Talk:Rapid Transit Series

Buses Mid‑importance

	Buses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Depending completely on operator, seats may be plastic, upholstered and reclinable as in intercity buses. MTA New York City Transit, does it on buses which formerly ran on express lines. But as they bought MCI Coaches for express routes, these reclinable seats buses run on heavily used city routes. It is very comic to see such buses crowded by passengers in peak hours."

The second sentence is confusing: What does "does it" mean? Also, the comment in the last sentence is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.

I moved the page from GMC RTS Bus to Rapid Transit Series seeing that the RTS series has gone through four manufacturers. Expect a clarification and rewrite fairly soon. If anyone objects, please let me know. Scrabbleship 03:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some additonal information about engine and transmissions used in later model RTS's, as well as changed the dates on the model number definitions to be more in line with delivery dates, as well as added information about front axle configurations which is very important with regards to ride quality of the RTS. Cpeters1 21:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove pics from this article except the first?

The pictrues posted here are also stored in the Commons. Should they be removed from this article and stored in the Commons link only? --AEMoreira042281 06:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All pics have been removed from the article, and are now in the commons---even the first one. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

drove one

I drove one for the first time yesterday. It is the best transit bus I have ever driven. It is so much better than any current production buses I have driven. The ergonomics a very good and you can tell there was a lot of consideration in the design. Not like current buses which optimize low weight and cheep production, Saltysailor (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I bought one for an RV conversion. It drives like a 30,000 pound sports car. I've owned it for a few years now, and have taken it out a few times. It's amazing how easy a 40'x8.5' bus is to drive. They're good on the highway with the right rear gearing too. Wheeee. :) I'm not a bus driver, but I've driven quite a few large vehicles, and this one was a pleasure. JW Smythe (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AMGeneral RTS Buses

According to the Bus World Encyclopedia, and some of my own memories, AM General also tried to manufacture their own RTS Buses in the late-1970's. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Millennium Transit Services

This is a small, lesser-known company compared to manufacturers like NovaBus and MCI which previously made the RTS. It would not be ideal to place this info in its own article especially given the lack of coverage in the media. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good move, since their plant has long since been demolished.

Still problematic

Maybe as a result of the article merer, somehow MTS went totally out of business but then two years later resumed production? This is what we "learn" in the fourth paragraph of the intro with regard to 2009-11. That part of the article needs to be further rewritten. It would seem that what is said in the later paragraphs is more accurate, and needs to be somehow incorporated into the introduction, in more-succinct but still accurate form. 72.106.148.238 (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]