|
|
| Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With "Harry" (1193970) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (1193970) | |
Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With "Harry" |
|
|
Posted by Widecab5 on Mon Dec 24 00:42:15 2012 All:Here's a few more bits of H-Line Shuttlebutt: There's no power in the terminal building at Rockaway Park. It may be related to the adjacent commercial block which reportedly had a massive gas explosion and fire, and remains a large pile of rubble. One or two attached businesses are still running on generator power (as of 12/21). Perhaps LIPA provided a common power source? The station platforms (B 116, B 105 and B 98), plus Rock Park Yard, DO have power. The reason given for changing out the equipment immediately, despite other rumored causes, was a gapping incident at Hammels wye. The third rail on the connector is still profiled for the LIRR, which had slightly longer equipment (MP-54s were 64 feet). The short R-32 train got stuck when approaching the crossover to B 90 and had to get pushed, this according to an employee on scene. A 75-footer presents no such hazard. When there on Friday 12/21 I was advised that would indeed be the ONLY day of equipment transition, and it was (2 R-32, 1 R-46). (Right Place, Right Time...) Pre-service inspections were performed on two additional R-46 sets that day and the trains were ready for service by Saturday morning. The last 8 R-32 were swapped out Friday night. Installation of cameras and monitor displays for OPTO were only begun last week and will consume a few weeks to get up and running. Two things with this: 1) Since it is very expensive CCTV equipment it points to a long-term expectation of use, bearing out estimates of a restoration no earlier than next summer, and 2) Doubtful that OPTO would be initiated until the monitors are activated. Remember the Kerfuffle about the J line not having proper monitors so there were restrictions on the R-160's for a bit? Regards, George Chiasson Jr. (Widecab5@aol.com) |
|
|
| (1193975) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by mike cruz on Mon Dec 24 01:37:02 2012, in response to Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With "Harry", posted by Widecab5 on Mon Dec 24 00:42:15 2012. Geez how slow was he goin through the X over? that gap does not look that big, and the old "H" didn't have those problems even back in the R30 days from what I remember. |
|
|
| (1193994) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Dec 24 07:49:32 2012, in response to Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With "Harry", posted by Widecab5 on Mon Dec 24 00:42:15 2012. < The third rail on the connector is still profiled for the LIRR, which had slightly longer equipment (MP-54s were 64 feet). >I get that part, but the LIRR often ran 3 car MP54's (sometimes with a T54 mid-consist), and until 1952, 3 car MP41's (3 X 51') . Did they gap ? < Remember the Kerfuffle about the J line not having proper monitors so there were restrictions on the R-160's for a bit? > The R160 was in a way back to the future. Why was CCTV an issue when 8 car R10, R16, R27/30, R32's have all been there over the years, their C/R was at 4/4 position, and there was no such thing as CCTV ? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1193995) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Dec 24 07:50:20 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by mike cruz on Mon Dec 24 01:37:02 2012. The R30's were in a far more decrepit state that the R32's now are. |
|
|
| (1193999) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Dec 24 08:01:24 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Joe V on Mon Dec 24 07:49:32 2012. Did they gap?..........don't remember, but today there are radar guns and crews are watched much more than back in the day for compliance with the rules. NYCT rules state 10 MPH over switches unless otherwise noted. You'll have to find out for yourself if LIRR trains were allowed to go more than 10 MPH over that switch.CCTV: when I was a c/r there were MANY blind spots where you couldn't see due to curves. Today the public is lawsuit happy and there were lots of well publicized drags which have resulted in passenger injuries before the monitors. |
|
|
| (1194000) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Dec 24 08:24:49 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Joe V on Mon Dec 24 07:49:32 2012. Also LIRR cars were single cars.In the case of the (married) R32's, if both even cars are off the third rail at the same time and the train stops/loses momemtum over the switch........it's all over. |
|
|
| (1194003) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Mon Dec 24 09:22:48 2012, in response to Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With "Harry", posted by Widecab5 on Mon Dec 24 00:42:15 2012. There's no power in the terminal building at Rockaway Park. It may be related to the adjacent commercial block which reportedly had a massive gas explosion and fire, and remains a large pile of rubble. One or two attached businesses are still running on generator power (as of 12/21). Perhaps LIPA provided a common power source?I noticed much of the commercial block reduced to a "pile of rubble" first in the Google Earth aerial imagery post-storm, and then when I visited the area on Saturday. On the north side of Rockaway Beach Boulevard between Beach 115th and mid-block B114/B113, the buildings there were all severely