MRCTA Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 I remember seeing buses like this running along Loomis in the early 1970s with the sign Chartered. The bus was always empty. Someone from a Yahoo transit group said that a certain nearby school chartered two buses to transport the not-so-well-behaved children home. That school decided not to run that service anymore, but no one notified CTA, so the drivers drove empty buses and got paid. This is bus number 8563 that you see here in the photo! I remeber CTA sent this to me as a little boy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRCTA Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 Here's a Flxible publicity photo for the CTA 8500's. Not exactly Chicago... or is it?!? Looks like your typical Chicago neighborhood! I don't think the CTA ever served Chicago Heights! Might Be The Suburbs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRCTA Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 I'm sure it's the actual CTA 8563, all right. But I have a feeling the idyllic suburban scene isn't anywhere near CTA territory. The sign says "Chicago Heights" (not a CTA destination I've heard of), with no route number, and the side sign is missing. What's more, the narrow, residential street is barely big enough for a bike, let alone a city bus! My guess is that this publicity photo was simply staged by Flxible, somewhere near Loudonville, before these buses were delivered to the CTA. But it sure makes a 40 foot, ten ton, diesel-belcher look family friendly, doesn't it? You're talking about Flxible's old plant in Loudonville, Ohio? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dann Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Here's a Flxible publicity photo for the CTA 8500's. Not exactly Chicago... or is it?!? That's a mean looking bus, and I love it! Wouldn't mind riding one of those to work every day! It beats the 1944 my wife and I rode last night on Michigan Avenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Read as you ride Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Wouldn't mind riding one of those to work every day! Like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 That's a mean looking bus, and I love it!... I guess what makes it look "mean" are the up and down windows. As far as I know, that is the only type of New Look that had them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRCTA Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Like this? That's a nice pic of the bus riders! What year was this? Where'd you get this pic from and was this on one of the "8500s"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRCTA Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Here's a Flxible publicity photo for the CTA 8500's. Not exactly Chicago... or is it?!? This was part of the 8500-8699 series made by Flxible for the Chicago Transit Authority Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfman Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Here's a Flxible publicity photo for the CTA 8500's. Not exactly Chicago... or is it?!? Nope. Not exactly Chicago. It's a publicity photo that was staged in a new subdivision just outside of Loudonville, Ohio. Maybe Perryville. The headsign is "borrowed" from what looks like a south suburban sign order. The 85 and 8600s were delivered sans signs. CTA had a source then, and screened their own at West Shops at that time. Notice the lack of a side sign curtain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfman Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Like this? Gawd. It looks like an old episode of The Untouchables, or Dragnet. Educated guess that it's a staged photo (maybe CTA, maybe newservice), but look at all the buses in the background! Educated guess, it was a brand new 8500 at Keeler Garage (Diversey & Keeler). Otherwise, you'd wonder why three men would share that transverse seat when so many forward facing seats around them are unoccupied. Nice shot. Early 1960s. Most men wore hats and dressed up to go downtown. Even for business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfman Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 I guess what makes it look "mean" are the up and down windows. As far as I know, that is the only type of New Look that had them. Yes. When Flxible began production on the "New Looks" they employed "drop down" windows that never quite worked well with the slanted windows. Chicago and Cleveland were the only properties to get those. Well, techinically, Memphis. There were two odd buses added onto the 8500 production order. 8650 came to CTA and 8651 went to Memphis after a nationwide demo tour. L.A. got some similar buses after CTA's order, but Flxible went to sliders because of a lot of mishaps with the O.M.Edwards drop windows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfman Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Wonder if somebody has a pic of those old 8700s? I actually have CTA production photos of the 8700s. I'll try to scan and upload those tonight maybe. This week fer sure. What did they sound like? Real soft, but sounded like they had a perpetual tappet knock. Like maybe an idling lawn mower. Not as smelly as the 100s? Um, there were propane fumes. Different than Diesel, but still there. They were grossly underpowered, and very slow takeoff. If they were loaded, they were even slower. You wouldn't want to ride one at night. The transformer on the fluorescent light sets used to whine bad... (Eeeeeeeee..Eeeeeeeee..Eeeeeeeeeee..Eeeeeeeeee...) When the ballast was going bad, they'd whine even worse. Especially when the bus was accelerating or under power. Those ballasts also interfered with radio waves. That's partly why the 87-8800 never got radios installed. Some of the older propanes did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dann Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Like this? Not quite, but that's still a cool looking bus nonetheless! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeymc77 Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Then there is the Mel Bernero photo of #8563 in the snowstorm on Stockton Drive. I wonder when that picture was taken? #181 is also in the picture. It almost looks like the buses are stopped and trying to figure which bus should move first. I used to have that picture somewhere. Those Flxibles (8500-8650)(8700-8849) were my all time favorites even though I wasnt even born before they were retired. On a side note I spoke with a couple friends who do volunteer work at IRM and asked about #8715. They said anyone can volunteer to help fix the bus but that the volunteers have to sign waivers in case of injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Do you have a link, since it doesn't appear to be on BusTalk. As far as stuck in the snow, it probably is a 1967 Blizzard picture. That Blizzard still exceeds the one we had this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeymc77 Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z30/melbernero/Illinois/chicago%20transit%20authority/CTA1818563StocktonDrive1-17-62.jpg Photo credit to Mel Bernero 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 http://i195.photobuc...rive1-17-62.jpg Photo credit to Mel Bernero Thanks. That wasn't snow of blizzard magnitude. It also illustrates the "153 DOWNTOWN" sign typical of that time, instead of something like "153 Wilson-Downtown" or "153 Michigan-Congress." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z30/melbernero/Illinois/chicago%20transit%20authority/CTA1818563StocktonDrive1-17-62.jpg Photo credit to Mel Bernero Flxible #8563 was assigned to North Ave. Garage. At that time, I recall my dad telling me years ago, they operated the #153 route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Flxible #8563 was assigned to North Ave. Garage. At that time, I recall my dad telling me years ago, they operated the #153 route. Since the file name includes 1-17-62, not likely, since they weren't assigned to North & Cicero until 1972, when Keeler closed and the trolley buses were retired. Either: They are running Diversey or Addison Downtown out of Keeler Garage.I seem to recall it being stated somewhere that when the first New Look Diesels showed up, the barns that got them got equal numbers of 100s and 8500s, but that was later sorted out to 8500s being limited to Keeler and 52nd, and the rest getting GMCs. Bill V.'s CTA Bus Assignments for 1961 and 1963 supports that. Also, Bill has 153 out of Limits at relevant times, although around 1970 or so, I remember a few trips with 8700s from North Park. To refresh my recollection on my prior post, in the 1970s, the Limits buses had "153 Wilson-Downtown" signs, while the North Park ones had "153 Downtown." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sht6131 Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 To add a little info the New Looks went into service in 1961 They were first assigned as 100-129 and 8500-8529 to Lawndale. 130-159 and 8530-8559 to Keeler. 160-189 and 8560-8589 to Limits. North may have had some runs to 153 but it would not be 8563. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeymc77 Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 So most likely, based on that, these buses were both from Limits. Which leads me to a different question. Why was "LIMITS" limits??? :huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 So most likely, based on that, these buses were both from Limits. Which leads me to a different question. Why was "LIMITS" limits??? Supposedly near the city limits when a cable car barn was built around there. Most sources indicate that Lakeview Twp. was annexed in 1889, which would be into the cable car era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago13 Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 Supposedly near the city limits when a cable car barn was built around there. Most sources indicate that Lakeview Twp. was annexed in 1889, which would be into the cable car era. Specifically, Fullerton Ave. was the northern city boundary until Lakeview's annexation in 1889. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeymc77 Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 When was the barn built? Before 1900? I know Archer has a sign on it that shows it was built in 1907 I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 When was the barn built? Before 1900? I know Archer has a sign on it that shows it was built in 1907 I think. The trolley one, about the same time. Lind indicates, that as a result of converting cable cars to electric, and the 1907 franchise ordinances, Limits was one of 6 new barns on the north and west sides, while there were 4 new ones (including Archer) on the south side, all built to Board of Supervising Engineers standards (page 366). But as I and others indicated, there had to be a carhouse for cable cars for the Clark St. line before that. Maybe significant is Bill V's entry: "1888 - segment between downtown and Diversey converted to cable car." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.