More Bus Moves

[garmon757]

Hey 4CottageGrove95, your post about the 6000s is fine. Just make sure that you provide the links associated with the first photo to avoid copyright infringement. Thank you for clarifying the photo associated with Chicago-l.org. 

[4CottageGrove95th]

Hey 4CottageGrove95, your post about the 6000s is fine. Just make sure that you provide the links associated with the first photo to avoid copyright infringement. Thank you for clarifying the photo associated with Chicago-l.org. 

O.K.! The link for the first photo is https://chuckmanchicagonostalgia.wordpress.com/2015/08/26/photo-chicago-new-cta-rapid-transit-cars-long-train-1950/.  Sorry about that! 

Talking about "Random CTA", remember that Green Line derailment at 63rd & Calumet a few weeks back? Well I found another derailment at that same spot that was way worse than that one; it happened in 1960. The link I found it on is:

               http://www.theseamericans.com/press/train-collection-l-train-derails-1960/

                            

 

 

Edited September 6, 2015 by 4CottageGrove95th

[wordguy]

That seems to be true regarding the different ratios;  that hadn't occurred to me.

But it still seems strange that none of NP's block of low 1300s is on the street  when the rest of their 40-foot fleet is operating normally.  This includes 1300s numbered 1325 and above in addition to the recently-arrived 1200s from 103rd.

Could be coincidental after all.   1317 is operating on Addison now, along with a few other NP NFs covering extra traffic from the ball yard.

[strictures]

Jay Cutler recorded an announcement touting CTA as an option to get to Soldier Field. I heard it on two different #9 buses today.

Why would anyone take that failure's advice? Did they pay him for those announcements? We know his goofy wife won't take the CTA, as she hates everything about Chicago.

[chicagopcclcar]

Hey 4CottageGrove95, your post about the 6000s is fine. Just make sure that you provide the links associated with the first photo to avoid copyright infringement. Thank you for clarifying the photo associated with Chicago-l.org. 

 

O.K.! The link for the first photo is https://chuckmanchicagonostalgia.wordpress.com/2015/08/26/photo-chicago-new-cta-rapid-transit-cars-long-train-1950/.  Sorry about that! 

Talking about "Random CTA", remember that Green Line derailment at 63rd & Calumet a few weeks back? Well I found another derailment at that same spot that was way worse than that one; it happened in 1960. The link I found it on is:

               http://www.theseamericans.com/press/train-collection-l-train-derails-1960/

Good information on links.....however, internet websites like "chuckman....." and "theseamericans...." hardly ever shoot photographs..they collect them and republish, so their material on their websites are not really theirs. The 6000 picture on track four is from Walter R. Keevil collection. The Keevil name worked for the CTA. As an employee, he had the run of the place, many of his photos are also listed as CTA photos too. True, the six cars are on performance testing.  "chuckman...." says the cars were out in 1960. The date really was Oct. 20, 1950.  See who's wrong?

The 63rd and Calumet photo probably came from the CTA, a newspaper, or CFD, most certainly it didn't come from "theseamericans...."

4CottageGrove95th is right about the road grime. Cars three and four were among the first....#6001-6004 recognized by the green band that didn't go across the ends. Note track one on the left doesn't have a third rail. Only North Shore interurbans used track between Howard and Granville. Third rail was included by 1964 and PM Evanston Express trains could use track 1.

EDIT.....EDIT.....I made an error.  "Chuckman...." did credit the photo as being 1950. The "1960" was reference to another photo. 

Edited September 7, 2015 by chicagopcclcar
Corrected reference. Made new paragraph.

[BusHunter]

 

 

Good information on links.....however, internet websites like "chuckman....." and "theseamericans...." hardly ever shoot photographs..they collect them and republish, so their material on their websites are not really theirs. The 6000 picture on track four is from Walter R. Keevil collection. The Keevil name worked for the CTA. As an employee, he had the run of the place, many of his photos are also listed as CTA photos too. True, the six cars are on performance testing.  "chuckman...." says the cars were out in 1960. The date really was Oct. 20, 1950.  See who's wrong? The 63rd and Calumet photo probably came from the CTA, a newspaper, or CFD, most certainly it didn't come from "theseamericans...."

4CottageGrove95th is right about the road grime. Cars three and four were among the first....#6001-6004 recognized by the green band that didn't go across the ends. Note track one on the left doesn't have a third rail. Only North Shore interurbans used track between Howard and Granville. Third rail was included by 1964 and PM Evanston Express trains could use track 1.

