BusTalk

Mr. Linsky · Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:26 pm Post subject: 'GM OLD LOOK RECOGNITION GUIDE'

Here's a useful tool for you Old Look GM bus spotters - it's helped me hundreds of times as I'm sure it will for you.

My thanks to Q65A for passing it along to me some years ago (although he may not remember).

Regards to all,

Mr. 'L'

HwyHaulier · Joined: 16 Dec 2007 Posts: 932 Location: Harford County, MD

Mr 'L' -

Without doubt, a most useful illustration of the product line!

The earlier, rather limited seating models with an attraction of modest "fuel burn" rates. On something of a parity with current day "heavy" SUV types.
A bit of an excellent example of what services carriers would do in protection of authority held, and required provision of services...

..................Vern....................

frankie · Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:51 am Post subject:

While most of the old looks were either 96 and 102 inches wide, I read that some of the shorter ones were only 95 inches wide. Does anyone know exactly which model numbers were?

Frankie

Mr. Linsky · Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:37 pm Post subject:

Frankie,

As seen below, 'Coach Info' reports that some GM Old Looks were 95 inches in width.

This is erroneous - the only two widths were 96 or 102 inches.

There were earlier Yellow Coaches that averaged 95 inches.

Now, if you were to ask what production GM transit was the longest ever built that would have to be the TDH 5502 manufactured exclusively for Chicago Motor Coach coming in at some 43 feet.

The highest passenger capacity coach built by GM/Yellow was the 72 seat double decked 720's and 735's for both Chicago and New York.

Intercity and transit buses.
GMC "Old-Look". Specifications. Length: 35, 40 feet; Width: 95, 102; Height: 113 inches; Wheelbase: 239, 282 inches; Typical engine: DDA 6-71 ...
www.coachinfo.com/AllAboutBuses/GMC_Info.html - Cached - Similar

Regards,

Mr. 'L'

frankie · Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:22 pm Post subject:

Thanks Mr. L - I thought that was in error. The other source that mentioned the 95 inches was in the Luke/Metler book on Old Look Transits (page 6). I can understand two sets of tooling for the front and rear panels to reflect the 96 and 102 inches, but not one for 95.

I think you and I are pretty much up to snuff when it comes to bus trivia. Just for the heck of it, here's one for you that I'm sure you already know the answer: What's the only 40 foot old look that did not have paired windows?

Frankie

traildriver · Joined: 26 Mar 2011 Posts: 2458 Location: South Florida

I wonder why that 5502 was not more widely used? Was the length too far ahead of its time, on legal basis? The 102" width seemed okay for in-city use, why not the extra length?

IIRC, the PCC streetcars were something like 51 feet long, not that that necessarily had any bearing on buses, but......?

frankie · Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:47 pm Post subject:

During this time period, most if not all states had restrictions regarding length and width of buses especially those used on major highways, however some cities had their own exemptions including Chicago. The 5502 was build for Chicago as a replacement for their double deckers and most of these were used on the busier routes with the wider streets. Most of these routes posed little or no problems for the buses' cornering abilities. Lesser routes on narrower streets would have used other bus equipment as needed.

The PCC's never had cornering issues due to it's fixed movement along it's tracks, therefor length was not a issue. The only problem with the PCC's would be vehicular obstructions whereas a bus had the capability of maneuvering around them.

This is just a thumbnail explanation. I'm sure Mr. L and others could easily elaborate on this.

Great question Traildriver!

Frankie

Mr. Linsky · Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:58 pm Post subject:

frankie · Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:51 am Post subject:

And a trick question it was!!!! Nice going Mr. L - no way to pull the wool over your eyes! It was indeed the renamed TD-5001.

Frankie

Mr. Linsky · Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:59 am Post subject:

Frankie,

I'm ready for 'Wheel of Fortune' - next question please!

Regards,

Mr. 'L'

HwyHaulier · Joined: 16 Dec 2007 Posts: 932 Location: Harford County, MD

Q65A · Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:27 am Post subject:

Nice thread! Withregard to length restrictions, I think streetcars probably were regulated differently as compared to motor vehicles (e.g. streetcars didn't require license plates but buses did, etc.) Streetcars probably were regulated as railways, while buses were regulated as motor vehicles. Many bus operators bought 96" wide equipment fairly late in time. In California, weight restrictions were quite severe up until the 1970's. This prevented use of 40-foot air-conditioned transit buses until these laws were relaxed.

traildriver · Joined: 26 Mar 2011 Posts: 2458 Location: South Florida

Q65A · Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:20 pm Post subject:

For Old Looks, the 37.5 foot long TDH/M 4801 was a favorite in CA. For 40 foot California New Looks, GM repositioned the fuel tanks behind the front axle to comply with restrictive axle loadings.

frankie · Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:37 pm Post subject:

Even the Macks couldn't escape the strict California axle loads. The C-49 specifications shifted the front axle 15 inches towards the rear to satisfy the weight distribution over the real axle. This explains the long front overhang on the California C-49s.

Frankie