Glacier National Park's famed Red Buses will get overhauled this year/Pixabay
For those visiting Glacier National Park, the iconic red buses remain a trip favorite. Black and crimson, shiny, and comfortable, the buses transport their riders back in time. However, even they need some modern upkeep, and park staff begin an extensive rehabilitation project this year.
The White Motor Company Model 706 buses were manufactured between 1936 and 1939, painted the color of ripe mountain ash berries, and originally purchased by the Glacier Park Transportation Company. The Ford Motor Company donated time and money for the previous red bus rehabilitation, which occurred in 1999.
The rehabilitation will replace the current Ford engines with a Ford 6.2L V8 engine assisted by an electric hybrid system to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. The electric hybrid system will be powered by a battery bank that will charge when the vehicle decelerates including on downhill runs, which are frequent in the park. The buses will be remounted on new Ford chassis retaining the existing 176’ wheelbase, as they were with a previous restoration. Tire size will be expanded from 16’’ to 19.5’’ to approach historical dimensions. The dashboard and gauges will be replaced with historic replicas, and the buses will undergo refinishing, including rust removal and painting using the historic mountain ash color.
President Taft designated Glacier National Park in 1910, making Glacier the 10th unit in the national park system. The red buses have been a signature fixture in the visitor experience for the vast majority of the park’s history. The improvements will ensure that the fleet continues to operate in Glacier National Park for the foreseeable future, with improved safety and serviceability, while retaining the same visitor experience in the park that has existed for over 80 years.
The National Park Service included the rehabilitation as a responsibility in the most recent concession contract that Xanterra Travel Collection was awarded in 2014. Xanterra Travel Collection has selected Legacy Classic Trucks, based in Driggs, Idaho, to do the rehabilitation. Once complete, visitors will once again be able to choose tours that last 2.5-9.5 hours, taking in the beautiful sights and sounds of Glacier National Park.
One recent rider – Steve – says it all in his review on Trip Advisor: “My wife and I recently visited Glacier NP. We took the Red Bus Tour and it was the highlight of our visit. The old restored White Truck Red Buses held 17 guests and had an open top which is open if the weather is agreeable. Thankfully it was while we were there. Our tour guide GLEN was extremely [knowledgeable] about the park, the history, plants, animals, etc. We can't thank him enough for the wonderful experience. Anyone visiting GNP should take this tour. It is worth every penny.”
Comments
That first comment was just bizarre though, although I understand his ideological bent. I don't get repeatedly changing tack and then doubling down on it every time his previous argument was countered. Of all the stories that one would think should be noncontroversial, shouldn't this one have been it? A beloved instutition is overhauled to extend its longevity, enhance the visitor experience (including visitors not riding Jammers), get closer to the original appearance, and it won't directly cost the National Park Service.
When I found out that I had a material fact (such as who is paying for it) incorrect, I admitted it and moved on. But I'm still figuring out how it was even possible to criticize the overhaul of these buses as a bad thing.
I guess in other news, I found an article on this (an original White 706 that served in Yellowstone) sold for $165,000.
https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2017/09/13/big-yellow-different-yellowston...
President Trumps criticism has nothing to do with funding but rather Jerry Brown's succumbing to the greenies and not allowing mitigation efforts. In this case I disagree with The President. According to the Forest Service's own chief fire scientist, Jack Cohen, any mitigation efforts more than 250' from a home is a waste of money. Besides, why should my tax dollars pay for someone that wants to put his home at risk by building in a WUI?
Are you sure it isnt so much Governor Brown "succumbing to the greenies" and more local and municipal governments wanting more property tax dollars so they allow people to build further into forested areas and wildlife habitat?
In my own state, people who build up on the Wasatch bench complain when muleys come down and munch on their shrubs. Well, dont build up into their habitat then. You build up there dont complain when a deer or moose shows up in your backyard.
The President's gripe was with Brown's veto of a bill that would have allowed more mitigation. As to states encouraging building into the WUI, this is for the most part private land. Rightfully they have no real power to stop it. As to the consequences I totally agree. I live in a WUI, have deer and moose chewing on my shrubs on a regular basis and have no gripe with that. Nor do I expect the Feds to protect my home. That is my job.
The fire going through Paradise, CA was a house to house fire spread by high winds. The source may have been on federal land, but no amount of brush clearing would have mitigated that spread once it got into town. One of the issues was the use of wood shingle roofing, which is no longer allowed in new construction in California. However, there's no legal mandate for those with existing flammable roofing materials to replace them.
But you know very well that Trump had no idea what he was talking about, and most definitely wasn't referring to Brown's veto of anything. On top of that, SB 1463 wouldn't have achieved anything that wasn't already in place. It instructed the CPUC and Cal Fire to do things that were already being done. It might have also thrown a little bit of money at it. Brown's veto message made it pretty clear that he understood what he was doing.
I live in an area where people have been living for over a century in these conditions. We don't have any more bears, but do deal with all sorts of wildlife including black-tailed deer. For some it's annoying while others find them charming.
However, I lived through the Oakland-Berkeley Hills Fire of 1991. It hit close to home, and I used to ride my road bike through the area that burnt down. I remember the one thing I noticed about homes that stayed up even though homes burned around them was that few of the still-standing homes had wood shingles. A lot of people wanted that look, but in the end it severely increased the risk of fire. And I remember when my computer lab at UC Berkeley shut down because power transmission was limited due to damaged power lines. One class project was extended a week as a result.
I don't get the blaming on the basic of political persuasion either. There was an even bigger wildfire in Oklahoma last year. I attribute these issues to more apolitical human behavior than anything else.
I don't know that at all. And neither do you. But I agree, mitigation in the National Forest would have made little if any difference. Which is why I get so frustrated when we see the FS spend tens/hundreds of millions on such activities.