Jump to content

TTC GM New Look Fishbowl Preservation


TTCNLFBT

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, valvebodyguy said:

It was all in pretty good shape.  Doesn't need much more than a reseal and a little TLC here and there.  Here it is ready to go to the wash tank.

 

20190809_133448.jpg

This is really cool. Thank you for sharing your photos of the progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

There is something strange about parts buses 2345 and 2444.  For example, the TTC logos on the side of the buses.  2444 has TTC logos on both sides of the bus.  While 2345 doesn't.  2252, 2444 & 8058 have logos prior to restoration.  Off Topic here, Orion VII bus 7575 was rumoured to be a preservation bus but it fell through due to funding.  Parts and TTC logos were removed.  If 2444 is a parts bus and be scrapped then the logos should be removed.  I believe that 2444 is part of the preservation.  But there is option, "if" 8058 fails, then parts of the bus will go onto 2444.  I believe 2444 is a spare bus in case 8058 fails or something.  I have no idea whats going on with 8058 since it's been sitting in the same spot since March/April 2019.  It should be inside Harvey right now.  I guess it won't be ready for TTC's 100th Anniversary in 2021. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, TTCNLFBT said:

There is something strange about parts buses 2345 and 2444.  For example, the TTC logos on the side of the buses.  2444 has TTC logos on both sides of the bus.  While 2345 doesn't.  2252, 2444 & 8058 have logos prior to restoration.  Off Topic here, Orion VII bus 7575 was rumoured to be a preservation bus but it fell through due to funding.  Parts and TTC logos were removed.  If 2444 is a parts bus and be scrapped then the logos should be removed.  I believe that 2444 is part of the preservation.  But there is option, "if" 8058 fails, then parts of the bus will go onto 2444.  I believe 2444 is a spare bus in case 8058 fails or something.  I have no idea whats going on with 8058 since it's been sitting in the same spot since March/April 2019.  It should be inside Harvey right now.  I guess it won't be ready for TTC's 100th Anniversary in 2021.

I remember 8058 was only supposed to be used as a parts bus then off to the scrap heap because of the deterioration from Halton. 2444 and 7575 are next to each other at Hillcrest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TTCNLFBT said:

There is something strange about parts buses 2345 and 2444.  For example, the TTC logos on the side of the buses.  2444 has TTC logos on both sides of the bus.  While 2345 doesn't.  2252, 2444 & 8058 have logos prior to restoration.  Off Topic here, Orion VII bus 7575 was rumoured to be a preservation bus but it fell through due to funding.  Parts and TTC logos were removed.  If 2444 is a parts bus and be scrapped then the logos should be removed.  I believe that 2444 is part of the preservation.  But there is option, "if" 8058 fails, then parts of the bus will go onto 2444.  I believe 2444 is a spare bus in case 8058 fails or something.  I have no idea whats going on with 8058 since it's been sitting in the same spot since March/April 2019.  It should be inside Harvey right now.  I guess it won't be ready for TTC's 100th Anniversary in 2021.

be glad the TTC is actually shelling out the dough to preserve them in the first place. Money that could be allocated to revenue generating vehicles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Downsview 108 said:

be glad the TTC is actually shelling out the dough to preserve them in the first place. Money that could be allocated to revenue generating vehicles.

It’s not as expensive as one would think. It’s a fill in project for what would otherwise be idle time when there isn’t enough work to go around in the revenue fleet. Those tradesmen are still expected to  show up in the morning Monday to Friday, and they get paid wether there’s a collision bus in their bay or not- so the actual drain on the budget is pretty negligible.
 

This beats pushing a broom. It’s also the reason why it’s progressing so slowly. As of 3 weeks ago, the body of 8058 is outside, and hasn’t progressed beyond the stripping and assessment stage. But as valvebodyguy has demonstrated, they’re not going to pay Harper’s to rebuild an engine without eventually finishing the vessel to receive it.

So certain members can relax a little. Perhaps a paper bag would be helpful.

  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bus_Medic said:

It’s not as expensive as one would think. It’s a fill in project for what would otherwise be idle time when there isn’t enough work to go around in the revenue fleet. Those tradesmen are still expected to  show up in the morning Monday to Friday, and they get paid wether there’s a collision bus in their bay or not- so the actual drain on the budget is pretty negligible.
 

This beats pushing a broom. It’s also the reason why it’s progressing so slowly. As of 3 weeks ago, the body of 8058 is outside, and hasn’t progressed beyond the stripping and assessment stage. But as valvebodyguy has demonstrated, they’re not going to pay Harper’s to rebuild an engine without eventually finishing the vessel to receive it.

So certain members can relax a little. Perhaps a paper bag would be helpful.

I see. Thanks for that. the more you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2019 at 1:54 PM, PCC Guy said:

I'm really, really, really, late to this, but I finally managed to process my photos from the 2252 charter and upload them to Flickr. If anyone's interested, I have attached the link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/100607361@N06/albums/72157710525300072

Is there something wonky with the LCD display on 2252? or is it a camera shutter glitch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, PCC Guy said:

The latter.

Not even a glitch really.  The sign's scanned faster than the rate of human persistence of vision so it looks like a solid display to us but, at even moderately fast camera shutter speeds, it's only going to be able to photograph part of the sign's display being active.  The result is you see it correctly but the camera doesn't unless you put it on a tripod and use a fairly slow shutter speed to let the sign get at least one complete scan in.  Or, alternatively, put rollsigns back in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...