newer hybrid buses are similar tothe original 10 buses but are now more focused on reliability and optimization for cost of operation:

• Significantly reduce bus fleet emissions.

• Significantly increase fuel economy.

• Show that the hybrid buses are commercially viable, i.e., hybrids canbe purchased in volume with standard terms and conditions toreplace conventional diesel buses.

• Demonstrate rapid deployment of a large number of hybrid buseswith minimal infrastructure investment or service capacity interrup-tion (especially compared to CNG bus operation).

• Demonstrate that hybrid buses can be reliable and cost-effective inproviding regular revenue service.

NREL plans to implement a follow-up evaluation of the Orion VIIhybrid bus order at NYCT starting as soon as early 2003.

What’s Next for NYCT?


Final Results

30

Orion Bus Industries

Mark BragerDirector of SalesOrion Bus Industries350 Hazelhurst RoadMississauga, Ontario, CanadaL5J 4T8Phone: 905-403-7806Fax: 905-403-8600e-mail: [email protected]

BAE SYSTEMS

Tom WebbMarketing Manager, Transit BusBAE SYSTEMS Controls, Inc.30 Elm StreetSomerville, MA 02143Phone: 617-628-7585Fax: 617-628-1744e-mail: [email protected]

Contacts

New York City Transit

Bill ParsleyDirector, Research & Development25 Jamaica AvenueBrooklyn, NY 11207-1817Phone: 718-927-7707Fax: 718-927-8094e-mail: [email protected]

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Kevin WalkowiczSenior Project Engineer1617 Cole BoulevardGolden, CO 80401Phone: 303-275-4492Fax: 303-275-4415e-mail:[email protected]

Leslie EudyProject Engineer1617 Cole BoulevardGolden, CO 80401Phone: 303-275-4412Fax: 303-275-4415e-mail: [email protected]

Battelle

Kevin ChandlerProject Manager505 King AvenueColumbus, OH 43201Phone: 614-424-5127Fax: 614-458/5127e-mail: [email protected]


Final Results

31

NYCT Clean Bus Program

Battelle/NREL, 2002, NYCT’s Diesel Hybrid-Electric Buses, Program StatusUpdate, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, NREL/BR-540-31668.

Battelle/NREL, 2001, Advanced Technology Vehicles in Service, DieselHybrid Electric Buses, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO,NREL/FS-540-30736.

Environment Canada, 2001, Emissions Evaluation of Orion VII Hybrid Buswith BAE Systems Controls HybriDrive™ Propulsion System, EnvironmentCanada, Ottawa, Ontario, ERMD Report #01-12.

Lanni, T., Chatterjee, S., Conway, R., Windawi, H., Rosenblatt, D., Bush, C.,Lowell, D., Evans, J., McLean, R., 2001, Performance and Durability Evaluation of Continuously Regenerating Particulate Filters on DieselPowered Urban Buses at NY City Transit, SAE International, Warrendale, PA,2001-01-0511.

Clark, N., Wenwei, X., Gautam, M., Lyons, D., Norton, P., Balon, T., 2000,Hybrid Diesel-Electric Heavy Duty Bus Emissions: Benefits of Regenerationand Need for State of Charge Correction, SAE International, Warrandale, PA,2000-01-2955.

M.J. Bradley & Associates, 2000, Hybrid-Electric Drive Heavy-Duty VehicleTesting Project, Final Emissions Report, Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium, Boston, MA.

Environment Canada, 1998, Evaluation of Engine RPM on the Emissionsfrom the Low Floor Diesel-Electric Hybrid Bus, Environment Canada,Ottawa, Ontario, ERMD Report #97-26771-3.

DOE/NREL Vehicle Evaluation Programs

Battelle, 2002, New York City Transit Diesel Hybrid-Electric Bus Site FinalData Report, Battelle, Columbus, Ohio.

Battelle, 2001, Ralphs ECD Truck Fleet, Final Data Report, Battelle, Columbus, OH.

References and Related Reports


Final Results

32

Battelle, 2001, Ralphs ECD Truck Fleet, Start-Up Experience, NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, NREL/BR-540-29485.

Battelle, 2001, UPS CNG Truck Fleet, Start-Up Experience, NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, NREL/BR-540-30493.

