6832

[trainman8119]

Has anyone been around Forest Glen (or elsewhere) and seen 6832 since it ran into the overpass. I am wondering if it can be fixed or will it find the scrap heap. From the news pics, it seemed as though the major damage was done when the steel girder went through the windshield and crumpled the upper part of the bus body. It appeared the front wheels were airborne, but from the pics it was hard to tell if there might have been any frame damage, which would almost certainly send it to the scrap heap.

I know we are talking about a steel girder here, but had the bus been a different model (say a Flxible, Orion or New Flyer), might the driver had a better chance of survival. There is not much between the driver area and the windshield, so I would think not. It seems as though the Novas have a bit more glass then metal and am wondering if any buses are considered safer than others in head on crashes like that horrible one.

[sw4400]

After seeing the pics of the NOVABus involved(the ones the news people take are so terrible when trying to I.D a bus #), I doubt this bus will be repaired as there was definate frame damage.  I feel sorry for the family of the driver that lost his life, and the passengers that were on this bus at the time of the crash.  I hate to bring up this so long after the accident, but something doesn't seem quite right.  According to the news sites, he was trying to avoid "a puddle of water".  Does anyone else think the CTA might've made up a story just to satisfy the journalists? For those who drive(I don't), any car, truck, and especially bus can go through a simple puddle of water.  Heck, when we had flooded viaducts after heavy rains, I've seen TMC's, Flxibles, and even NOVA's going through them with no problem.

P.S: trainman8119, do you have any links to photos that show the bus # of this vehicle? I'm not doubting your information(maybe you were there when it happened), I just want to see a clearer pic of the number than what the news people put up.

[trainman8119]

I caught the number watching channel 9 news on the Saturday after the accident. It was a quick glimpse that I thought I would miss, because there was someone standing in front of the camera in the line of sight with the number. But after about 10 seconds or so, the number was pretty clear.

All of the news accounts had made mention of the "puddle". I think the proper term that should have been used was "standing water". I can attest that you don't want to go through anything too deep with the bus, as it will mess with the braking as well as water washing into the bus through the doors if it is too deep. It appeared from the news pics that there was quite a bit of standing water there and I can understand trying to avoid it. I will join in your noting that something was not quite kosher in the reporting as looking at the pics you will note that the wheels are perfectly straight and that the driver definitely took the beam head on. I can also say that on the day of the accident, I had my police scanner on and there was considerable conversation from the on scene officers and dispatch about city water crews on the scene. So there was definitely more than a "puddle" involved here.

[RIPTA42]

It's always best practice to avoid standing water, since you never know how deep it is, but I would think that a professional driver wouldn't try to steer around a puddle of water under a railroad viaduct. My first thought when I read the newspaper report was that the bus hydroplaned.