T6H-5307N

They probably all had driver A/C on delivery, but that is because the various GMC/Chevy and International chassis (the front-end including the driver's compartment) come standard with A/C rather than it being a specified option. As awstott said, the most likely scenario is that they had it but it was never maintained and therefore may or may not work at this point in history. Problem is now I am speculating too so maybe I should just take my own advice and stop

Apparently many years of convincing... I thought we were done with this conversation 5+ years ago! Two reasons this came up way back when: 1) The 2011 D60LFRs' aux heater knobs are labeled auto-off as opposed to heat-off. Prior to this, "auto" was allegedly only ever found on buses with A/C. 2) These buses were delivered right around the time that 6003 and 6004 returned to service with A/C removed. Someone somewhere at some point in time, with no evidence to prove anything, connected the dots where they shouldn't have and incorrectly assumed that this meant the artics had A/C ripped out (the two facts were blended and confused). This had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the XD40's two years later, and yet somehow it came up again at that time; it was once again a case of someone making connections and assumptions where they shouldn't have. At the time I remember having to climb a tree and sand dune (yes, I went that far) to get an aerial perspective on a freshly-delivered XD to verify that it was non-A/C and there is no evidence to suggest anything was ever modified. Nonetheless Matt, I am really curious where the "I was told" originated from... if this is a verifiable source to prove otherwise, please cite. Otherwise I strongly suggest that we abandon this topic as hearsay and move on.

Are we sure they don't look like this?

2002 is the only one tracking this afternoon, but there are definitely others around... went after 2002, also encountered 2005 on route 126 so perhaps they are just having SmartBus issues?

Dang, nice catch! A part of me was bitterly hoping they would start at #100 and use that series

You are welcome to make a special trip out here to confirm otherwise if our word isn't good enough.

As far as we know, they are all still active. https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/St._Albert_Transit_853-857 Only update to that would be 855 is the only one left with a rollsign.

Confirmed #707 is ex-SCT #1010:

Thank-you; that info on 992 is more like what we need Where is 993 if it is definitely gone?

I dare you to use that as an academic source for any sort of research or historical documentation. Seriously. I don't mean to be grumpy but can we please move past the hearsay and start posting useful information again?

In the spirit of his 007... When it comes to Bond, I was always left wanting Moore!

I would, if only it were a little closer to home... Definitely for the kids activities

I think Martin's previous post addresses your question; I suggest reading it again I am going to go with his response as I have a couple of concerns with your speculation. Namely, why on earth would ETS start numbering at 6906 for their units (this leaves no room for Spruce Grove expansion, and seems random at best) and why would New Flyer be delivering them in reverse order? Then there is the issue that we still don't even know who the ETS tender was awarded to, never mind having a set production date... in other words, definitely not regluar ETS units.

One of the three units for Beaumont service? The numbering makes sense (regional, leaving space for Spruce Grove), and they might have ended up in the ETS livery purely because Beaumont, unlike Spruce Grove, never really specified a new livery...

May as well join the fun. Just don't look at the date at the bottom