Another #300 alive and well in sunny California

[BusHunter]

Found a picture of another #300 bus here at the Riverside Show and Go in California. The bus seems to have a few differences as opposed to the traditional #300 bus, because the car show itself out there is dealing with modified cars and such I don't know if this has been modified or not from it's original version. Some of the differences I've noted are that the trim on the upper side of the bus (where the sun tinted windows would be) is not chrome colored, but black. Also the emblem on the front of the bus says GMC not GM like the originals. The rear window has been modified here, showing what would look like an exhaust system on an air conditioned version. The rest looks like the original stuff. Don't know if the bus is possibly a reproduction (like the PCC's in Kenosha,WI using various city liveries on one type of equipment) or not. If you zoom up the picture of the body you'll see there's a website for the bus but you can't read it and there's this decal on the body which says something like "the blank bus people". I don't know if this is a private collector or museum piece but it looks in good shape. Here's another picture. and there's also a video (under the same screen name) if you want to see the bus in action.

[Busjack]

Compared to the pictures in sites to which other links were provided, the bus at least has to be restored, as one can assume that it left Chicago in much more beat up shape.

With regard to the rear, obviously it was changed so that the exhaust was routed to to roof, rather than under the bumper. While that style is more in tune with the 1972 and later buses, there doesn't seem to be an indication that the air conditioner was taken off.

Regardless of whether it is restored or a replica, it looks like a good one.

[BusHunter]

Compared to the pictures in sites to which other links were provided, the bus at least has to be restored, as one can assume that it left Chicago in much more beat up shape.

With regard to the rear, obviously it was changed so that the exhaust was routed to to roof, rather than under the bumper. While that style is more in tune with the 1972 and later buses, there doesn't seem to be an indication that the air conditioner was taken off.

Regardless of whether it is restored or a replica, it looks like a good one.

It appears to look even better than #301, in appearance if your not looking at CTA specs, but the #301 has the originality that #374 doesn't have. (Don't know if any CTA equipment has ever had amber rear turn signal covers.)Sort of like IRM's original Pcc versus a replica. Regardless though it is a good bus and you have to give it's owners credit.

[samana09]

This bus could never have been original to CTA. It is only 96 inches wide, and CTA never bought any

96 inch wide GM Fishbowls. How to prove from the photo that it's only 96" wide: Look at the space between the edges of the destination sign itself, and the edge of the glass sign window. The black strip

between these two spaces is very narrow, as usual on a 96" wide GM Fishbowl. If it were the standard 102" wide, the black strip would be much wider. You can see this by looking at pictures of actual CTA GM Fishbowls.

[ibebobo]

This belongs to a gentleman who's business is renting buses (and other vehicles) He try's to keep the same colors. Here is his web site:

WWW.RTS-REGIONALTRANSITSERVICE.COM

[Busjack]

This belongs to a gentleman who's business is renting buses (and other vehicles) He try's to keep the same colors. Here is his web site:

WWW.RTS-REGIONALTRANSITSERVICE.COM

Which, when redirected, indicates that it is a 4523N from Tacoma. So, the person who said it wasn't a 530x was right, at least with regard to its length.

Being a 4523N would explain the GMC logo, and the back window, and, as I previously noted, no indication that the air conditioner was removed, since it didn't originally have one.

I'm surprised that the Regional Transit Service (the name of the entity in Rochester N.Y.) hasn't charged him with trademark infringement.

Thanks for providing the link to put us on the right track.

[BusHunter]

This belongs to a gentleman who's business is renting buses (and other vehicles) He try's to keep the same colors. Here is his web site:

WWW.RTS-REGIONALTRANSITSERVICE.COM

If it is a replica, I wondered why it was numbered an official number. Usually replicas are numbered differently Like #1058 in San Francisco

[busfan2847]

This belongs to a gentleman who's business is renting buses (and other vehicles) He try's to keep the same colors. Here is his web site:

WWW.RTS-REGIONALTRANSITSERVICE.COM

So it is City of Tacoma (WA) #374 and is a T6H4523N new 6/74.

[Busjack]

If it is a replica, I wondered why it was numbered an official number. Usually replicas are numbered differently Like #1058 in San Francisco

In that case, it got a San Francisco number, because it is used in service in SF. Similarly, the Kenosha one, having been purchased second or third hand from Toronto, kept its Toronto number, rather than a number representative of a CSL/CTA Green Hornet.

Maybe the RTS guy was lucky that there was a 374 CTA that looked like this one, or intentionally put that number on a Tacoma bus.* Sort of like the debate we had a couple of weeks ago about the Ralph Kramden bus not actually being the same bus.