Nice try, but I don't think there were #6000's in 1950 and if there were, there wouldn't be a whole yard of them in 61st yard. The first lines were the Logan Square and Garfield Pk I say chuckman is right and 1950 is wrong. Those are obviously #6200's or #6300's from the Howard -  Jackson Park. The clincher is the new headlight assignment which the cars were originally delivered in the #6101-02 style. In the early 50's the overhead style of headlight didn't exist yet on those cars.

[chicagopcclcar]

Nice try, but I don't think there were #6000's in 1950 and if there were, there wouldn't be a whole yard of them in 61st yard. The first lines were the Logan Square and Garfield Pk I say chuckman is right and 1950 is wrong. Those are obviously #6200's or #6300's from the Howard -  Jackson Park. The clincher is the new headlight assignment which the cars were originally delivered in the #6101-02 style. In the early 50's the overhead style of headlight didn't exist yet on those cars.

Where did you get such incorrect information?

6001-6128  Builder....St. Louis Car Company....Year....1950

6129-6130  Builder....St. Louis Car Company....Year....1950

6131-6200  Builder....St. Louis Car Company....Year....1951

Source..Chicago Rapid Transit Vol. II

First 6000s were assigned to Logan Sq.  They opened the Dearborn-Milwaukee subway.

I only wrote about the 6001-6130 series.   The 63rd wreck did involved 6201-6450 series, built 1954-1955. 

[Busjack]

Nice try, but I don't think there were #6000's in 1950 and if there were, there wouldn't be a whole yard of them in 61st yard. The first lines were the Logan Square and Garfield Pk I say chuckman is right and 1950 is wrong. Those are obviously #6200's or #6300's from the Howard -  Jackson Park. The clincher is the new headlight assignment which the cars were originally delivered in the #6101-02 style. In the early 50's the overhead style of headlight didn't exist yet on those cars.

Those pictures show up in books such as CERA 115 page 16 in performance testing on the express track at Touhy. There is also a caption on page 14 that the picture on page 13 is of them at "the end of the Westchester Branch."

Admittedly, they started revenue service on the Logan Square line, but they were tested everywhere, sort of like the 2400s and 5000s.

BTW, this shows that the original post was a copyright infringement.

[chicagopcclcar]

Those pictures show up in books such as CERA 115 page 16 in performance testing on the express track at Touhy. There is also a caption on page 14 that the picture on page 13 is of them at "the end of the Westchester Branch."

Admittedly, they started revenue service on the Logan Square line, but they were tested everywhere, sort of like the 2400s and 5000s.

BTW, this shows that the original post was a copyright infringement.

Some one tell him I said this already.

 

[BusHunter]

Where did you get such incorrect information?

6001-6128  Builder....St. Louis Car Company....Year....1950

6129-6130  Builder....St. Louis Car Company....Year....1950

6131-6200  Builder....St. Louis Car Company....Year....1951

Source..Chicago Rapid Transit Vol. II

First 6000s were assigned to Logan Sq.  They opened the Dearborn-Milwaukee subway.

I only wrote about the 6001-6130 series.   The 63rd wreck did involved 6201-6450 series, built 1954-1955. 

That's what i was going to ask you? You seem to think the #6000's came in on the Jackson pk branch. Now that's something current management would do. I'm glad you looked up the info and posted what you learned.

[chicagopcclcar]

That's what i was going to ask you? You seem to think the #6000's came in on the Jackson pk branch. Now that's something current management would do. I'm glad you looked up the info and posted what you learned.

1. 9/13/1950…..Logan Sq. ….First 6000 series received.
2. 12/02/1950….Logan Sq. ….6000 series for 100% Logan Sq.
3. 2/25/1951….Milwaukee Subway…Service began, Paulina leg discontinued.
4. 3/19/1951….Ravenswood….6000 series assigned for base service.
5. 12/9/1951….Douglas Park….6000 series assigned for base service.
6. 10/11/1952….System Wide….Assigned 6000 series to provide all base service on North-South, Douglas, and Ravenswood.
7. 4/4/1954….Garfield….Assigned 6000 series to provide base service.
8. 6/29/1954….Ravenswood….6000 series provided owl service.
9. 7/5/1955….North-South….6000 series provided all service.  

[chicagopcclcar]

The 6201-6450 series began their lives on the North-South and spent their entire lives on that route. The first eight cars ran the Howard-Jackson Pk service. They cut down to four car trains after PM AT 61st St. As four car train I rode them NB all week. I lived two blocks away. School kept me away at the other hours.

