|
|
| Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle (428152) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 8 of 16 |
||
|
| (429162) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 13:41:38 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 12:00:53 2007. No need to go through all that effort. Counting up to zero is easier. |
|
|
| (429167) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 13:46:11 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 13:41:38 2007. If you did that, you'd spend a lot less time counting serial numbers and more time doing other things, like getting a life outside subway trains. |
|
|
| (429170) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 13:50:53 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Eric B on Sun May 13 13:40:54 2007. There's no real reason to start all of those PM M trains at Bay Parkway (though it's convenient for me). I don't understand why they aren't just sent up the West End express light and put into service at 36th St, much like the CI put ins on the R do, though via the Sea Beach express. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (429171) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun May 13 13:54:02 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Railman718 on Sun May 13 10:08:11 2007. An assault I can understand as a problem.But everything else seems almost immaterial. Most (and could very easily be all) trains that relay at Continental have the cars' end doors locked. And all you have to do is label them revenue (or at least "ok for passengers" tracks, as the City Hall loop is now on the 6 train). |
|
|
| (429172) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 14:03:12 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 13:29:27 2007. If there were no demand for the service, it would have been cut back to 9th Avenue if not further. Demand has gradually decreased over the years. The question up for debate is if the demand has decreased to a point that continuation of this service is justified or not. |
|
|
| (429176) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 14:10:45 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 14:03:12 2007. Source? Demand systemwide has increased. |
|
|
| (429178) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 14:14:00 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun May 13 09:34:37 2007. I've explained countless times that "fumigation" is a NTCT rule because it is done for the safety of customers and employees. Why can't some SubChatters accept what the rule is and put an end to the "fumigation" discussion? |
|
|
| (429179) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 14:15:23 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun May 13 13:54:02 2007. No, crews are required to clean out trains before entering relays, whether or not they are on revenue trackage. Passengers aren't allowed to ride through the relays at, e.g., 4th Avenue, Bay Parkway, or Parkchester.What makes City Hall different is that (a) the train doesn't change ends, (b) there are no alternative exit points from the loop (so the train can't be diverted somewhere other than Brooklyn Bridge), and (c) there are no alternative entry points to the loop (so a train can't get stuck in the relay as other trains cross in front of it). It's amazing how many people simply wish this policy away. Wish all you like, but it's still the policy! |
|
|
| (429180) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 14:17:19 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 10:02:56 2007. Because there is no loop in the relay position, trains have to cross in front of each other. Also, if you put 2 operators on each and every train, labor costs would skyrocket. |
|
|
| (429184) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 14:23:55 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun May 13 13:54:02 2007. Assault and the accusation by a woman taken onto a relay that the train operator "violated her" is good enough reason in itself for the train to be fumigated. If she complains, the t/o is out of service. Period. Guilty till proven innocent. Suppose the train does not charge on the opposite end while on the relay? Or, suppose while the t/o changes ends he discovers a broken picture window? It happens. He can take the train right to the yard. I've explained this in the past, I guess I'll have to explain it again to you next month again. |
|
|
| (429185) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun May 13 14:24:23 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 14:14:00 2007. I'm not trying to say that I WANT to ride the relays. I really don't think I'd enjoy them that much. The only reason why I would want the rule to be different is if the movement of trains (such as just west of Continental) can be expedited.I am simply commenting on and, from an observer's standpoint, inquiring into the basis of having the rule and thinking out loud as to what alternatives there are that allow NYCT's interests to be maintained without "fumigation." The issue of protection of employees I understand well and for that reason it probably is a good idea to ensure an empty train for most relays. However, this shouldn't mean that any other thoughts regarding alternative ways to ensure safety without fumigation must be covered over as irrelevant. |
|
|
| (429186) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 14:25:28 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:40:29 2007. Why on earth would it be hard to count ridership on the M? Why do you think NYCT hires traffic checkers?You most certainly don't have to eyeball it. Eyeballs can be quite unreliable, especially if only two are used. |
|
|
| (429187) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Sun May 13 14:27:28 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 14:14:00 2007. We all know that 'fumigation' is required by the rules. But that isn't a reason for supressing debate about it here. Rules made by one administration can be changed by another administration some time in the future. We are not talking about an amendment to the United States Constitution here. Nor are we talking about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.If enough knowledgeable people in positions of influence decide that the 'fumigation' rule is an obstacle to improving subway service, then a campaign to chnage the rule might succeed. |
|
|
| (429190) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sun May 13 14:34:49 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:28:55 2007. Especially politics in Queens, in the '70s & '80s under Borough President Donald Manes and Queens Co. Democratic Party Leader Matty Troy, who was probably the most powerful politiican in Queens. |
