In my upcoming "NYCTA in the 1980s" that I am preparing for the site, I have a few paragraphs that discuss all the "cracking" episodes - the R-46 trucks and the Grumman Flxibles. I'm going to post several paragraphs of what I wrote; feel free to correct anything that's wrong, though I can cite sources for several of the facts that I researched (numbers currently in parentheses). I don't want to leave the reader "hanging" after I mention that Gunn pulled the buses from the streets. I want to conclude with what happened to them after they were pulled. This helps close the gap in the story.
In 1979 and 1980, the TA took possession of 637 new Grumman Flxible Model 870 buses. On November 19th, 1980, they were ordered off the streets because cracks had been discovered in 39 bus frames during routine inspections. At the time, these buses represented about 14% of the City’s bus fleet. (33) Many of these buses hadn’t seen 3 months of service. Many of the buses returned to service, but were again removed from service around December 20th. The TA also decided to dissolve an agreement for 570 additional Model 870s. Initially, Grumman rejected the ideas that the cracks were a design defect, but as the number of cracked frames increased, Grumman agreed to pay for repairs. The TA wasn’t certain that the buses could be repaired. On December 8th, 1980, the TA told Grumman to stop producing the last 200 buses in the initial 837 bus contract. The following day, the TA stopped paying Grumman for the current contract, and took steps to dissolve a $65 million follow-up order. Up to this time, the TA still owed Grumman $46 million on an $89 million contract. Grumman countered that the TA breached its contract with them by withholding payment. The Model 870s would be grounded and partially replaced by mothballed buses that were due for scrapping, but these mothballed buses were far from meeting service requirements. Waits for buses in all five boroughs skyrocketed.
The TA was forced by federal law to accept the lowest bid for the bus contract, but because of the defects, they wanted to give the contract to General Motors (for the RTS-I). However, that same law prohibited the TA from just walking away from the contract. If Grumman were unwilling to give the contract to GM, the TA would have to prove that the buses were poorly built and unsafe. If the TA succeeded in doing that, Grumman Flxible would be barred from bidding for any future bus contracts in the US.
Meahwhile, where would all the extra buses needed for daily service come from? A Christmas present from Washington, DC – that’s where! A caravan of 105 creaking old buses leased from WMATA would meander its way to New York City, with a National Guard escort, leaving Washington at 10:40am on December 27th, 1980. (35) The convoy was accompanied by extra mechanics, tow trucks, tools and truckloads of spare parts. It was hoped that the cost of the WMATA buses would be recovered from Grumman Flxible. Much of this convoy was recently returned from a stint in Philadelphia, where officials indicated that numerous breakdowns occurred. Nearly 150 MTA employees were flown to Washington, then bused to WMATA’s New Carrollton and Landover, MD shops to pick up the buses. The first WMATA bus to debut on a revenue run in New York City ran on the M106 crosstown run down 42nd Street heading east from 12th Avenue.
The MTA was considering paying Grumman the money outstanding on its contract in return for Grumman to make all necessary repairs to the 637 buses and not produce the remaining 200 buses in the contract. The TA would give the remaining bus contract to GM. Efforts to complete this agreement were fought by the City’s Comptroller, Harrison J. Goldin.
230 Grumman Model 870s were also removed from the streets of Los Angeles due to the same defect. While Grumman and Rockwell were incapable of manufacturing sturdy subway and bus equipment, they were able to manufacture satisfactory components for the space program! (34)
And why were there only two bus manufacturers in 1980, Flxible and GM? In 1971, the Federal government mandated an “ideal” bus design called “Transbus” which was very lightweight, contained sealed windows, air conditioning, a small engine and low ground clearance. The parts would be interchangeable and easily repaired. Three manufacturers built prototypes of the bus, then indicated they would never build another. The federal government, realizing that their good intentions for an ideal bus would never see the light of day, accepted the Model 870 and the RTS-I as compromises. The Feds left it up to the manufacturers to choose the materials they would use to meet the Transbus requirements. The materials Flxible chose could not stand up to the punishing streets of New York City. In order for cities to obtain 80% in federal Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) grants, they were forced to purchase either the Model 870 or the RTS – any other bus would not be federally funded. When GM and Flxible bid for the MTA’s bus contract, Flxible was the lower bidder, and the MTA was mandated by law to accept the lowest bid. The MTA never liked the Model 870, but Flxible was no longer manufacturing the old style buses that the MTA was used to. (36)
In 1982, the MTA was exploring the purchase of new buses from the Hino Company of Japan and Renault of France. The contract would be for 325 buses per year for 5 years.
On February 7th, 1984, David Gunn, on his 5th day as the TA president, ordered all of the Model 870s grounded after one of them burst into flames while it was being driven back to a garage in Manhattan. (61) They never returned to service again. The MTA tried to sell the buses while they were in storage at the Brooklyn Army Terminal. As of 1985, there were no buyers. The TA sued Grumman for $324 million in damages citing fraud; Grumman countersued for $1 billion citing poor maintenance as the reason for the Flxible’s failures. The MTA had to repay the federal government the funding it provided - $56 million – by July 1st, 1984.
This wasn’t the end though. The MTA purchased a number of new double-decker buses to run down 5th Avenue. Someone forgot to measure the clearance from overhead traffic lights. The buses didn’t stay there for long.
So do you know how long the buses sat at the Brooklyn Army Terminal (a year is sufficient, I don't need an exact date). And can anyone provide me more details on the double decker buses that couldn't fit under several of the traffic lights along 5th Avenue?
--Mark