D. DeLarge

Correct, the Canadian EMD/GM locomotive arm was set up as General Motors Diesel Ltd (GMD). Old US GMC bus brochures from the 70's also referred to its Canadian bus division as such. GMD would be the correct designation for Canadian-built EMD locomotives, and likely GM's whole Canadian locomotive/bus/truck operation in its earlier years. "GMDD" or "Diesel Division, General Motors of Canada Ltd" did exist though, but may have been a corporate renaming at some point for GM's entire Canadian bus/truck/locomotive parent operations (GM Classic brochures refer to it as such). Things got complicated in later years with other corporate names like GLMG (GM Locomotive Group), and I think when Greenbrier bought it it all became EMDI (EMD Industries). Some late 70's-80's Canadian GM bus (fishbowl) builder's plates I've seen have it stamped "Built by Diesel Division, General Motors of Canada Ltd", so GMDD may be correct for most Canadian-made buses (some prefer DDGM, but it's not intuitive), but I haven't seen any earlier ones.

Earlier in 2025 I spotted a YRT/Care Accessible Promaster numbered 5067 (license plate DCJM 800) running around Vaughan. I don't see this unit or the series in the Wiki, anyone know how many there might be?

Now corrected back to proper build date years. All in-service dates were noted in the notes column.

Thanks, I was wondering what was going on. There's a lot of those changed on the main GM serial/VIN page as well: https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/General_Motors_New_Look_Serials

Lately I've been browsing some pages and finding the formatting for a few pre-1980's GMC VIN numbers has been changed by someone to "modelnumberVIN" together instead of just the VIN. A few VIN pages have also had some entries changed to reflect this. For example, instead of the correct VIN stamped on the builder's plate of M1452, someone has been adding the model to it and showing "T6H5307NM1452" (see page Toronto Transit Commission 8270-8314 - CPTDB Wiki for example). Can we get a ruling on this VIN formatting style? This is extremely confusing since there's also no break between the model number and VIN, making it look garbled together with no clear distinction what is what. This is also not accurate, as the builder's number doesn't include the model and it isn't stamped on the builder's plate like that. It also seems unnecessary if the whole page is a roster for T6H-5307N's to make some distinction that each of the VINs are for that model (especially when each VIN is linked to the main VIN page section for that specific model).

I don't know how the Hamilton Street Railway page didn't have any streetcar roster info for this long, but over the last little while I've added roster information from a few sources on HSR's old streetcar fleet. Feel free to add any more info/corrections/expand the pages: Hamilton Street Railway - Streetcars (retired roster) - CPTDB Wiki

1822-1824 appear to have moved from SE to SW division recently.

It sounds like no buses left Sandalwood today due to the pickets. And probably similar at Clark. Thus, the vague "major service impacts" being reported was essentially no bus service in the entire city of Brampton at all. Brampton transit and many other key services impacted by city strike | Watch

Large Brampton public worker strike today, that seemed to have put a big dent in transit service operations. Apparently transit supervisors were included in the strike (not the transit operators, different union), and workers are picketing the bus garages. Transit riders seem to have been caught off-guard, as there was poor if any communication from the city regarding transit services being affected prior to the strike. Brampton city workers go on strike | Toronto Sun

Some of the details suggest this was likely ex-YRT 210, that was one of the initial 4 Mobile COVID vaccination clinics, and later one of two (210 & 217) based at Emily Carr SS. Those two locations seemed to be the only two that the converted YRT VanHool artics were used at.

Regular Brampton 40' units would be numbered xx01+ Zum 40' units would be xx50+ Zum 60' artics xx75+

Probably one of the former 4 mobile COVID VAX units they had at Wonderland and Emily Carr SS.

531 in service on the 165 this morning, may be its first day back in service.

Dusting off this thread... Going off information from old UCRS newsletters published in the 60's, I've created an Expo Express page on the Wiki, including fleet roster info and car numbers. Any information on the fleet has been pretty elusive to find in the past due to their short service lives and lack of good roster-like photos (ironic how they spent way more time in storage waiting for a buyer that never came than in actual revenue service). Expo Express - CPTDB Wiki

I don't recall them rejecting it due to lower ridership projections, although that could have been part of the conclusion to keep it as a BRT at the time. Back in the mayor Linda Jeffrey days, city council wanted it, but couldn't settle on the routing so turned down building the Gateway to downtown portion. Later, they took up wanting it again, and continued debating the routing, and ended up spending so much time flip-flopping over it all that the original funding (provincial?) that had been allocated for it was gone. The main problem was there was a major debate about the routing, since going up Main St. would have went through the "Heritage district" stretch between Nanwood & Wellington, and would have either needed widening (cutting into existing residential properties) or constrained the lanes on Main. There was vocal residential opposition to all this (including former Premier Bill Davis, who lived in one of the houses along that stretch, and opposed it). Along with the Main St. routing. alternate routings up Kennedy and McLaughlin were proposed to the city, and even routing it up the parkland ravine along the Etobicoke Creek (West Branch) north of Nanwood (probably not a wise idea since that low area along the Etobicoke Creek could be subject to flooding issues). Tunneling part of the stretch was also proposed, although due to the cost and funding issues it wasn't considered the most feasible option at the time.