|
|
| (429192) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 14:40:32 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Fytton on Sun May 13 14:27:28 2007. I'm just telling you guys what the rule is and why it exists, jsut like I've done in the past. If you feel it should be changed, then by all means write a letter to NYCT stating your position, or better yet become a transit worker, take promotional tests and perhaps you will be in a postion to change the rule. But PLEASE, put yourself into the t/o's shoes. You have no idea how many new jacks tell us old timers that they never realised what really goes on till they actually work here awhile. You are by yourself on a relay. Some guy who is "sleeping" wakes up and assaults you. It has happened to a female. The guy who did it then escaped onto the tracks. New rules are made because it became necessary to correct a past problem. |
|
|
| (429193) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sun May 13 14:42:09 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 14:23:55 2007. As you mentioned,I always thought the point about finding a broke picture window or having the train go B/O while on a relay was the most importatn reason for having the train relay empty. This way the train can be sent straight to the yard or left on the relay track without any further incident. Happens more than some people think. |
|
|
| (429197) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 14:48:56 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 14:15:23 2007. What do you think is the best policy? |
|
|
| (429198) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 14:49:35 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 14:17:19 2007. Very true. |
|
|
| (429200) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 14:50:40 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 14:40:32 2007. Yu are correct.However, this is Subchat. If you can't fantasize here about changing rules, where can you do it? |
|
|
| (429202) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 14:53:39 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by MJF on Sun May 13 14:34:49 2007. Indeed. A combination of these guys would have a lot of clout. The key is "guys" (not singular). |
|
|
| (429203) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 14:54:32 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:28:55 2007. MJF's reply to you recognizes some reality. You should read it carefully. It's largely free of Chris' bullshit. |
|
|
| (429204) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 14:56:25 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 14:50:40 2007. Fantasizing about changing rules that have no chance of being changed is called big time foaming. One of these days, my computer is going to spew foam while I'm on this site! |
|
|
| (429206) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sun May 13 14:59:13 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 14:53:39 2007. These two men picked Queens clean as if it was their own personal fiefdoms. They had clout and chutzpah! |
|
|
| (429207) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sun May 13 15:00:54 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 14:54:32 2007. Ron, I was agreeing with Jtrainloco. I think he was insinuating that politics can be dirty pool and there was never a time where Queens politics was dirtier than when those two men were in office. |
|
|
| (429208) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun May 13 15:06:32 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 14:14:00 2007. maybe it is because in other cities this is not considered necessary. If I recall correctly, @ T Square on the 7 the trains simply exchange crews and go. Certainly was how it used to be for F's @ B'way Lafayette before Chrystie. I am well aware that the process of clearing the train(fumigation is an insulting euphemism like geese) is SOP on account of some record of problems, however that does not mean I accept the procedure as the uniquely correct response to those issues. |
|
|
| (429209) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 15:12:12 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun May 13 15:06:32 2007. You don't understand the issue. You are describing places where the train simply changes direction within the station confines. What we are talking about is places where the train has to go beyond the station limits and change direction and come back out onto another track. Like Continental, 179, 168, Utica (IRT). |
|
|
| (429212) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 15:14:51 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by MJF on Sun May 13 14:59:13 2007. They had a lot of chutzpah. They also had a lot of support from others. Whether they hoodwinked or bribed to obtain that support is a different question. |
|
|
| (429214) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 15:16:00 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by MJF on Sun May 13 15:00:54 2007. "I think he was insinuating that politics can be dirty pool and there was never a time where Queens politics was dirtier than when those two men were in office."I agree with you. However JTrain also believes that one person, or one company, was enough to get the El torn down early, and that is patent nonsense. |
|
|
| (429216) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 15:19:02 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:38:44 2007. Yes,it IS true..whether you would believe it or not is up to you,in either case,it matter little.Any "information" gathered here..is to be taken with a grain... The ONLY info I would take as gospel is from the RTO/OP folks here..and even That is suspect until I find the sorce... So whats unfortunate HERE is all the so called experts..the armchair rapid transit planners expecting "respect" while doling out crap. All I've seen is 'well argued' bullshit...and thats something ANYBODY can do. I post here to enjoy the POSTS..TOPICS THREADS and so forth...but when "railfans" take it to RABID heights of a totally different level..then it become sickening. Does it matter? No..not really...as this will continue in any case for the life of the website...the KNOW IT ALLS..the rabid rail fans...the wannabees operations planners...all trolling for attention. Unfortunate? Of course it is. |
|
|
| (429219) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 15:21:02 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Fytton on Sun May 13 14:27:28 2007. I'm sorry, the fumigation rules are necessary, especially today with female train operators. |