Chandler, K., Norton, P., Clark, N., 2001, Waste Management’s LNGTruck Fleet, Final Results, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, NREL/BR-540-29073.

Chatterjee, S., McDonald, C., Conway, R., Windawi, H., Vertin, K.,LeTavec, C., Clark, N., Gautam, M., 2001, Emission Reductions andOperational Experiences with Heavy-Duty Diesel Fleet Vehicles Retro-fitted with Continuously Regenerated Diesel Particulate Filters inSouthern California, SAE International, Warrendale, PA, 2001-01-0512.

Vertin, K., Chandler, K., LeTavec, C., Goguen, S., Keski-Hynnila, D.,Chatterjee, S., Smith, G., Hallstrom, K., 2000, Class 8 Trucks Operatingon Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel with Particulate Filter Systems: A FleetStart-Up Experience, SAE International, Warrendale, PA, 2001-01-2821.

Chandler, K., Norton, P., Clark, N., 2000, DART’s LNG Bus Fleet, FinalResults, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, NREL/BR-540-28739.

Clark, N., Boyce, J., Xie, W., Gautam, M., Lyons, D., Vertin, K., LeTavec,C., 2000, Class 8 Trucks Operating on Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel withParticulate Filter Systems: Regulated Emissions, SAE International, War-rendale, PA, 2000-01-2815.

Battelle, 2000, Waste Management’s LNG Truck Fleet, Final Data Report,Battelle, Columbus, OH.

Battelle, 2000, DART’s LNG Bus Fleet, Final Data Report, Battelle,Columbus, OH.

Battelle, 2000, DART’s LNG Bus Fleet, Start-Up Experience, NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, NREL/BR-540-28124.

Chandler, K., Norton, P., Clark, N., 2000, Raley’s LNG Truck Fleet, FinalResults, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, NREL/BR-540-27678.


Final Results

Battelle, 1999, Waste Management’s LNG Truck Fleet, Start-Up Experience,National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, NREL/BR-540-26617.

Battelle, 1999, Raley’s LNG Truck Site, Final Data Report, Battelle,Columbus, OH.

Chandler, K., Norton, P., Clark, N., 1999, Update from the NREL Alternative Fuel Transit Bus Evaluation Program, American PublicTransit Association, 1999 Bus Conference, Cleveland, OH.

Chandler, K., Norton, P., Clark, N., 1999, Interim Results from AlternativeFuel Truck Evaluation Project, SAE International, Warrendale, PA, SAE Pub. #1999-01-1505.

Clark, N., Lyons, D., Rapp, L., Gautam, M., Wang, W., Norton, P., White,C., Chandler, K., 1998, Emissions from Trucks and Buses Powered byCummins L-10 Natural Gas Engines, SAE International, Warrendale, PA,SAE Pub. #981393.

Battelle, 1998, Dual-Fuel Truck Fleet, Start Up Experience, NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, NREL/BR-540-25118.

Battelle, 1998, Using CNG Trucks in National Parks, National RenewableEnergy Laboratory, Golden, CO, NREL/BR-540-24744.

Chandler, Norton, Clark, 1998, Alternative Fuel Truck Evaluation Project—Design and Preliminary Results, SAE International, Warrendale, PA,SAE Pub. #981392.

Norton, P., Vertin, K., Bailey, B., Clark, N., Lyons, D., Goguen, S., Eberhardt, J., 1998, Emissions from Trucks Using Fischer-Tropsch DieselFuel, SAE International, Warrendale, PA, SAE Pub. #982526.

Clark, N., Gautam, M., Lyons, D., Bata, R., Wang, W., Norton, P., Chandler, K., 1997, Natural Gas and Diesel Transit Bus Emissions:Review and Recent Data, SAE International, Warrendale, PA, SAE Pub. #973203.

Battelle, 1997, Raley’s LNG Truck Fleet, Start-Up Experience, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, NREL/BR-540-23402.

33


Final Results

34

Battelle, 1996, Alternative Fuel Transit Buses, The Pierce Transit SuccessStory…, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, NREL/SP-425-21606.

Chandler, K., Malcosky, N., Motta, R., Norton, P., Kelly, K., Schumacher,L., Lyons, D., 1996, Alternative Fuel Transit Bus Evaluation ProgramResults, SAE International, Warrendale, PA, SAE Pub. #961082.