__________

*Note that the picture on the RTS site does not have numbers or CTA decals.

[BusHunter]

In that case, it got a San Francisco number, because it is used in service in SF. Similarly, the Kenosha one, having been purchased second or third hand from Toronto, kept its Toronto number, rather than a number representative of a CSL/CTA Green Hornet.

Maybe the RTS guy was lucky that there was a 374 CTA that looked like this one, or intentionally put that number on a Tacoma bus.* Sort of like the debate we had a couple of weeks ago about the Ralph Kramden bus not actually being the same bus.

__________

*Note that the picture on the RTS site does not have numbers or CTA decals.

If you look around that site it appears to be a movie prop place. Note it's proximaty to Hollywood (riverside is a suburb of L.A.) Here's the same bus with a #2208 number on it (pictures on upper left) There are other cool looking buses like old 1940's Flxibles and old school buses with a curved rear end similar to the Dirty Harry school bus. It really looks like a cool place. Speaking of hollywood I heard something about a hollywood exec purchasing what was left of the #2257-58 pair and putting it in a studio in hollywood. Now if you notice there has been Mercury Rising, one of the Spiderman movies and Eagle eye all filmed on #2200's. Not since the #6000's have a specific railcar fleet been filmed so much.

[artthouwill]

Found a picture of another #300 bus here at the Riverside Show and Go in California. The bus seems to have a few differences as opposed to the traditional #300 bus, because the car show itself out there is dealing with modified cars and such I don't know if this has been modified or not from it's original version. Some of the differences I've noted are that the trim on the upper side of the bus (where the sun tinted windows would be) is not chrome colored, but black. Also the emblem on the front of the bus says GMC not GM like the originals. The rear window has been modified here, showing what would look like an exhaust system on an air conditioned version. The rest looks like the original stuff. Don't know if the bus is possibly a reproduction (like the PCC's in Kenosha,WI using various city liveries on one type of equipment) or not. If you zoom up the picture of the body you'll see there's a website for the bus but you can't read it and there's this decal on the body which says something like "the blank bus people". I don't know if this is a private collector or museum piece but it looks in good shape. Here's another picture. and there's also a video (under the same screen name) if you want to see the bus in action.

This bus may be numbered 374 but I highly doubt this was a CTA bus. Forgeet the paint scheme and the sign. This bus is clearly a 35 ft bus and all of CTA's fishbowls from that era were 40fters.

[Guest]

This bus may be numbered 374 but I highly doubt this was a CTA bus. Forgeet the paint scheme and the sign. This bus is clearly a 35 ft bus and all of CTA's fishbowls from that era were 40fters.

Well technically you had the old West Towns 888s that operated out of FG when the 1983 Flyers were screwed up.

[geneking7320]

This belongs to a gentleman who's business is renting buses (and other vehicles) He try's to keep the same colors. Here is his web site:

WWW.RTS-REGIONALTRANSITSERVICE.COM

If you folks were members of the SF Muni History group [on Yahoo] you might have

heard of his site as he contributes to that board from time to time. You also would have heard of Muni's F line and the "Chicago" PCC car [among others].

Speaking of "prop" buses, can anyone refresh my memory with link to the site (I think the copy is Canadian) which has New Flyer D40's in CTA livery?

Thanks much.

Gene King

[Busjack]

Speaking of "prop" buses, can anyone refresh my memory with link to the site (I think the copy is Canadian) which has New Flyer D40's in CTA livery?

Thanks much.

Gene King

You might be referring to busdrawings.com, that has pictures of actual CTA buses. 1600s and 9800 series gallery.

If you actually meant New Flyer D40LFs, there is no shortage of those pictures.

[geneking7320]

You might be referring to busdrawings.com, that has pictures of actual CTA buses. 1600s and 9800 series gallery.

If you actually meant New Flyer D40LFs, there is no shortage of those pictures.

Actually I believe that on ChicagoBus.org there was a thread that showed prop buses

and some of them were in white CTA livery. One bus I remembered was a high floor D40

with windshields similar to the LF40 [vs the Flyer D40s with the angled driver side

windshield]. CTA did NOT purchase D40s like that.

Gene King

[rmadisonwi]

Actually I believe that on ChicagoBus.org there was a thread that showed prop buses

and some of them were in white CTA livery. One bus I remembered was a high floor D40

with windshields similar to the LF40 [vs the Flyer D40s with the angled driver side

windshield]. CTA did NOT purchase D40s like that.

Gene King

Unless there was a variation of the D40 I don't know of (entirely possible), all of the D40s had fronts that looked like the standard D40LF. The buses with the angled fronts were in the D900 series.

