|
|
| Re: Increasing QB capacity (428152) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 9 of 16 |
||
|
| (429258) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun May 13 15:53:12 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 15:12:12 2007. which indicates that F's should use the switches east (rr north) of 169 to terminate on NB express track. All of what I am saying is, just because "we have always done it this way" does NOT make whatever the procedure is the best possible response to the entire set of issues. And yes I knew there had been an assault on an employee. |
|
|
| (429259) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sun May 13 15:54:16 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 15:49:59 2007. I'm in the same boat you were in. I delivered the Long Island Press as a kid during the last year it was printed. |
|
|
| (429260) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 15:55:06 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 15:14:51 2007. They didn't need too much support. City government worked differently back then. Too much power was held by only a few people. That's why the old Board Of Estimate was declared unconstitutional in the late 1980's. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (429261) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sun May 13 15:55:16 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 15:53:03 2007. On this subject you're dead-on accurate. |
|
|
| (429262) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun May 13 15:57:54 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by AMoreira81 on Sun May 13 15:40:45 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.Fumigation is not required on the 14th St-Canarsie Line. Neither terminal is a relay. |
|
|
| (429263) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 16:00:44 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by MJF on Sun May 13 15:52:53 2007. 1987? Woodhaven residents didn't get it until 1990! |
|
|
| (429266) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sun May 13 16:06:29 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 15:26:10 2007. How come other systems can turn trains without completely making sure everyone is off? The same risks exist on other systems too... |
|
|
| (429268) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 16:07:19 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 15:48:45 2007. And of all the el abandonments of this "era", this one made the least sense. Both the Myrtle and 3rd Ave. lines were very old, obsolete and in very bad shape. One could argue that the cost didn't justify retaining either of these lines. The Culver shuttle was hardly used and was also in pretty bad shape physically. But the Jamaica Ave. el was modern, as modern as any of the elevated lines used today. The only thing it really needed was to have the wooden platform at 168th replaced, but the MTA spent even more doing the same at all the old Fulton St. island platforms shortly after the el was cut back. I can't even justify this cutback from the perspective of the big stores which advocated it. It hurt them as well. Why then did it happen? Who profitted? |
|
|
| (429269) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 16:09:08 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sun May 13 16:06:29 2007. Do other systems require train operators to pull outside of a terminal, then walk the length of the train so that it can pull back in from the reverse end? |
|
|
| (429270) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 16:20:37 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 16:09:08 2007. Many do. |
|
|
| (429271) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun May 13 16:24:34 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun May 13 15:57:54 2007. BUT---the conductors could then be reassigned to places where there ARE relays. |
|
|
| (429274) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun May 13 16:44:14 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 15:48:45 2007. What was the actual timeline of the Archer Av line? What I mean is when was it planned then started, then suspended until it was finally finished in 1988. What were the original plans with the Jamaica El to 168th during Archer construction and was its demolition before Archer completion a foregone conclusion? |
|
|
| (429279) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sun May 13 17:09:28 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 16:09:08 2007. Yes. Usually, they blink the interior lights and say that everyone is required to get out, but they don't sit in the station forever waiting to make sure the train is empty. Some operators will even announce that if any passengers remain on the train, they should remain seated until the train returns to the station. Many times, there is a new T/O at the other end of the train to reduce the time of the relay. |
|
|
| (429284) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 17:35:03 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by SMAZ on Sun May 13 16:44:14 2007. It was suppose to be completed[phase one to Jamaica Center]in 1985...Phase two was suppose to built in tandem with Phase One...and opened a few years later...likewise along with the super express as early as the 90's. The MTA plan outlined the removal of the EL as early as the dawn of the 70's..and it was "fought" tooth and nail to keep it running untill the new subway was finished... |
|
|
| (429285) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 17:41:13 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by MJF on Sun May 13 15:35:16 2007. I am not disagreeing with youn on that. |
|
|
