YoungBusLover Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoNova Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Not to me they don't, although the New Flyer 60LFR would remind me of the NABI artics, especially the D60LFR. I spotted one (4333) northbound on Jeffery (not sure if it was in service because nothing was showing on the destination sign) as I was on the northbound 71 71st/South Shore bus approaching Jeffery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimball401 Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 To me they favor eachother but we all know that the preformance is different. (No disrespect to the Nabi lovers) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railwaymodeler Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 A lot of these new buses tend to look alike, sort of a homogenized appearance between builders. Much as General Electric locomotives tend to look alike nowadays. Then again, any GE unit, to me, is called "scrap metal"! Not like the old buses of the WWII ear. Now THOSE had style! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 A lot of these new buses tend to look alike, sort of a homogenized appearance between builders. ... In that all (except Gillig non-BRT) seem to have done away with the flat face, I agree. Thus, a 4300 is basically a 4000 with the steamlined face and roof shields. Of course, Nova was the first (at least with buses around here) with the protruding nose and round rectangle windows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railwaymodeler Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 The box style, such as the Pace and ex-CTA NABIs is what I was getting at. The more streamlined look emerging again gives them a bit more individuality it seems. So far as I see it, the box look, might as well call them "Box 1" Box 2" and so forth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 The box style, such as the Pace and ex-CTA NABIs is what I was getting at. The more streamlined look emerging again gives them a bit more individuality it seems. So far as I see it, the box look, might as well call them "Box 1" Box 2" and so forth. I also had the feeling that the Gillig Phantom and Orion V and VIs were cheap knockoffs of the Flxible 870/Metro. The original Ikarus/NABI seemed to be a knockoff of a Neoplan. On the other hand, the MAN Americana looked different. The CTA NABIs had a different front than the usual NABIs, in that it was a bit more streamlined and had the projector headlights. NABI also said that that was what CTA was going to get on the 1050 bus order, except that NABI didn't get that order. Basically, the flat faced New Flyer look goes back to about 1990, and the only thing distinctive about it was that the driver's side windshield didn't slant back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railwaymodeler Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 Gilligs looked different above the windshield, with the forward slanting destination board. I used to live in Concord, California. CCCTA (Contra Costa County Transit Authority, known as "The County Connection" was nearly, if not all, Gillig. Hayward, where they were built, was nearby. Mostly Gillig Phantoms, but some Low-Floors too. This was mid-2003 into 2004. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 Gilligs looked different above the windshield, with the forward slanting destination board. I used to live in Concord, California. CCCTA (Contra Costa County Transit Authority, known as "The County Connection" was nearly, if not all, Gillig. Hayward, where they were built, was nearby. Mostly Gillig Phantoms, but some Low-Floors too. This was mid-2003 into 2004. On the Phantom, they seemed more of a riveted afterthought than on an Orion V. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CURRENTZ_09 Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 The version CTA has must be 2.0, because MCTS must have gotten the 1.0 revised DF40LR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jajuan Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 The version CTA has must be 2.0, because MCTS must have gotten the 1.0 revised DF40LR And folks complain that CTA has a bad livery color scheme. That bus would really look great if the color plan weren't so drab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 And folks complain that CTA has a bad livery color scheme. That bus would really look great if the color plan weren't so drab. Merry Sarcasmas. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jajuan Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 Merry Sarcasmas. You too :lol: 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.