Home · Maps · About

Home > BusChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2 3]

< Previous Page  

Page 2 of 3

Next Page >  

(44036)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by The Port of Authority on Sat Jan 6 13:30:59 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 12:33:38 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
It's the QM18! What's wrong with taking the subway?

Post a New Response

(44037)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Sat Jan 6 13:39:54 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by The Port of Authority on Sat Jan 6 13:30:59 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Exactly. F train to Q10A Limited.

Post a New Response

(44041)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by MCI D4000 81994 on Sat Jan 6 14:28:11 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 12:43:02 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
35' HEV's would not work on SI on some routes

Post a New Response

(44043)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 15:06:50 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by MCI D4000 81994 on Sat Jan 6 14:28:11 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
They would be kept on lighter use routes, and would NOT ever be used on the S62, S78, and S79.

Post a New Response

(44046)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sat Jan 6 15:23:54 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 15:06:50 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
They would never be used on ALOT of SI routes, these lines are crush-loaded during rush hours out here.

However, 35' buses would work on routes like the S59, S54, S42, S60, S55/S56, and S52.

Post a New Response

(44058)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Mysterious Friday 1986 on Sat Jan 6 17:04:12 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by petabread2 on Sat Jan 6 00:39:37 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
That's so true.

Post a New Response

(44060)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 17:34:48 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Mysterious Friday 1986 on Sat Jan 6 17:04:12 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
And, it is one of many cases where express buses take up depot space that local routes desperately need (converting 5894-7 to two-door buses, and eliminating cruisers altogether would go a long way to meeting customer demand on the Q10, which is currently NOT met---because it is constantly leaving passengers behind during peak service.)

Post a New Response

(44069)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 6 18:57:21 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 12:43:02 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Oh geez.

Will you please be quite?

You sound foolish.

Post a New Response

(44071)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sat Jan 6 19:14:50 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 6 18:57:21 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
It's not impossible, Los Angeles has already done it as other agencies across the world.

Post a New Response

(44072)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Mr. Harlem Line on Sat Jan 6 19:16:14 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 12:43:02 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
That's borrring...

Post a New Response

(44073)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sat Jan 6 19:25:19 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Mr. Harlem Line on Sat Jan 6 19:16:14 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
No more boring than it is now! There's nothing spectacular about the fleets we see now, and have seen for the past 5+ years.

Post a New Response

(44076)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jan 6 19:36:42 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sat Jan 6 19:25:19 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I wasn't really involved with BusTalk/BusChat back then, but how did everyone feel when RTSs were taking over NYC? Were we bored then?

Post a New Response

(44077)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by q55viamyrtle on Sat Jan 6 19:44:27 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jan 6 19:36:42 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I think most bus fans liked the RTS.
Remember, we also has GMC Fishbowls and FLXIBLES..we also had the new GRUMMAN 870s and we had the colorful PBL Liveries.

Post a New Response

(44085)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 21:38:26 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Future FLA bus operator on Fri Jan 5 14:09:11 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Probably the same amount of people who forked over the $5 to ride the Orion Vs just a few months ago.

Personally, it wouldn't be me.

Post a New Response

(44087)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 21:42:19 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 10:12:33 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Well I've seen it happen on the QM17 on numerous occasions. For example, when the TA first took over the route, the 2nd bus (there were only two trips each direction then) was 3156 for over a week.

Post a New Response

(44088)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 21:45:32 2007, in response to 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jan 5 13:58:23 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Hell, I didn't even know JFK had Orion VIIs.



Post a New Response

(44089)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 21:48:15 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 01:09:33 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I do not agree at all. If the latter was the case, they could just simply "borrow" a bus from another depot-which has been the practice since forever.

Post a New Response

(44090)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 21:52:38 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Sat Jan 6 01:33:24 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Even when GBL operated these lines, the QM15/QM18 did receive anything and I do mean anything that was available-from '85/86 RTSs to 1999 Orion Vs.

Post a New Response

(44096)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 22:30:28 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 21:48:15 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
However, at rush hour, good luck getting a spare bus.

Post a New Response

(44098)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 22:31:16 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 21:48:15 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Doesn't matter. If the fleet is all RTS, Orions, and New Flyer (standard transit buses), then ANY bus can run on ANY route.

Post a New Response

(44101)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 22:48:00 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 22:30:28 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Hey, it's been done before-definately not impossible.

Post a New Response

(44102)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Jan 6 22:51:41 2007, in response to Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 22:31:16 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Well if that's the case, then ANY and ALL routes, INCLUDING the EXPRESS routes should charge $2 NOT $5.

If you are going to charge premium fare for express bus routes, then premium buses should be used. Why in the world would someone want to pay $5 to ride on a bus that you can pay $2 for?

Post a New Response

(44103)

view threaded

Re: 3557 on the QM18 (!)

Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jan 6 22:54:26 2007, in response to SubChat/BusChat/OTChat

Error

Home · Maps  About


Home

An error occurred while processing this page. Sorry.