damaged/destroyed. All of that is right up against NYCTA property. The Beach 116th Street station house was open, but I suppose only to access the police facility there, as there were signs all over stating that there was no train service at the station. The reason given for changing out the equipment immediately … was a gapping incident at Hammels wye. The third rail on the connector is still profiled for the LIRR…. The short R-32 train got stuck when approaching the crossover to B 90 and had to get pushed, this according to an employee on scene. A [train of] 75-footers presents no such hazard. I thought so. Thanks to Train Dude for the initial heads up. I made it down there on what turned out to be transition day Friday. Going back there Saturday, nothing but 46s, operating with T/O & C/R, as they do on the G. I suppose they've gone OPTO by now. However, I thought the OPTO stops were positioned in such a way that they minimized the amount of blind spots, thus reducing or eliminating the need for CCTV equipment. |
|
|
| (1194007) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Dec 24 09:55:01 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Dec 24 08:24:49 2012. Everybody out and push!:) |
|
|
| (1194029) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Dec 24 12:29:06 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by mike cruz on Mon Dec 24 01:37:02 2012. I doubt the older round robbins ever used 240' trains. |
|
|
| (1194057) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Dec 24 14:33:10 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Dec 24 08:24:49 2012. That sure would explain it. Any chance that two even's were hitched up to each other in the middle? That would REALLY explain it. |
|
|
| (1194101) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Dj Hammers on Mon Dec 24 19:30:02 2012, in response to Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With "Harry", posted by Widecab5 on Mon Dec 24 00:42:15 2012. Gaping out shouldn't be a fault of the equipment.... |
|
|
| (1194115) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Dec 24 20:02:13 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Dj Hammers on Mon Dec 24 19:30:02 2012. It's not the fault of the equipment. 60' cars have been running on that line since the 1950s. After more than 50 years you'd think that MOW would have a plan in place to correct an obvious source of problems and that the plan would have been presented to the MTA board for funding action. |
|
|
| (1194125) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Dec 24 20:24:32 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by R36 #9346 on Mon Dec 24 09:22:48 2012. "The short R-32 train got stuck when approaching the crossover to B 90 and had to get pushed, this according to an employee on scene. A [train of] 75-footers presents no such hazard."Unless they had to take a "call-on" there is no reason other than inexperience that would lead a train to gap. |
|
|
| (1194126) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Dj Hammers on Mon Dec 24 20:24:58 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Train Dude on Mon Dec 24 20:02:13 2012. Exactly. Why spend money on CCTV and the car moves and the like to correct a problem that ONLY crops up when a T/O makes a very rookie mistake?And then the head honchos at the TA wonder why the organization has a reputation for wasteful spending and mismanagement... |
|
|
| (1194149) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon Dec 24 22:12:34 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Train Dude on Mon Dec 24 20:02:13 2012. "60' cars have been running on that line since the 1950s. After more than 50 years you'd think that MOW would have a plan in place to correct an obvious source of problems and that the plan would have been presented to the MTA board for funding action." But do they normally run in four-car sets over that switch? That may be the issue. Under normal conditions, the solution may simply be to run full-length trains. |
|
|
| (1194150) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Dec 24 22:18:47 2012, in response to Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With "Harry", posted by Widecab5 on Mon Dec 24 00:42:15 2012. Very interesting info. Thank You. |
|
|
| (1194160) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Tue Dec 25 00:01:30 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Train Dude on Mon Dec 24 20:24:32 2012. From an early video I had seen, it appeared as though there was a slow-speed order in effect at or around the wye at some point. While 10 MPH is the same speed you should be going over an unmarked switch anyway, you have some very sensitive Train Operators out there who will always go a few MPH slower, out of fear of there being a TSS out in the field with a radar gun.If gapping was a real concern, and there were no other defects with the tracks, the crews should have been ordered to pick it up to 12 or 13 across the area. Sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do. |
|
|
| (1194165) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Dec 25 00:20:16 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by G1Ravage on Tue Dec 25 00:01:30 2012. I agree totally or they could have come into 90th St on F-4 instead of crossing over to F-3 and had no need for a speed restriction what so ever |
|
|
| (1194166) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Dec 25 00:20:41 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by G1Ravage on Tue Dec 25 00:01:30 2012. Wuh-oh ... somebody's done yard ladders. :) |