[BusHunter]

 

1. 9/13/1950…..Logan Sq. ….First 6000 series received.
2. 12/02/1950….Logan Sq. ….6000 series for 100% Logan Sq.
3. 2/25/1951….Milwaukee Subway…Service began, Paulina leg discontinued.
4. 3/19/1951….Ravenswood….6000 series assigned for base service.
5. 12/9/1951….Douglas Park….6000 series assigned for base service.
6. 10/11/1952….System Wide….Assigned 6000 series to provide all base service on North-South, Douglas, and Ravenswood.
7. 4/4/1954….Garfield….Assigned 6000 series to provide base service.
8. 6/29/1954….Ravenswood….6000 series provided owl service.
9. 7/5/1955….North-South….6000 series provided all service.  

But you didn't post the most important date out of all of those, the date #6000's would lose the dual headlight configuration which I looked up for you, so you can learn some more. According to Chicago-l.org, the headlight configuration was changed starting in the mid 50's up until 1965, so no way is 61st yard going to have a full set in '53-'54. But don't take my word for it take Graham's.

http://www.chicago-l.org/trains/roster/6000.html

[chicagopcclcar]

ONLY the six car train was taken in 1950.  

I know the 63rd Calumet was taken on 1960.  I walked to the wreck site.  I saw it personally.   How did you confuse this? 

EDIT....EDIT.....

But you didn't post the most important date out of all of those, the date #6000's would lose the dual headlight configuration which I looked up for you, so you can learn some more. According to Chicago-l.org, the headlight configuration was changed starting in the mid 50's up until 1965, so no way is 61st yard going to have a full set in '53-'54. But don't take my word for it take Graham's.

It is NOT important....LOSING DUAL HEADLIGHT. I separated the sentence about the 63rd crash in the original post so you can see the sentence was about a entire different subject.  There was NO citation about the year of the 63rd crash.

Finally, losing dual headlight is NOT important because the cars in the 63rd crash never lost dual headlights......they had single headlight from their beginning. The 63rd crash were from the series made from streetcar components, they are easily recognized, they have a nickname...."curved side doors".....as others are nicknamed "straight side doors." 

CTA Photo 1954

Edited September 8, 2015 by chicagopcclcar
Added photo.

[4CottageGrove95th]

Those pictures show up in books such as CERA 115 page 16 in performance testing on the express track at Touhy. There is also a caption on page 14 that the picture on page 13 is of them at "the end of the Westchester Branch."

Admittedly, they started revenue service on the Logan Square line, but they were tested everywhere, sort of like the 2400s and 5000s.

BTW, this shows that the original post was a copyright infringement.

Mine or those of the website from which I pulled to photos? 

        

Good information on links.....however, internet websites like "chuckman....." and "theseamericans...." hardly ever shoot photographs..they collect them and republish, so their material on their websites are not really theirs. The 6000 picture on track four is from Walter R. Keevil collection. The Keevil name worked for the CTA. As an employee, he had the run of the place, many of his photos are also listed as CTA photos too. True, the six cars are on performance testing.  "chuckman...." says the cars were out in 1960. The date really was Oct. 20, 1950.  See who's wrong? The 63rd and Calumet photo probably came from the CTA, a newspaper, or CFD, most certainly it didn't come from "theseamericans...."

4CottageGrove95th is right about the road grime. Cars three and four were among the first....#6001-6004 recognized by the green band that didn't go across the ends. Note track one on the left doesn't have a third rail. Only North Shore interurbans used track between Howard and Granville. Third rail was included by 1964 and PM Evanston Express trains could use track 1.

Folks, it was not my intent to start a "firestorm" with respect to these photos.  I am now aware, more so than before, of the need to avoid copyright infringement (C.I). But now I'm wondering if it's safe to post an image or photo at all (unless you personally produced it yourself) even if you are just innocently copying it off the internet?  What I mean is, from what "chicagopcclcar" is saying, you could see a photo of interest on the net (Facebook, Twitter, etc), post it on this site (or any other site for that matter), and unknowingly be guilty of  C.I.  It kinda makes you feel like your walking in a proverbial "mine field".

 

 

[Busjack]

Mine or those of the website from which I pulled to photos? 

Folks, it was not my intent to start a "firestorm" with respect to these photos.  I am now aware, more so than before, of the need to avoid copyright infringement (C.I). But now I'm wondering if it's safe to post an image or photo at all (unless you personally produced it yourself) even if you are just innocently copying it off the internet?  What I mean is, from what "chicagopcclcar" is saying, you could see a photo of interest on the net (Facebook, Twitter, etc), post it on this site (or any other site for that matter), and unknowingly be guilty of  C.I.  It kinda makes you feel like your walking in a proverbial "mine field".

 

 

The quick answer to the first is both. You didn't have permission from Keevil or CERA to use it. Neither did the other infringer.

On your second paragraph, there was posted here before Kevin's instructions on how to post from social media. You post the link to the social media item (such as the particular tweet*) and the software embeds it. That's different from copying the material and uploading it on this server, which is copyright infringement.

