|
|
| "Demon Bus" # 666-Retired??? (263176) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (263176) | |
"Demon Bus" # 666-Retired??? |
|
|
Posted by ENY Blitz 5107 on Wed Jul 4 19:04:38 2012 Greetings all...Took a walk on the overpass over Casey Stengel Depot and Corona Yard today; Orion 5 # 666 is sitting under the boardwalk with battery covers missing; Is she retired now? Also: all the new "Artics" are sitting in a neat line,out of service... |
|
|
| (263177) | |
Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired??? |
|
|
Posted by Bx36Ltd on Wed Jul 4 19:09:05 2012, in response to "Demon Bus" # 666-Retired???, posted by ENY Blitz 5107 on Wed Jul 4 19:04:38 2012. 666 wont go away that easy there will be other one here soon. And are u sure the artics are out of service? |
|
|
| (263179) | |
Artics out of Service (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???) |
|
|
Posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Wed Jul 4 19:18:51 2012, in response to "Demon Bus" # 666-Retired???, posted by ENY Blitz 5107 on Wed Jul 4 19:04:38 2012. [Also: all the new "Artics" are sitting in a neat line, out of service....] ...except for 5900's that are IN service in Manhattan and the Bronx. I still suspect that those buses were set to the OA to investigate why they "become" defective immediately upon arriving in Queens. |
|
|
| (263181) | |
Re: Artics out of Service (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???) |
|
|
Posted by mike nash on Wed Jul 4 19:23:12 2012, in response to Artics out of Service (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???), posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Wed Jul 4 19:18:51 2012. Can it be the atu rebelling against artics? |
|
|
| (263185) | |
Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired??? |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jul 4 23:24:23 2012, in response to "Demon Bus" # 666-Retired???, posted by ENY Blitz 5107 on Wed Jul 4 19:04:38 2012. All while 5938 is in service (I shot 5938 today on the Bx19 by the Botanical Garden). I don't get why Stengel isn't running its artics. |
|
|
| (263187) | |
Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired??? |
|
|
Posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Thu Jul 5 05:35:36 2012, in response to "Demon Bus" # 666-Retired???, posted by ENY Blitz 5107 on Wed Jul 4 19:04:38 2012. [I don't get why Stengel isn't running its artics.] As somebody else suggested elsewhere in this thread, maybe the union is sabotaging them. It is odd that those buses run well elsewhere but somehow "become" defective upon arriving in Queens. |
|
|
| (263194) | |
Re: Artics out of Service (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???) |
|
|
Posted by mci guy on Thu Jul 5 08:12:37 2012, in response to Re: Artics out of Service (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???), posted by mike nash on Wed Jul 4 19:23:12 2012. may very well be. |
|
|
| (263196) | |
Re: Artics out of Service (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 5 10:00:15 2012, in response to Re: Artics out of Service (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???), posted by mci guy on Thu Jul 5 08:12:37 2012. An ultimatum needs to be given along with WARN Act notices---if the problem is rebellion, they can either drive the buses or the Q44 heads to West Farms. Of course, the major trouble could be finding buses to move. |
|
|
| (263209) | |
Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired??? |
|
|
Posted by r17-6599 on Thu Jul 5 15:06:33 2012, in response to Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jul 4 23:24:23 2012. Why ain't you postin' pix?jrc |
|
|
| (263217) | |
Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired??? |
|
|
Posted by mci guy on Thu Jul 5 19:44:26 2012, in response to Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jul 4 23:24:23 2012. theres probably a few more there as lower numbers are being transferred out. |
|
|
| (263219) | |
Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired??? |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 5 20:54:05 2012, in response to Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???, posted by r17-6599 on Thu Jul 5 15:06:33 2012. Oh jeez...gotta start that again! |
|
|
| (263221) | |
Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired??? |
|
|
Posted by R40SlantontheB on Thu Jul 5 20:59:21 2012, in response to "Demon Bus" # 666-Retired???, posted by ENY Blitz 5107 on Wed Jul 4 19:04:38 2012. Hmm, reminds me of Orion V CNG "666" at LI Bus. Always had problems from day 1, I think it caught fire too.None of the drivers wanted it, cant blame 'em! |
|
|
| (263285) | |
Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired??? |
|
|
Posted by DHF60 on Sat Jul 7 15:04:37 2012, in response to "Demon Bus" # 666-Retired???, posted by ENY Blitz 5107 on Wed Jul 4 19:04:38 2012. Sorry to hear about 666. I drove it on the Bx 29 back in 2008 when it was assigned to Gun Hill. It was a damn good bus and ran well. I actually had a passenger refuse to board it. He looked at me and said; " Did you see the number on this bus?" I replied, "Yeah so?" He says, "Don't you know what that number is?" I replied, Yeah it's the number that comes after 665 and before 667." He looked at me in horror and scampered away. LOL! Superstitious bullshit! |
|
|
| (263288) | |
Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired??? |
|
|
Posted by mci guy on Sat Jul 7 15:13:07 2012, in response to Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???, posted by DHF60 on Sat Jul 7 15:04:37 2012. well it started its life in yukon with 631-680. i never knew about the meaning of it but it never had any demons in yukon. |
|
|
| (263289) | |
Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired??? |
|
|