|
|
| (1194167) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Dec 25 00:24:03 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Train Dude on Tue Dec 25 00:20:16 2012. True but technically that would be against the direction of normal traffic (toward Rock Park) and perhaps the homeball would not clear/allow such a move. |
|
|
| (1194169) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Tue Dec 25 00:33:52 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Dec 25 00:20:41 2012. :-) |
|
|
| (1194170) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Tue Dec 25 00:34:54 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Dec 25 00:24:03 2012. Correct, it is not a signal-protected move, and thus cannot happen without Signals personnel hooking down stop arms for every train. |
|
|
| (1194172) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Dec 25 00:41:32 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by G1Ravage on Tue Dec 25 00:34:54 2012. And yet they're spending for outside contractors to put in cameras and monitors for OPTO but they can't move a few wires in the box. yeah ... yeah ... yeah ... I know. :( |
|
|
| (1194173) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Dec 25 00:44:59 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by G1Ravage on Tue Dec 25 00:34:54 2012. Since the signals are out and there is no service, they could simply put a temporary block at the south end of the station - making it a terminal. |
|
|
| (1194176) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by ble-nimx on Tue Dec 25 00:49:17 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Dec 24 08:24:49 2012. I dont recall 4 car trains gapping there when we ran them regularly, even though nothing had speedometers when I did. It would seem to me it is their excuse to get OPTO going. If the ta really cared about trains stalling they would not have removed third rail aprons in the 80s and 90s. It shouldnt be alot of work to install acouple of third rail crossties and weld in a longer butt end. |
|
|
| (1194178) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Dec 25 00:52:32 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Train Dude on Tue Dec 25 00:44:59 2012. Precisely. Most signals have circuitry for reverse traffic. It's only a matter of rewiring, including the stops for it. Given that signal department is internal, seems a helluva lot cheaper than letting out "emergency no-bid contracts" ... |
|
|
| (1194188) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by murray1575 on Tue Dec 25 02:29:40 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Joe V on Mon Dec 24 07:49:32 2012. The LIRR didn't use the single track portion of the wye nor did it use those crossovers in regular service before 1950. Trains on the Rockaway Park branch only ran over the bay to and from Flatbush Ave. and those using the Far Rockaway branch from Valley Stream either terminated at Far Rockaway or went through back over the bay in loop service and returned to Penn Station. Of course after the trestle caught fire in 1950 all that changed until 1955 when the TA took over. |
|
|
| (1194190) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Dec 25 03:45:46 2012, in response to Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With "Harry", posted by Widecab5 on Mon Dec 24 00:42:15 2012. The short R-32 train got stuck when approaching the crossover to B 90 and had to get pushed, this according to an employee on scene. A 75-footer presents no such hazard.NYCT doesn't use stingers? |
|
|
| (1194219) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Widecab5 on Tue Dec 25 10:19:47 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by murray1575 on Tue Dec 25 02:29:40 2012. That's right, but the "elevated" wye connector was electrified from its opening in April 1942 and (I believe) equipped with hand-thrown switches at either end. That's what the surviving movies show.When through trains began using the connector after the May 1950 fire (and until LIRR service to Rockaway Park was disctd. in October 1955) there were switchmen stationed at either end of the single-track connector in shanties. This brings up a long-waiting-to-be-asked question: If anyone out there actually remembers the final years of LIRR service on the Rockaway Beach Division (1942-1950), it appears as though the grade separated junction at the north end of Hammels Wye was a Transit Authority addition. I gather, as this would infer, that the connecting switches at Hammels Jct. were at grade in LIRR days with trains climbing onto their respective elevations to Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park from that point. Can anyone recall this for sure? Regards, George Chiasson Jr. (Widecab5@aol.com) |
|
|
| (1194275) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Dec 25 15:11:34 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by WillD on Tue Dec 25 03:45:46 2012. No! They use 3rd rail jumpers. Unfortunately. it takes 3 people to use them and since the C/R is not qualified, that leaves you two people short for the process. |
|
|
| (1194278) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Dec 25 15:27:29 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by G1Ravage on Tue Dec 25 00:01:30 2012. out of fear of there being a TSS out in the field with a radar gun.They actually do that? |
|
|