Motta, R., Norton, P., Kelly, K., Chandler, K., Schumacher, L., Clark, N.,1996, Alternative Fuel Transit Buses, Final Results from the NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Vehicle Evaluation Program,NREL, Golden, CO, NREL/TP-425-20513.

Chandler, K., Malcosky, N., Motta, R., Kelly, K., Norton, P., Schumacher, L.,1996, Final Alternative Fuel Transit Bus Evaluation Results, Battelle,Columbus, OH.

Wang, W., Gautam, M., Sun, X., Bata, R., Clark, N., Palmer, G., Lyons, D.,1993, Emissions Comparisons of Twenty-Six Heavy-Duty Vehicles Operated on Conventional Alternative Fuels, SAE International, Warrendale, PA, SAE Pub. #932952.

Bata, R., Clark, N., Gautam, M., Howell, A., Long, T., Loth, J., Lyons, D.,Palmer, M., Rapp, B., Smith, J., Wang, W., 1991, The First TransportableHeavy Duty Vehicle Emissions Testing Laboratory, SAE International,Warrendale, PA, SAE Pub. #912668.


Final Results

A-1

Appendix AFleet Summary

Statistics


A-2

Final Results

New York City Transit (New York, NY) Fleet Summary StatisticsEvaluation Period 4/1/02

Diesel Diesel Older Hybrid Newer Hybrid

AMS MV 6351-4 6355-9

Number of Vehicles 7 7 4 5

Period Used for Fuel and Oil Op Analysis 7/00 - 9/01 7/00 - 9/01 7/00 - 9/01 7/00 - 9/01

Total Number of Months in Period 15 15 15 15

Fuel and Oil Analysis Base Fleet Mileage 230,021 229,993 60,146 114,319

Period Used for Maintenance Op Analysis 4/99 - 6/00 4/99 - 4/00 9/98 - 5/01 9/98 - 5/01

Total Number of Months in Period 12 12 12 12

Maintenance Analysis Base Fleet Mileage 203,638 219,728 60,942 106,629

Average Monthly Mileage per Vehicle 2,333 2,341 1,283 1,632

Fleet Fuel Usage in Gal. 105,804 95,025 22,773 42,962

Representative Fleet MPG 2.17 2.42 2.64 2.66

Ratio of MPG (AT/DC) 1.09 1.10

Average Fuel Cost as Reported (with tax) 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03

per Gal JetA per Gal JetA per Gal JetA per Gal JetA

Average Fuel Cost per Energy Equivalent 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03

Fuel Cost per Mile 0.474 0.426 0.390 0.387

Number of Total Roadcalls 94 129 88 124

MBRC All Roadcalls 2,166 1,703 693 860

Number of Engine/Fuel Roadcalls 13 21 38 43

MBRC Engine/Fuel Roadcalls 15,664 10,463 1,604 2,480

Total Scheduled Repair Cost per Mile 0.195 0.242 0.230 0.291

Total Unscheduled Repair Cost per Mile 0.420 0.530 1.666 1.071

Total Maintenance Cost per Mile 0.615 0.772 1.896 1.362

Total Operating Cost per Mile 1.089 1.198 2.286 1.749


AMS MV 6351-4 6355-9

Fleet Mileage 203,638 219,728 60,942 106,629

Total Parts Cost 21,338.90 19,868.08 12,495.68 17,306.00

Total Labor Hours 2078.8 2996.6 2061.2 2557.9

Average Labor Cost 103,940.55 149,831.60 103,059.70 127,895.90

(@ $50.00 per hour)

Total Maintenance Cost 125,279.45 169,699.68 115,555.38 145,201.90

Total Maintenance Cost per Mile 0.615 0.772 1.896 1.362

Fleet Operations and Economics

Maintenance Costs

A-3


Final Results


AMS MV 6351-4 6355-9

Fleet Mileage 203,638 219,728 60,942 106,629

Total Engine/Fuel-Related and Transmission Systems

(ATA VMRS 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)

Parts Cost 3,604.99 4,119.34 2,222.10 3,947.67

Labor Hours 236.1 264.3 608.5 692.3


Total Cost (for system) 15,409.79 17,333.69 32,645.70 38,561.77

Total Cost (for system) per Mile 0.0757 0.0789 0.5357 0.3616

Exhaust System Repairs (ATA VMRS 43)

