Forest Glen New Flyers?

[Guest]

I just walked through Jeff. Pk today, I spotted NF #1335/1345 laying over on the driveway into JPK and they werent assigned to the X54. X54 Nova pulled in at this time. Anybody have info on this? The last time I saw something this similar were the Novas before they were delivered in 2000.

[MetroShadow]

I just walked through Jeff. Pk today, I spotted NF #1335/1345 laying over on the driveway into JPK and they werent assigned to the X54. X54 Nova pulled in at this time. Anybody have info on this? The last time I saw something this similar were the Novas before they were delivered in 2000.

That still might be the Chicago New Flyers; just because they are laying over and aren't X54's doesn't mean that they are assigned to another garage. I think that they are holding over until the start of the rush.

[Busjack]

FG would be the last place that needs New Flyers, either on the theory of average age, or because it doesn't have any 5300s or 4400s to replace. However, knowing the "real men of genius...." In fact, it probably should be giving up a few buses since it received the Optimas.

If they were being used as Training Buses, they would have signs to that effect. Otherwise, they are clearly in the number range for Chicago Ave.

[ryanbytes]

I saw them at Jefferson Park today around 1230 give or take and they did have signs in the front windows saying they were training buses, I believe from the Chicago garage.

[Busjack]

I saw them at Jefferson Park today around 1230 give or take and they did have signs in the front windows saying they were training buses, I believe from the Chicago garage.

Unless they were training on X54 or some Chicago route, that would prove that the people who run CTA are totally irrational, for the reason stated in post #3. I asked about training buses, because FG had a couple around 6712 as training buses in 2002, before it got those starting around 6756.

Any explanation from someone who works for CTA?

[Buslover88]

Those are probably Chicago garage buses.

[Busjack]

Those are probably Chicago garage buses.

We aren't debating that. The question is whether they were on loan (like 6712 once was) to train FG before they get some.

Again, anyone from CTA know?

[rmadisonwi]

Well, considering that CTA recently had a job fair in order to hire several hundred new drivers, and that Chicago Garage is going to see a massive increase in service (and, therefore, need more drivers) as a result of three track...

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Why must everything automatically be assumed to be CTA assigning new buses to other garages?

[trainman8119]

From my past CTA training...when new drivers are hired they go through a 15 or so day

training program, which includes classroom and some street training. As part of the street

training, supervisors will take the rookies to a number of places they might see as a driver

in a certain garage. It is not out of the question for a Chicago training bus to be at Jeff as

the x54 does end there and becoming familiar with the terminal makes sense. These drivers

would not be training on the x54, just be part of the standard program. You will see, for example,

many 77th and 103 and Kedzie training buses around the train stations, NABI artics going up and

down LSD learning NP routes. When I participated in a day of CTA training at the old North Ave,

we saw Chicago/Mayfield, Division/Austin, Grand/Latrobe terminals during our day of street

training. You can bet if you hang around enough, you will see quite a few training buses

around Navy Pier, especially in the summer.

[Buslover88]

Why must everything automatically be assumed to be CTA assigning new buses to other garages?

I agree with that 100%, people are always thinking that FG's getting a new bus, but they already have the Optimas (I have yet to ride one)!

And you are correct on the massive increase of service from Chicago because when I rode a #76 a week ago, it was packed from wall to wall.

[Busjack]

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Why must everything automatically be assumed to be CTA assigning new buses to other garages?

Why should we draw our own conclusions? Why don't you come out an tell us? Is there a cult of secrecy at the CTA?

If you want to know why people are making assumptions, see posts 3 and 5, which justify the conclusions at least 3 of us drew. I did mention the possibility that they were training for Chicago routes. However, the L construction is in Lakeview, not Jefferson Park. And why would CTA give new drivers the newest buses on which to train, while totally ignoring several garages in allocating the buses?

[trainman8119]

And why would CTA give new drivers the newest buses on which to train, while totally ignoring several garages in allocating the buses?

Assuming that management is still making decisions there (which they are probably not...

or at least passing the buck), I might be able to answer that. Referring to the past training

I went through many years ago (and I stress many years ago) we started out that day

by using old 8500's in the yard...that's what was available. When it came time to head out

on the street, it was stated "Let's see if we can get some new buses"...which at the time

were GMC fishbowls (1400's). The trainers were told, by dispatch, as long as they got them back for

the rush hour, they could take a couple. My guess is that the same thing would be in

place...that the new buses were available and they jumped at the op to use them. Otherwise,

I think you might have seen either (at worst) a Flxible or more likely a Nova.

My guess, is that nobody takes into account what (or how) is being used to train,

just as long as they are "trained". (The latter statement a serious problem at Metra).

[rmadisonwi]

Why should we draw our own conclusions? Why don't you come out an tell us? Is there a cult of secrecy at the CTA?

There's no cult of secrecy. I assumed that by stating that Chicago Garage was getting a lot of new drivers following a hiring spree, that folks could put two and two together. I figured that spelling out exactly why those buses were there would be insulting to the intelligence of the members of this forum. I could have been wrong on that part.

If you want to know why people are making assumptions, see posts 3 and 5,

Posts 3 and 5 don't really say anything. In post 3, you said "If they were being used as Training Buses, they would have signs to that effect." Someone then told you that they did have those signs. Post 5 didn't say anything more, except to reveal that you just have contempt for those that work for CTA.

which justify the conclusions at least 3 of us drew.

At least three people drew what conclusion? That Forest Glen is getting New Flyers? The OP asked if Forest Glen was getting New Flyers, and nobody else supported that speculation except for you.