| (1194279) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Dec 25 15:29:37 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Dec 25 15:27:29 2012. TSS's periodically do it as a quality control check to insure train operators adhere to posted speeds. |
|
|
| (1194281) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Dec 25 15:31:29 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by G1Ravage on Tue Dec 25 00:01:30 2012. Given that the cars are equipped with speedometers, I see no reason for an operator to go that slow that they would gap the train. |
|
|
| (1194282) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Dec 25 15:35:27 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Widecab5 on Tue Dec 25 10:19:47 2012. Only shows the wye, not the junction further up the line. |
|
|
| (1194291) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Tue Dec 25 16:20:09 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Widecab5 on Tue Dec 25 10:19:47 2012. Yes, that's right. I remember there was a grade junction just off the south end of the original bridge (which was lower than the current one) where the 2 tracks of the Rockaway Park branch curved away from the 2 tracks going to Far Rockaway. |
|
|
| (1194292) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Tue Dec 25 16:46:28 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by murray1575 on Tue Dec 25 02:29:40 2012. wrong,wrong,wrong.trains also ran to penn.station via the far rock.branch. |
|
|
| (1194309) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Dec 25 18:42:38 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Dec 25 15:27:29 2012. They sure do.Around curves.....flagging areas. Recently, I had 3 radar gun checks in 3 weeks. |
|
|
| (1194311) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Tue Dec 25 18:45:24 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by G1Ravage on Tue Dec 25 00:01:30 2012. Train Operators out there who will always go a few MPH slower, out of fear of there being a TSS out in the field with a radar gun.Bah with the TSS, System Safety is on a rampage with those Guns... Queens Corridor is a HOT SPOT... |
|
|
| (1194314) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by mike cruz on Tue Dec 25 19:51:36 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by ble-nimx on Tue Dec 25 00:49:17 2012. I agree because they could have even made a longer train. |
|
|
| (1194317) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by R2Chinatown on Tue Dec 25 20:03:15 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Railman718 on Tue Dec 25 18:45:24 2012. How close to the posted speed do you have to go? |
|
|
| (1194321) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Tue Dec 25 20:13:19 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by R2Chinatown on Tue Dec 25 20:03:15 2012. You go at the Posted Speed, You can always go under it...Go over it and somebody is gonna talk to you. |
|
|
| (1194323) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by R2Chinatown on Tue Dec 25 20:16:10 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Railman718 on Tue Dec 25 20:13:19 2012. I mean like when you are driving you can go 5 or 10 MPH over the limit without being pulled over. What about on the trains? |
|
|
| (1194324) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Tue Dec 25 20:20:30 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by R2Chinatown on Tue Dec 25 20:16:10 2012. I mean like when you are driving you can go 5 or 10 MPH over the limit without being pulled over.No an over speed is an over speed period. What about on the trains? Rules apply to any train in said area where radar checks are being Done. |
|
|
| (1194332) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Dec 25 21:07:51 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by tunnelrat on Tue Dec 25 16:46:28 2012. Those were loop trains. No Hammels wye. |
|
|
| (1194333) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by R2Chinatown on Tue Dec 25 21:09:52 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Railman718 on Tue Dec 25 20:20:30 2012. That's interesting. Thank you. |
|
|
| (1194336) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Tue Dec 25 21:31:41 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Dec 25 00:24:03 2012. Correct. The X22 homeball at the east end of the wye only allows moves to F3. |
|
|
| (1194340) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Tue Dec 25 21:51:15 2012, in response to Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With "Harry", posted by Widecab5 on Mon Dec 24 00:42:15 2012. I guess that means that one of the tracks has been repaired to allow deisels to run. |
|
|
| (1194348) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by chud1 on Wed Dec 26 06:18:52 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Dec 25 15:35:27 2012. A+ on this video. it is to foam.chud1 |
|
|
| (1194356) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Wed Dec 26 07:10:01 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by R2Chinatown on Tue Dec 25 21:09:52 2012. Its the Rules....Interesting to some im sure.. |
|
|
| (1194358) | |
Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'' |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Wed Dec 26 08:34:09 2012, in response to Re: Shuttlebutt: The Troubles With ''Harry'', posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Dec 25 00:52:32 2012. Like I said, like you said... Its ALL about OPTO |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