Parts Cost 10.00 58.18 40.00 55.00

Labor Hours 9.5 43.9 15.5 60.5

Average Labor Cost 473.65 2,195.00 775.00 3,025.00

Total Cost (for system) 483.65 2,253.18 815.00 3,080.00


Fuel System Repairs (ATA VMRS 44)

Parts Cost 151.39 136.31 143.44 376.91

Labor Hours 22.1 11.2 74.0 65.8

Average Labor Cost 1,105.70 558.35 3,700.00 3,287.50

Total Cost (for system) 1,257.09 694.66 3,843.44 3,664.41


Power Plant (Engine) Repairs (ATA VMRS 45)

Parts Cost 2,212.46 2,564.23 995.57 1,627.97

Labor Hours 31.7 72.6 146.0 212.6




Electric Motor, Generator, and Battery Repairs (ATA VMRS 46)

Parts Cost 0.00 0.00 236.35 692.51

Labor Hours 0.0 0.0 260.5 144.5

Average Labor Cost 0.00 0.00 13,025.00 7,225.00

Total Cost (for system) 0.00 0.00 13,261.35 7,917.51


Electrical System Repairs (ATA VMRS 30-Electrical General,

31-Charging, 32-Cranking, 33-Ignition)

Parts Cost 434.80 685.70 416.01 507.72

Labor Hours 61.2 53.7 44.7 68.3




Breakdown of Maintenance Costs by Vehicle System

Final Results

A-4


Breakdown of Maintenance Costs by Vehicle System (continued)


AMS MV 6351-4 6355-9

Air Intake System Repairs (ATA VMRS 41)

Parts Cost 239.55 311.05 160.70 460.78

Labor Hours 3.2 14.0 0.0 10.5

Average Labor Cost 161.65 699.00 0.90 525.00

Total Cost (for system) 401.20 1,010.05 161.60 985.78


Cooling System Repairs (ATA VMRS 42)

Parts Cost 108.12 148.91 230.03 198.23

Labor Hours 49.1 41.4 39.8 118.7




Brake System Repairs (ATA VMRS 13)

Parts Cost 3,338.64 4,532.41 570.41 1,157.17

Labor Hours 228.2 738.6 192.5 269.2




Transmission Repairs (ATA VMRS 27)

Parts Cost 448.67 214.97 0.00 28.55

Labor Hours 59.3 27.5 28.0 11.5

Average Labor Cost 1,482.83 1,375.00 1,400.00 575.00

Total Cost (for system) 1,931.50 1,589.97 1,400.00 603.55


Cab, Body, and Accessories Systems Repairs

(ATA VMRS 02-Cab and Sheet Metal, 50-Accessories, 71-Body)

Parts Cost 9,408.29 5,773.33 5,371.74 7,928.92

Labor Hours 750.5 810.0 567.1 584.7




Inspections Only - no parts replacements (101)

Parts Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Labor Hours 305.7 520.4 166.0 397.6





Final Results


AMS MV 6351-4 6355-9

HVAC System Repairs (ATA VMRS 01)

Parts Cost 2,934.66 2,869.30 3,020.98 2,693.81

Labor Hours 269.6 332.2 128.8 219.5




Air System Repairs (ATA VMRS 10)

Parts Cost 45.64 140.60 102.59 178.51

Labor Hours 4.8 40.9 83.3 69.3

Average Labor Cost 237.50 2,047.00 4,162.50 3,462.50

Total Cost (for system) 283.14 2,187.60 4,265.09 3,641.01


Lighting System Repairs (ATA VMRS 34)

Parts Cost 326.09 253.46 313.67 430.90

Labor Hours 132.1 78.8 72.5 80.0




Frame, Steering, and Suspension Repairs (ATA VMRS 14-Frame, 15-Steering, 16-Suspension)

Parts Cost 757.76 1,823.07 808.46 826.15

Labor Hours 93.8 159.9 172.1 191.8




Axle, Wheel, and Drive Shaft Repairs (ATA VMRS 11-Front Axle, 18-Wheels, 22-Rear Axle, 24-Drive Shaft)