Posted by mcorivervsaf on Sat Jul 7 15:13:44 2012, in response to Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???, posted by DHF60 on Sat Jul 7 15:04:37 2012. Funny, when I rode the bus on the Bx30, one Sunday morning back then, there was a church-going couple at the Norwood/206th bus stop who would not get on! If they want to waste another half-hour at the bus stop, that's on them! Sheesh! |
|
|
| (263300) | |
Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired??? |
|
|
Posted by Bx36Ltd on Sat Jul 7 19:25:55 2012, in response to Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???, posted by DHF60 on Sat Jul 7 15:04:37 2012. Lmfao thats funny |
|
|
| (263309) | |
Re: Artics out of Service (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???) |
|
|
Posted by Bounad Hanhic on Sat Jul 7 22:26:39 2012, in response to Re: Artics out of Service (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???), posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 5 10:00:15 2012. The Q44 would be better off split with West Farms due to the proximity of the Bronx end of the Q44. |
|
|
| (263310) | |
Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired??? |
|
|
Posted by Brooklyn67 on Sat Jul 7 22:48:00 2012, in response to Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???, posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Thu Jul 5 05:35:36 2012. You can't be serious. Do you really believe the union would instruct members to deliberately damage property? And further, believe any member would actually carry out these "orders" if so instructed? What world do you live in?I don't know of anyone who would (a) give such an order, nor (b) carry it out if instructed to do so. Why would anyone put their job and pension at risk? Do you really believe the ATU is that "tight"? And we're that stupid? Really, guy... I've been reading your responses for years, and you've said some pretty dumb things, but this one tops them all. Yes, there are isolated incidents where some drivers vandalize buses writing nonsense upon the overhead console, and a few of those idiots were caught and terminated. But to suggest a group effort in sabotaging buses at the orders of the union is laughable. Get a grip. |
|
|
| (263312) | |
Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???) |
|
|
Posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Sat Jul 7 23:11:24 2012, in response to Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???, posted by Brooklyn67 on Sat Jul 7 22:48:00 2012. [Do you really believe the union would instruct members to deliberately damage property? And further, believe any member would actually carry out these "orders" if so instructed?]I've looked back at my earlier post and I can't seem to find the words "deliberately damage property" or "orders" anywhere. Where did you find them? Buses "becoming" defective has nothing to do with causing damage. All it takes is one person claiming that a defect exists (even if it doesn't exist) and everybody else refusing to drive the buses until said defect is corrected (even if it doesn't exist). |
|
|
| (263316) | |
Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???) |
|
|
Posted by Brooklyn67 on Sat Jul 7 23:55:12 2012, in response to Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???), posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Sat Jul 7 23:11:24 2012. Yes, let's play your game. You wrote:As somebody else suggested elsewhere in this thread, maybe the union is sabotaging them. Since you didn't terminate your response with a question mark, but instead closed with a period, you made a statement as opposed to asking a question. In your statement, you agree that "maybe the union is sabotaging them". By definition, sabotage means: — nYou reiterated someone elses notion that "maybe the union is sabotaging them". When you repeat that opinion and pose it as, or as part of your own response, by default, you agree with it. You certainly didn't oppose the notion; didn't disagree with it, but instead chose it to represent your own perspective and/or opinion. You then wrote: It is odd that those buses run well elsewhere but somehow "become" defective upon arriving in Queens. Why would you deliberately chose to emphasize the word "become"? If not as an intentional effort to support your agreement that "maybe the union is sabotaging them", then for what reason, exactly? A genuine and honest statement is lost when you emphasize "become". Insinuation: 1. An indirect or covert suggestion or hint, especially of a derogatory natureI imagine most here recognize exactly what you are insinuating. |
|
|
| (263318) | |
Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???) |
|
|
Posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Sun Jul 8 02:11:57 2012, in response to Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???), posted by Brooklyn67 on Sat Jul 7 23:55:12 2012. CSs artics are in service. |
|
|
| (263319) | |
Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???) |
|
|
Posted by Brooklyn67 on Sun Jul 8 02:29:56 2012, in response to Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???), posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Sun Jul 8 02:11:57 2012. Are you a CS driver? If so, and you have driven them, what's your opinion? In my case, I'll probably never get the chance to drive one of those, or any of the new buses. The last "new" bus I drove for NYCT was one of the 6400 HEV's. Would have loved to experience driving an articulated. If I ever do, which is doubtful, it surely won't be for the TA! |
|
|
| (263320) | |
Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???) |
|
|
Posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Sun Jul 8 05:12:33 2012, in response to Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???), posted by Brooklyn67 on Sun Jul 8 02:29:56 2012. No, I am not a driver. I saw them on the Q-44 this past Friday. |