|
|
| (429221) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 15:22:14 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Terrapin Station on Sun May 13 09:37:04 2007. Thats just it.My comments to David Were based of FACT. His summation WAS bullshit... well spoken bullshit..but bullshit never the less. Also I would like to point out the fact that reality is what You make it...and I REJECT your brand of it. |
|
|
| (429222) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun May 13 15:22:19 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 15:19:02 2007. So I guess you think that there aren't any transportation professionals here who know what they are talking about? That's sad. You seem to have trust issues. And you also seem to not be able to separate the bullshit from the truth. What David posts is NOT bullshit. |
|
|
| (429228) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 15:24:49 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun May 13 14:24:23 2007. What do you propose, a cop on every relay? I'd rather they patrol public spaces instead of wasting time protecting one or two employees. |
|
|
| (429229) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun May 13 15:25:24 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 15:22:14 2007. No, what David wrote was not bullshit. Please point out ONE part of that was bullshit. I'm waiting...And no, we do not make up our own reality. We study the situation and then use established transportation planning practices to come to our conclusions. |
|
|
| (429230) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 15:26:10 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 15:21:02 2007. The anti-fumigators fail to realize that it is more work required for the crews to make sure that everybody is off. |
|
|
| (429231) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 15:26:18 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 15:22:14 2007. Sad but true. |
|
|
| (429233) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun May 13 15:26:49 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 14:48:56 2007. Aside from what they are doing now, PLATFORM CONDUCTORS to clear the trains on short headways.ROAR |
|
|
| (429238) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 15:33:26 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 15:26:10 2007. Better that then risk an assault by a whacko or a sicko. |
|
|
| (429243) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sun May 13 15:35:16 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 15:14:51 2007. Their public records speak for themselves. Both were convicted for corruption. Both have zero credibility in my eyes. |
|
|
| (429244) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 15:37:10 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:25:39 2007. You are more right than you know.... |
|
|
| (429246) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun May 13 15:40:45 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 15:26:10 2007. However, if OPTO is eventually put into place on the L, the former C/Rs on that line can be assigned to do fumigation faster. (This would require negotiation with the union about the appropriate rule changes.) |
|
|
| (429247) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 15:41:01 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by MJF on Sun May 13 14:34:49 2007. HAH...Manes! He was the spear head leading the charge against the 63RD ST SUPER EXPRESS...along with a certain female Vice president canidate...! He was SO dirty...63rd was just the TIP of his drama. No wonder he killed himself. |
|
|
| (429249) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sun May 13 15:41:13 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 15:16:00 2007. I don't usually subscribe to conspiracy theories but I can't find one logical arguement that the small business owners in Downtown Jamaica would want to have the Jamaica El torn down and not replaced with an adequate substitute. The Q49 bus was not an adequate replacement. It was the death penalty for many businesses in that area. |
|
|
| (429250) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sun May 13 15:42:00 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by MJF on Sun May 13 15:41:13 2007. Let me add, not IMMEDIATELY replaced with an adequate substitute. |
|
|
| (429252) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 15:44:41 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 15:37:10 2007. This whole episode is a sore subject for me, so I've done my best to know what I'm talking about. |
|
|
| (429253) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 15:48:45 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 15:44:41 2007. Believe me,dude..I know what your feeling...What made this sorry thing so foreboding..is the fact that the elimination was PUT OFF for years! They wanted to remove the line as early as 1973..as the first section of the Archer was being built! |
|
|
| (429254) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 15:49:59 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by MJF on Sun May 13 15:41:13 2007. And I watched it die as a kid. Shopping trips to Jamaica were traditional in my family, but by 1983 we switched over to going to malls (Queens Center or Green Acres). By the time I began traversing the neoghborhood in high school in 1986 (I went to Edison for one year), it was DEAD. Crack was not kind to this area. |
|
|
| (429255) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 15:52:27 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 14:53:39 2007. Queens was Manes's personal political fiefdom almost up to the day he committed suicide. He was the driving force that led to all the new R44/46's going to Jamaica in the 1970's. |
|
|
| (429256) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sun May 13 15:52:53 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 15:41:01 2007. Let's see, there was also the Parkng Vioaltions Bureau scandal and the Cable Television scandal. The VP-candidate's husband was tied into that one.That's not to say Queens was the only borough that was corrupt at the top. I just happened to live in Queens all my 44 years and wondered why we couldn't get cable TV in my neighborhood until 1987. |
|
|
| (429257) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 15:53:03 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by MJF on Sun May 13 14:59:13 2007. Fiefdoms...LOL, we think alike. |
|
|
|
Page 8 of 16 |
||