Parts Cost 128.11 49.42 0.00 42.36

Labor Hours 19.3 22.5 31.8 22.1

Average Labor Cost 964.55 1,123.00 1,589.30 1,105.30



Tire Repairs (ATA VMRS 17)

Parts Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.68

Labor Hours 5.3 29.2 18.7 19.5

Average Labor Cost 266.70 1,458.10 934.50 977.45

Total Cost (for system) 266.70 1,458.10 934.50 987.13


Hydraulic Repairs (ATA VMRS 65)

Parts Cost 794.73 264.06 85.73 90.83

Labor Hours 33.5 0.0 20.0 9.0

Average Labor Cost 1,675.00 0.00 1,000.00 450.00

Total Cost (for system) 2,469.73 264.06 1,085.73 540.83


Breakdown of Maintenance Costs by Vehicle System (continued)

A-5


Final Results

1. The engine- and fuel-related systems were chosen to include onlythose systems of the vehicles that could be directly a part of thepropulsion system.

2. ATA VMRS coding is based on parts that were replaced. If no partwas replaced in a given repair, the code was chosen by the systembeing worked on.

3. In general, inspections (with no part replacements) were onlyincluded in the overall totals (not by system). 101 was created totrack labor costs for PM inspections.

4. ATA VMRS 02-Cab and Sheet Metal represents seats, doors, etc.; ATAVMRS 50-Accessories represents things like fire extinguishers, testkits, etc.; ATA VMRS 71-Body represents mostly windows and wind-shields.

5. Average labor cost is assumed to be $50 per hour.

6. Warranty costs are not included.

Notes

A-6

Appendix BEmission Test

Results

B-1


Final Results


Final Results

CO NOx HC PM CO2

g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi

CBD Orion Hybrid 0.1 19.2 0.08 0.12 2262 4.3

CBD NovaBUS RTS 3.0 30.1 0.14 0.24 2779 3.5

CBD Hybrid/Diesel -97% -36% -43% -50% -19% +23%

NY Bus Orion Hybrid 5.0 40.5 1.13 0.16 4251 2.3

NY Bus NovaBUS RTS 11.3 72.0 0.60 0.70 7076 1.4

NY Bus Hybrid/Diesel -56% -44% +88% -77% -40% +64%

Manhattan Orion Hybrid 0.1 22.6 0.18 <0.005 2841 3.4

Manhattan NovaBUS RTS 6.0 40.3 0.25 0.48 4268 2.3

Manhattan Hybrid/Diesel -98% -44% -28% -99% -33% +48%

1. Results for the Orion VII Hybrid are from Report #01-12, Environment Canada,“Emissions Evaluation ofOrion VII Hybrid Bus with BAE SYSTEMS Controls HybriDriveTM Propulsion System.”

2. Results for Orion V diesel buses from the same order as the buses tracked in this report from AmsterdamDepot, SAE Paper 2001-01-0511,“Performance and Durability Evaluation of Continuously RegeneratingParticulate Filters on Diesel Powered Urban Buses at NY City Transit.” These tests were also performed atEnvironment Canada.

All results in Tables B-1 and B-2 for the hybrid buses have been corrected for state of charge (SOC) of thetraction batteries on board. The SOC of the batteries can have a significant impact on the fuel economycalculations because of the need to understand the amount of energy consumed during the testing.

Table B-1. Emissions Test Results from Hybrid and Diesel Buses Tested by WVU

CO NOx HC PM CO2

g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi

CBD Orion VII Hybrid1 0.08 12.9 0.11 0.012 1848 5.4

CBD Orion V Diesel2 1.4 25.4 0.05 0.17 2916 3.5

CBD Orion V Diesel with catalyzed DPF2 0.13 25.1 0.02 0.03 2958 3.4

CBD Hybrid/Diesel -94% -49% +120% -93% -37% +54%

CBD Hybrid/Diesel with catalyzed DPF -38% -49% +450% -60% -38% +59%

Table B-2. Emissions Test Results from Environment Canada Chassis Dynamometer

B-2

BusCycle

Cycle Bus MPG

MPG

Produced by the Center for Transportation Technologies and Systems at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory

NREL1617 Cole Blvd.Golden, CO 80401-3393

NREL/BR-540-32427July 2002

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at least50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste

new york city transit - energy.gov...real-world account of the obstacles that were encountered and...

Documents