2200fan Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 Saw this on the CERA site, looks like a pretty standard Twin Coach propane bus. However I don't recall this series of bus numbers. Were these buses 6" narrower like the 3700-3729 Flxibles? http://ceramembersblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/img333.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJL6000 Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 According to the Chicago Transit and Railfan site, it was a Twin Coach 38-S (gasoline-powered, named for the maximum rated passenger seating capacity rather than length), originally ordered by the Chicago Surface Lines (a predecessor to the CTA) and delivered in 1946 (one year before the CTA took over). The 38-S was approximately 35 feet in length. 1614, like the other pre-CTA Twin Coach Old Looks, was near retirement when that photo was taken in 1962 (shortly before the elevated Austin station opened). The last pre-CTA Twin Coach Old Looks were retired in 1964; pre-CTA GM Old Looks lasted a few years longer (until 1969). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 RJL noting that the picture was taken about 1962 indicates that this is an unusual assignment for this route, in that Krambles's book (page 115) indicates that mostly 96" former CMC buses (GMC) were usually assigned before the 3700 series Flxs were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 Another interesting thing on the CERA blog on the Lake St. L elevation from the bus perspective is that while Central was a trolley bus route and there are two pictures of trolley buses, there is also one picture of a propane bus (5261). There is also a picture of 1724, another old Twin Coach on Lake, including a caption that narrow buses ran on that route. Bill V. says that it was a 44S delivered to CTA after the takeover, and that series is not in Lind's book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jajuan Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 Did the current CTA stations west of Laramie used to be C&NW stations or does it just look that way due the photographs' vantage points? I also saw in the blog that the Lake Street L could have be cut back to Laramie if not for the elevating of the CTA tracks on to the C&NW right of way similar to how what is currently the Pink Line was cut back to Laramie to eliminate a significant portion of street level operations. It says there was also talk of the Oak Park segment of what's now the Blue Line also being cut back in similar fashion if the Congress (now Eisenhower) Expressway had not been built and the former Garfield Park L placed in the median. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 Did the current CTA stations west of Laramie used to be C&NW stations or does it just look that way due the photographs' vantage points? I also saw in the blog that the Lake Street L could have be cut back to Laramie if not for the elevating of the CTA tracks on to the C&NW right of way similar to how what is currently the Pink Line was cut back to Laramie to eliminate a significant portion of street level operations. It says there was also talk of the Oak Park segment of what's now the Blue Line also being cut back in similar fashion if the Congress (now Eisenhower) Expressway had not been built and the former Garfield Park L placed in the median. The blog indicated that part of the deal was that C&NW eliminated its stations. The current stations reflect CTA design, including high level platforms, which I am sure would not be the case on a diesel line. Some of the pictures show canopies on the embankment, but since most of the pictures are dated Oct. 1962 and the cutover was Oct. 28, 1962, the construction must have been done and the pictures are of "last runs" before that cutover. Maybe one can find differences between those pictures and the May, 1961 ones. For instance, the Central Ave. canopy does not appear in this May 7, 1961 one, but does in the October 1962 one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jajuan Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 The blog indicated that part of the deal was that C&NW eliminated its stations. The current stations reflect CTA design, including high level platforms, which I am sure would not be the case on a diesel line. Some of the pictures show canopies on the embankment, but since most of the pictures are dated Oct. 1962 and the cutover was Oct. 28, 1962, the construction must have been done and the pictures are of "last runs" before that cutover. Maybe one can find differences between those pictures and the May, 1961 ones. For instance, the Central Ave. canopy does not appear in this May 7, 1961 one, but does in the October 1962 one. Thank you. I think I get it now. I was trying to figure out if the canopies were strictly the construction done in preparation for CTA's trains getting moved up to the embankment level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buslist Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 RJL noting that the picture was taken about 1962 indicates that this is an unusual assignment for this route, in that Krambles's book (page 115) indicates that mostly 96" former CMC buses (GMC) were usually assigned before the 3700 series Flxs were.. Actually this was the standard assingment for these Twins, note the green roof and the visors over the windshield to deminish the effects of greese dropping off the L cars above. Once these Twins were gone the 1400 and 6500 TDH 4507s were used, the last 96" wide buses in the system. IIRC this required the installation of diesel fueling facilities at North Ave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 . Actually this was the standard assingment for these Twins, note the green roof and the visors over the windshield to deminish the effects of greese dropping off the L cars above. Once these Twins were gone the 1400 and 6500 TDH 4507s were used, the last 96" wide buses in the system. IIRC this required the installation of diesel fueling facilities at North Ave. All sources indicate the the low 3700s (Flxible) and of course the 4900s (TMC-RTS and ex-Pace Orions) were subsequent 96" buses, even if Krambles goofed about the length of the assignment of GMCs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buslist Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 Saw this on the CERA site, looks like a pretty standard Twin Coach propane bus. However I don't recall this series of bus numbers. Were these buses 6" narrower like the 3700-3729 Flxibles? http://ceramembersblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/img333.jpg Actually in '47 when these buses were delivered 96" was the only option. It wasn't until New York City's massive order of 4510s ( 500 ) in '48 that 102" was an option. GM made this standard with the 1950 5103 model ( South Suburban was the second customer, Motor Coach the 4th ) and CTA's massive ( again 500 units ) order for Twin Coach 52s2s. From then on 102" became more or less standard for cities that could accodimate them, and for which legal vehicle dementions allowed. ( This affected CUMTD even into the 80's). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buslist Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 All sources indicate the the low 3700s (Flxible) and of course the 4900s (TMC-RTS and ex-Pace Orions) were subsequent 96" buses, even if Krambles goofed about the length of the assignment of GMCs. Ya OK at the time of their assignment to Lake St. the 4507s were the last 96" buses on the property AT THAT TIME other than the 5502s which were of course too long for Lake St. Sorry if that wasn't obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buslist Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 BTW one of the weaknesses of the early post war Twins is quite well demonstrated in the first photo, note the sagging front endisaligned doors etc. The problem was fixed before the 5000s were built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrethebusman Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 A bit of trivia regarding 16-Lake and what ran on that route: As each generation of buses died off, in the last days strange things started to appear. In 1968 as the 4507's were dropping off, there were indeed 500's that showed up on Lake! Rode one there a couple of times. Ever stranger, 600's. Now remember a 600 was not just 102" wide, but by official diagrams 104"! When two met, one had to stop as far over as possible to let the other one by. Saw this in person, too. When the 3700's were dying circa 1994, from time to time Kedzie would send out a 9500 5307. Rode one from Clark/Randolph to Lake/Pulaski one evening, saw others on several occasions. Hey, when you simply don't have enough of the assigned type runable, what can you do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusHunter Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 A bit of trivia... When the 3700's were dying circa 1994, from time to time Kedzie would send out a 9500 5307. Rode one from Clark/Randolph to Lake/Pulaski one evening, saw others on several occasions. Hey, when you simply don't have enough of the assigned type runable, what can you do? That must have been a hair raising experience for the bus driver of those #9500's. I've driven between the spans myself, Laramie to Rockwell in a car and it is really tight. Maybe they drove in the park lanes? There probably wouldn't have been enough room if two #9500's came face to face on Lake in the tight clearance area. Same thing happens when it snows on Addison east of Lane tech. The cars park away from the curb as the curb is snowed in and it creates a bottleneck for the drivers. I've seen some close shaves there myself. 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.