BusHunter Posted March 27, 2014 Author Report Posted March 27, 2014 It was a beam sticking out from the underside of the bridge in the center of the road. Anyway, I'm not sure why this is being rehashed 8 years after the accident (Tribune reference, which says that the driver swerved to avoid a puddle). My point was that it misstates the nature of the accident to say it happened at Kilbourn, when the operative fact is that it happened at the Metra/Milw N viaduct, and the type of post to which I objected is reprehensible to any of the driver's survivors, unless there is proof to back it up. Where's the proof, Andre? The Trib says the water was under the viaduct, which is impossible to pass unless you go on the other side of the beam and/or street. I always pictured it as right before it between the two side streets there. Quote
sw4400 Posted March 27, 2014 Report Posted March 27, 2014 At last the article clarifies it... I've heard from many that the driver swerved to avoid a puddle, but the article says it was to avoid standing water under the viaduct, which makes more sense(driving through standing water could hydrolock the bus, which I think I seen happen with Nova #6802 many years back... it went through standing water under the Metra UP-N line at Irving Park/Ravenswood and as it started to go up the incline past there, the lights went out inside the bus and it started to roll backwards a bit before being stopped by the driver). When people told me the driver was swerving to avoid a puddle and I see these small, innocent puddles on streets after it rains, I'm thinking "What?" . But put standing water in the context and now I see why the operator could've swerved to avoid that situation. Quote
BusHunter Posted March 27, 2014 Author Report Posted March 27, 2014 #1601 rehabbed on the #21, #1288 is only a mechanical rehab. Quote
jajuan Posted March 27, 2014 Report Posted March 27, 2014 It's not on the list. #1089 is a mechanical rehab and #1258 is confirmed now as totally rehabbed. I think I may have been thinking of 1624. Quote
jajuan Posted March 27, 2014 Report Posted March 27, 2014 It was a beam sticking out from the underside of the bridge in the center of the road. Anyway, I'm not sure why this is being rehashed 8 years after the accident (Tribune reference, which says that the driver swerved to avoid a puddle). My point was that it misstates the nature of the accident to say it happened at Kilbourn, when the operative fact is that it happened at the Metra/Milw N viaduct, and the type of post to which I objected is reprehensible to any of the driver's survivors, unless there is proof to back it up. Where's the proof, Andre? The Trib says the water was under the viaduct, which is impossible to pass unless you go on the other side of the beam and/or street. I always pictured it as right before it between the two side streets there. At last the article clarifies it... I've heard from many that the driver swerved to avoid a puddle, but the article says it was to avoid standing water under the viaduct, which makes more sense(driving through standing water could hydrolock the bus, which I think I seen happen with Nova #6802 many years back... it went through standing water under the Metra UP-N line at Irving Park/Ravenswood and as it started to go up the incline past there, the lights went out inside the bus and it started to roll backwards a bit before being stopped by the driver). When people told me the driver was swerving to avoid a puddle and I see these small, innocent puddles on streets after it rains, I'm thinking "What?" . But put standing water in the context and now I see why the operator could've swerved to avoid that situation. So long story short, the driver saw the standing water, apparently decided to try to avoid it at the last minute but unfortunately misjudged how much room he had to steer past the water. And like sw I can see how that happened. So as the news reports said 8 years ago, this was an unfortunate accident with no deliberate intent behind it. So I agree with Busjack that Andre made an unfounded allegation against a dead driver and committed a low blow against this poor guy's family. Quote
BusHunter Posted March 28, 2014 Author Report Posted March 28, 2014 #1138 rehabbed on the #49. #1601 on cermak is a ghost bus. #1373 is his follower. Quote
garmon757 Posted March 29, 2014 Report Posted March 29, 2014 Spotted mechanical rehabbed #1546 on #62 by Marina City Downtown during my late delivery shift. Quote
garmon757 Posted March 29, 2014 Report Posted March 29, 2014 Mechanical rehabbed #1154 on #4 @Michigan/Adams. Gee whiz! Why the fonts so dog on small?!?!?! Quote
garmon757 Posted March 29, 2014 Report Posted March 29, 2014 #1186 is fully rehabbed on #60. Kedzie's busses aren't getting that much of attention of being rehabbed as of lately especially in their 1100s. Quote
ctrabs74 Posted March 29, 2014 Report Posted March 29, 2014 Mechanical rehabbed #1154 on #4 @Michigan/Adams. Gee whiz! Why the fonts so dog on small?!?!?! I'm curious as to where the license plate is... 1 Quote
garmon757 Posted March 29, 2014 Report Posted March 29, 2014 I'm curious as to where the license plate is... OH WOW!!!! I didn't even notice that!!! Is that even legal?!?!?! Quote
Busjack Posted March 29, 2014 Report Posted March 29, 2014 OH WOW!!!! I didn't even notice that!!! Is that even legal?!?!?! Nope. Should be on the engine door under the license plate light in the middle. Quote
garmon757 Posted March 29, 2014 Report Posted March 29, 2014 Nope. Should be on the engine door under the license plate light in the middle. In which you're correct indeed. Can we report that to RTA or the garage (77th)? Quote
ctrabs74 Posted March 30, 2014 Report Posted March 30, 2014 In which you're correct indeed. Can we report that to RTA or the garage (77th)? Looks like it might have been an unintentional oversight, seeing as it went through the mechanical rehab. I would think the front plate is still there. Quote
garmon757 Posted March 30, 2014 Report Posted March 30, 2014 Looks like it might have been an unintentional oversight, seeing as it went through the mechanical rehab. I would think the front plate is still there. I would have to see about that. Quote
sw4400 Posted April 1, 2014 Report Posted April 1, 2014 #1323 rehabbed on the #11. I miss the #11.... Quote
garmon757 Posted April 1, 2014 Report Posted April 1, 2014 #1323 rehabbed on the #11. What!!! I saw that bus last week on #22! Damn, that was fast!!! Quote
BusHunter Posted April 1, 2014 Author Report Posted April 1, 2014 I miss the #11.... So does everyone else that bus was packed. Quote
sw4400 Posted April 1, 2014 Report Posted April 1, 2014 So does everyone else that bus was packed. I remember when I saw #1385 a few months back running "Not In Service" on Lincoln heading NB approaching Irving Park. That was depressing... Quote
jajuan Posted April 1, 2014 Report Posted April 1, 2014 So does everyone else that bus was packed. Yeah Claypool definitely overlooked how ridership was distributed on that route. It just did not evenly fit the definition of low ridership route. Heck There are routes with lower numbers than the 11 had before the cuts that did not get cut in any way. Quote
garmon757 Posted April 1, 2014 Report Posted April 1, 2014 I've forgot to mention that #1166 is mechanically rehabbed. I rode it on #82 this morning. Quote
BusHunter Posted April 1, 2014 Author Report Posted April 1, 2014 #1574 is mechanically rehabbed. Quote
TripleTransit1 Posted April 2, 2014 Report Posted April 2, 2014 I miss the #11.... What? The old Lincoln route? Quote
sw4400 Posted April 2, 2014 Report Posted April 2, 2014 What? The old Lincoln route? Yes. The stretch that was removed between Fullerton and Western because the CTA thought the Brown Line parallels Lincoln throughout the section gone. Quote
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.