I did mention the possibility that they were training for Chicago routes. However, the L construction is in Lakeview, not Jefferson Park.

Well, obviously, since new-hired drivers are part-time, and are (for all intents and purposes) on the extra-board, they would have to know all of the routes out of their garage. I really don't see how this is so hard to comprehend, unless you start off with the assumption that things must be wrong, and try and work backwards from your foregone conclusion.

[Busjack]

Posts 3 and 5 don't really say anything. In post 3, you said "If they were being used as Training Buses, they would have signs to that effect." Someone then told you that they did have those signs. Post 5 didn't say anything more, except to reveal that you just have contempt for those that work for CTA.

At least three people drew what conclusion? That Forest Glen is getting New Flyers?

If you would have read them and #7 together, they indicate that at least in the past, CTA would lend a new bus to the next garage getting them as a Training Bus. FG had 6712, which had a C sticker on it, as a training bus several months before it got 6756 and up. This was despite the fact that Richard Winston had told the Tribune that the Novas were to replace buses at NP, 74 and 103 (where the MANs were then allocated). What was on the street (and reported in Chicago Transit and Railfan) was inconsistent with that, but turned out to be correct.

I did leave open the possibility that they were training on X54.

Yes, I do have contempt for the management of CTA, but only because they have demonstrated an inability deal with the system's problems. You can start at the top by reading "Ask Carole," including her reactions starting in August about the Red Line slow zones ("On the Red Line, CTA staff said they continue to plan eliminating all of the slow zones on the north Red Line before the end of the year in anticipation of three-track operations at Belmont and Fullerton" Ask Carole: Construction Updates, August 10, 2006) and her attitude toward Pace (see Ask Carole: Moving Beyond Congestion, reply of 9/28/2006 8:49 AM--thereafter challenged by the State Auditor General), Frank and his "Doomsday" scenarios, to the problems manifested on the street--skipping some garages for two rounds of new buses, inability to deal with bus bunching, an implementation of GPS that is at least two years behind Pace (even though there are questions whether Pace's implementation is any good), ineffective labor relations resulting in a meaningless dissent from an unfavorable arbitration award, the pension funding fiasco, etc. If you work there, maybe you don't see those problems, or have enough "company loyalty" to ignore them, but those of us on the street, whom Carole and Frank have asked to send more of our tax money to them, do see that the system has become considerably degraded (especially compared to how it was when the older ones of us were younger). How can we have confidence in the management of a system where the Executive Vice President of Transit Operations doesn't even know how many overage buses there are (see posts 3262 and 3265)?

Responses like post 4116 are not helpful. That and the one above are why I referred to the cult of secrecy (or more likely, misinformation).

[Busjack]

Referring to the past training

I went through many years ago (and I stress many years ago) we started out that day

by using old 8500's in the yard...that's what was available. When it came time to head out

on the street, it was stated "Let's see if we can get some new buses"...which at the time

were GMC fishbowls (1400's).

If I guess properly (and assuming you mean CTA series), that would put you at North and Cicero in about 1973-1975. Now home of Mercado Grande numero tres (or Grand Mart #4).

People should listen to those of us with more experience. :P

[trainman8119]

If I guess properly (and assuming you mean CTA series), that would put you at North and Cicero in about 1973-1975. Now home of Mercado Grande numero uno (or Grand Mart #2).

People should listen to those of us with more experience.

You would be correct...almost It was during Easter Break 1976. I was doing

a report for school at which time I got a guided tour of the 7th floor of the Merchandise

Mart, a full day of training (was invited back for a day of classroom, but couldn't make

it, which would have been at Limits) and a conversation with the head of HR

when the employment office was at Limits on Clark Street. The whole experience was

a blast...and to say the least, I learned a lot...which I retained and was able to put

into practice many years later when I would drive for Pace.

[Busjack]

Well, I was close.

I was impressed at the time by the 8500s (8600s on the South Side) because they appeared so large, and by the parallelogram windows that slid up. Much more impressive than a conventional New Look (like the 300s or 8700s, again 8800s on the South Side).

What kind of school was it? And if I remember correctly, you didn't need a CDL in those days. (I did go to a CTA job fair for summer temporaries in 1971, but it didn't lead anywhere).

[trainman8119]

What kind of school was it? And if I remember correctly, you didn't need a CDL in those days. (I did go to a CTA job fair for summer temporaries in 1971, but it didn't lead anywhere).

It was Sophomore year at Weber HS. We had to do sort of "whaddya want to be when you

grow up" report for Civics class. We had like 6 months to complete it, but the key

was that we had to get out and do interviews and get info like that. The CTA was

good about it. I had sent a letter to them and was contacted about a month

after I sent it. I got kings treatment. As a 15 year old who always liked buses, it

was a thrill, big time !!! It opened my eyes, and I guess you could say that it really

was the start of what would eventually be a long term transit career...although it

took a little bit of time to eventually get my foot in the door and make it happen.

[Guest]

We aren't debating that. The question is whether they were on loan (like 6712 once was) to train FG before they get some.

Again, anyone from CTA know?

I was a FG operator at the time the Novas were delivered to FG in fact 6712 was the first Nova I operated in service. I was assigned the bus on the 54A The passengers were delighted to see something new for a change. They were asking me "Is this what they will be riding in the near future?". The stares I got when I was driving the bus. It felt nice at the time but over a course of time I quickly disliked the buses. As all other 54A buses were assigned Novas after being delivered, I asked to continue being assigned Flxibles. I didnt particularly enjoy the Novas. 6712 was assigned for a brief period to FG.

[Busjack]

What was wrong with the Novas, other than they don't have as many seats?