|
|
| (263322) | |
Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Jul 8 08:54:04 2012, in response to Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???), posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Sat Jul 7 23:11:24 2012. The defectiveness, however, appears to be in the early batch with Thermo King units. Many of Stengel's batch has not returned to Stengel yet. |
|
|
| (263323) | |
Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???) |
|
|
Posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Sun Jul 8 10:04:54 2012, in response to Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???), posted by Brooklyn67 on Sat Jul 7 23:55:12 2012. As I suggested quite clearly and lucidly in post #263312, sabotage can be administrative in nature rather than physical. There is no need to physically damage a bus when it's so much easier to falsely claim that a defect already exists, then refuse to drive the buses until that (non-existent) defect is corrected. This approach still achieves the underlying goal of preventing the buses from entering service, while also giving maintainers overtime pay to find and fix the (non-existent) defect. |
|
|
| (263324) | |
Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???) |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jul 8 10:25:36 2012, in response to Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???), posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Sun Jul 8 10:04:54 2012. Take whatever anti union spin you want to.EVERY bus and train has some defect but the union workers mostly overlook them go for the good of the service. Then when we don't, we get accused of sabatouge! No matter what, if you're anti-union, we're always wrong! The argument between labor and management is if it's safety related or not. There can be a subjective matter. |
|
|
| (263325) | |
Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???) |
|
|
Posted by Brooklyn67 on Sun Jul 8 11:50:59 2012, in response to Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???), posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Sun Jul 8 10:04:54 2012. Gotham Bus Co. wrote:As I suggested quite clearly and lucidly in post #263312, sabotage can be administrative in nature rather than physical. You "suggested" otherwise until you were brought to task, and have supported your original ignorant statement with yet a second ignorant statement: Gotham Bus Co. wrote: There is no need to physically damage a bus when it's so much easier to falsely claim that a defect already exists, then refuse to drive the buses until that (non-existent) defect is corrected. Who is going "to falsely claim that a defect already exists", knowing that all defects must be justified by maintenance and by supervision? Did you know that falsely claiming a bus is defective will result in a violation and suspension? Of course you didn't, which is why your supporting statement is just as ignorant as your previous response. You have absolutely no clue as to what you speak of, yet incessantly fill these boards with your brand of "insight". It is *much easier* to physically damage a bus than it is to "falsely claim", then prove a bus is defective when it is not. And refusing to pull out a bus that is not defective can result in termination, or at the very least, suspension. Such an act also carries with it the penalty of insubordination. Gotham Bus Co. wrote: This approach still achieves the underlying goal of preventing the buses from entering service, while also giving maintainers overtime pay to find and fix the (non-existent) defect. This approach will find the insubordinate bus driver suspended without pay pending dismissal and achieves nothing, except here in make believe land where you perpetually prove how very little you know about the day to day workings inside a NYCT depot with every post and claim you make. Stop spreading misinformation. |
|
|
| (263326) | |
Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???) |
|
|
Posted by Brooklyn67 on Sun Jul 8 11:54:51 2012, in response to Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jul 8 10:25:36 2012. He's not even management, he's "clerical" and depending on his title, "administrative". Any "management" authority he *might have* does not extend to rank and file employees. He can't instruct me; matter of fact, I can, and have every right to instruct *him* if he's riding my bus.His problem is he *thinks* he's management. And worse, thinks he knows all there is to know about operating a bus. This, of course, from behind the wheel of a clip board. "lol" |
|
|
| (263345) | |
Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jul 8 23:44:51 2012, in response to Re: Defective Buses (Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???), posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Sun Jul 8 10:04:54 2012. Wow dude...you are a real piece of work! |
|
|
| (263386) | |
Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired??? |
|
|
Posted by ENY Blitz 5107 on Mon Jul 9 19:29:48 2012, in response to "Demon Bus" # 666-Retired???, posted by ENY Blitz 5107 on Wed Jul 4 19:04:38 2012. Its funny to think this post started out about Orion 5 # 666; Too bad it melted into a Flame War over some supposed vandalism which may or may not have happened.Makes me wonder why i bother posting here at all... |
|
|
| (263678) | |
Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired??? |
|
|
Posted by G1RavagesDad on Sat Jul 14 13:35:36 2012, in response to Re: ''Demon Bus'' # 666-Retired???, posted by DHF60 on Sat Jul 7 15:04:37 2012. LOL....in Las Vegas, the Regional Transportation Commission actually renumbered a shipment of 7 New Flyer C40LFs from 660-666 to 670-676, because they didn't want a 666 in their fleet. |
|
|