*On Twitter, click on the 3 dots on the bottom and select "Copy link to Tweet." I assume there is something similar if you are a Facebook member. YouTube works the same way.

[chicagopcclcar]

Mine or those of the website from which I pulled to photos? 

Folks, it was not my intent to start a "firestorm" with respect to these photos.  I am now aware, more so than before, of the need to avoid copyright infringement (C.I). But now I'm wondering if it's safe to post an image or photo at all (unless you personally produced it yourself) even if you are just innocently copying it off the internet?  What I mean is, from what "chicagopcclcar" is saying, you could see a photo of interest on the net (Facebook, Twitter, etc), post it on this site (or any other site for that matter), and unknowingly be guilty of  C.I.  It kinda makes you feel like your walking in a proverbial "mine field".

 

 

As can see how 4CottageGrove95th could feel about walking in a mine field. Busjack is using  a feature of this forum "ignore user" and his answers omit responses I post which adds confusion.  True, Kevin might feel the feature is positive. Two months ago, Busjack hinted in a reference that he still sees posts when they are quoted.  I think the feature is unneeded.  

[jajuan]

Could be coincidental after all.   1317 is operating on Addison now, along with a few other NP NFs covering extra traffic from the ball yard.

Now you see why I say sometimes figuring out any change at NP can be tricky if trying to do so on a weekend day. Service in general is already less on weekends especially on Sundays and holidays like today. But you also have that factor that routes that use 40 foot buses at least some portion of the day on a weekday like 22 and 151 using close to all artics on weekends. 

[jajuan]

Like Ken Harrelson always say, "You gotta be bleeping me!". 

Funny thing is North Park's 1000s and a few of the diesel 4300s have shown that message throughout the whole month of August.

Why would anyone take that failure's advice? Did they pay him for those announcements? We know his goofy wife won't take the CTA, as she hates everything about Chicago.

Well it's something he and a few other Bears team members did as I heard one announcement done by two other team members whose voices I didn't catch because I was leaving the bus just as it was starting to play. So it wasn't something that was centered only around him but some joint venture between CTA and the Bears team in general. Now as for if anyone heeds the suggestion on home game days is for them to decide for themselves. And the rest beyond that leads outside of the scope of the forum.

 

And by the way just how did a suggestion to remember to provide links to photos borrowed off the internet turn into this latest blow up? Sheesh.

[4CottageGrove95th]

 

And by the way just how did a suggestion to remember to provide links to photos borrowed off the internet turn into this latest blow up? Sheesh.

Well, there was no blow up as far as I was concerned. It was an oversight on my part; garmon757 reminded/corrected me on it.  Overall, after further elaboration from chicagopcclcar and Busjack, I got the point and have moved on.  

[jajuan]

Well, there was no blow up as far as I was concerned. It was an oversight on my part; garmon757 reminded/corrected me on it.  Overall, after further elaboration from chicagopcclcar and Busjack, I got the point and have moved on.  

Well I wasn't speaking of you actually. I was speaking of that debate that came after that about year of origin of the picture of the decades ago derailment at the junction between Englewood and Jackson Park trains.

[4CottageGrove95th]

Well I wasn't speaking of you actually. I was speaking of that debate that came after that about year of origin of the picture of the decades ago derailment at the junction between Englewood and Jackson Park trains.

Oh.  Well, that'll work.

[4CottageGrove95th]

You guys are so worried about copyright infringement, you're going to scare away all the picture uploaders!! How do you even know when a person links a shot on Facebook that it is indeed their shot?

It does seem a little "over the top" so to speak. But on the flip side, we live in such a litigious society that what you or I thought was just an innocent picture upload could land us on the short end of a long lawsuit. 

[MarioM]

It does seem a little "over the top" so to speak. But on the flip side, we live in such a litigious society that what you or I thought was just an innocent picture upload could land us on the short end of a long lawsuit. 

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides online service providers (such as this board) immunity from copyright claims as long as they adhere to safe-harbor provisions of the Act.  The Guidlines page does contain the DMCA takedown notice required by the act.  I will not make any judgements about whether this site has fulfilled all the safe-harbor requirements.

It's not as dangerous as you may believe it is.

Having said that, it is within the site owner's prerogative to impose requirements not required by law upon the users of this board and we should respect them.

 

 Digital Media Law Project: Protecting Yourself Against Copyright Claims Based on User Content

Edited September 8, 2015 by MarioM

[jajuan]

Long story short, if we want to keep having fun on this site then we should respect the rules and suggestions our moderators enforce as set in place by Kevin to protect the site.