I think D40s were the start of New Flyer (rebirth after bankruptcy), while the D900s were the last of the Flyers. Could be wrong on that detail, though.

[Busjack]

The CTA Historical Calendar for 2010 is up, so if you want to see a real 100 series bus, there is one.

The contest is of course to find the one goof in the captions, as well as the apparent goof in a picture that was noted in the caption (however, I'm not sure that the sign in question didn't refer to another route).

[trainman8119]

The CTA Historical Calendar for 2010 is up, so if you want to see a real 100 series bus, there is one.

The contest is of course to find the one goof in the captions, as well as the apparent goof in a picture that was noted in the caption (however, I'm not sure that the sign in question didn't refer to another route).

I'd love to go in and see the calendar, however, I have been getting error messages trying to get into the cta website for a couple of weeks now.....anything going on there ????

[Busjack]

I'd love to go in and see the calendar, however, I have been getting error messages trying to get into the cta website for a couple of weeks now.....anything going on there ????

I'm not having any problem. The only thing I noticed is that when they went to the new design, yourcta.com results in "bad certificate" errors, but I haven't had any problem with transitchicago.com.

Exact link to the high resolution pdf, if that helps.

[trainman8119]

I'm not having any problem. The only thing I noticed is that when they went to the new design, yourcta.com results in "bad certificate" errors, but I haven't had any problem with transitchicago.com.

Exact link to the high resolution pdf, if that helps.

Thanks for the link...I got it. Yeah, I have been having problems, whether I type www.transitchicago.com or try to access it from, say the RTA website, or any other link, for that matter. Don't know what is going on.

Thanks for the calendar, though.

[artthouwill]

The CTA Historical Calendar for 2010 is up, so if you want to see a real 100 series bus, there is one.

The contest is of course to find the one goof in the captions, as well as the apparent goof in a picture that was noted in the caption (however, I'm not sure that the sign in question didn't refer to another route).

It lookes like there is a Ravenswood train crossing Lake/Wells going southbound, a Ravenswood train turning north from Lake to Wells, and the third train is traveling north on Wells turning east onto Lake. This is the Garfield Pk train misidenetified as going south on Wells.

[Busjack]

... This is the Garfield Pk train misidenetified as going south on Wells.

The caption notes that until a certain point in the future (compared to where the picture was taken) all trains ran counterclockwise. The type of through movement through that junction we now know was not possible until the tower was moved out of the center of the junction.

Of course, as CERA115 points out, that picture has been staged many times, so, technically the trains probably were not moving in any direction. That book also has a 1936 track map indicating that the Lake and Metropolitan (Douglas, Garfield, Humboldt and Logan Square) lines were counterclockwise on the inner track, and westbound Lake trains eased from the left to the right track somewhere in the junction, but did not go straight through on the outer track, like they do now. Of course, the routings in the 1936 map would have been changed by the time of the picture by the North, South, and Logan Square routes being routed into the subways.

[Chicago13]

The caption notes that until a certain point in the future (compared to where the picture was taken) all trains ran counterclockwise. The type of through movement through that junction we now know was not possible until the tower was moved out of the center of the junction.

Of course, as CERA115 points out, that picture has been staged many times, so, technically the trains probably were not moving in any direction. That book also has a 1936 track map indicating that the Lake and Metropolitan (Douglas, Garfield, Humboldt and Logan Square) lines were counterclockwise on the inner track, and westbound Lake trains eased from the left to the right track somewhere in the junction, but did not go straight through on the outer track, like they do now. Of course, the routings in the 1936 map would have been changed by the time of the picture by the North, South, and Logan Square routes being routed into the subways.

Also note there's a motorman in the cab of the Garfield train indicating that it is indeed turing south onto Wells.

[Chicago13]

The CTA Historical Calendar for 2010 is up, so if you want to see a real 100 series bus, there is one.

The contest is of course to find the one goof in the captions, as well as the apparent goof in a picture that was noted in the caption (however, I'm not sure that the sign in question didn't refer to another route).

Could the goof in question be the one showing 5615 posed at State & Wacker signed as an 8A South Halsted? If the 8A designation didn't exixt for another 20 years why is there a destination sign for it at the time the picture was taken?

[Busjack]

Could the goof in question be the one showing 5615 posed at State & Wacker signed as an 8A South Halsted? If the 8A designation didn't exixt for another 20 years why is there a destination sign for it at the time the picture was taken?

That's the one noted in the caption.

There is another month with a goof in the caption. I'll give a hint--it is the caption under the light streetcar.