| (429287) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 17:48:45 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 16:07:19 2007. That's an interesting question. Did Macy's feel that having poor blacks gettingon and off trains nearby scare off its white suburban customers (I'm putting this in crude, base terms on purpose)?Myrtle was in bad shape, but the route itself did merit a train and probably still merits a train today if you could find the money. The Archer Av line is spilled milk. There's a line there now, it's more flexible than it was before in terms of routing for the passenger, it's got the LIRR integrated into it and it has AirTrain. As I've said many times, extend it to Merrick/Archer and you've got the geographic reach of the old El. Even the loss of the Third av El is finally being addressed. At some point we should simply look forward and say "What can we do today?" Well, MTA has $10.1 billion worth of expansion proijects underway right now and another $2 billion to start later this year (the 7 extension which is funded). Things could be worse. You could be in Philly where the extension of the Broad st and MFL subways is just talk and no action. |
|
|
| (429290) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 17:49:32 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 cried so much..to the TA..saying Queens DEMANDS the new cars...stating they were worse off than every where else...The MTA caved ..and sent ALL of the R46 cars there..where they stayed! |
|
|
| (429291) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 17:51:59 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 17:48:45 2007. Third Ave EL being addressed...? |
|
|
| (429292) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 17:55:55 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 17:35:03 2007. Other way around. The MTA decided to keep the El and the business community pushed the agency to rip it down early. Then everyone was sorry.The opening of the Archer Av line was three years behind schedule, which, if the El had kept running, wasn't horrible considering the fiscal crisis MTA had survived. The Archer Av line was begun in 1972. The 63rd st extension was begun in 1968, and opened in 1989. 63rd St, time wise, took a lot longer, though certain individual subprojects, like the placement of the East River tunnel boxes, were accomplished on time and on budget. As I said, spilled milk. The trains are running now. The TA is going to deliver more new capacity in 2012 or 2013. Be grateful for what you have. In Kansas City we have zip by comparison. |
|
|
| (429293) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 17:57:44 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sun May 13 17:09:28 2007. Perhaps it's better to institute a fumigation policy before a transit employee is killed, instead of after. |
|
|
| (429295) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 18:02:59 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 17:51:59 2007. SAS construction. Baby steps, but gotta start somewhere. |
|
|
| (429298) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 18:05:50 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 17:55:55 2007. Other way around. The MTA decided to keep the El and the business community pushed the agency to rip it down early. WRONG! A few wanted the el removed. Most did not. The few had the power. The rest did not. Stop the bullshit already. About a dozen people have told you otherwise. |
|
|
| (429300) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun May 13 18:08:30 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 17:49:32 2007. Where were they going to put the R46 if they did not stay in Jamacia? CI? |
|
|
| (429301) | |
Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 18:09:02 2007, in response to Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 13:13:33 2007. Even the local was removed from Broadway and replaced with the far less desirable Nassau St (QJ, then M) service.Wasn't the local always either a Nassau or Sands St/Park Row train? |
|
|
| (429303) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 18:10:08 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 13:17:04 2007. At present, at the height of the AM rush, there are:8 As from Lefferts 7 As from Far Rock 3 As from Rock Park. |
|
|
| (429304) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun May 13 18:10:48 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 18:05:50 2007. The only way to end this is to e-mail Dave Pirman and ask to 'reevaluate' the reason for the el being torn down. Afterall his site is the #1 place for such info being sited here. imo |
|
|
| (429306) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 18:13:39 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Grand concourse on Sun May 13 18:10:48 2007. That's a fair request. |
|
|
| (429307) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 18:14:18 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 18:05:50 2007. Show us some real evidence. |
|
|
| (429308) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 18:16:06 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Grand concourse on Sun May 13 18:08:30 2007. A fleet that large would have probably been split between 2 facilities. Brighton riders had issues with the R44's, so I doudbt they'd run on the D. |
|
|
| (429309) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 18:23:35 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 15:55:06 2007. They needed some support. By definition, more than one person. |
|
|
| (429310) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun May 13 18:23:36 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 17:57:44 2007. If the Return operator got on the train before it went into relay then maybe that could work. But what if they decide to take the train out of service. They you still have stuck passengers, and now you three crewman off hiding somewhere instead of just one or two.ROAR |
|
|
| (429319) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 18:39:44 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 15:19:02 2007. I'm kinda sad you wrote that last post. Despite the fact that many people within this community don't like you, I had a lot of respect for you. And then you go and say, essentially, that everyone who posts on here and is not employed by NYCT is just spouting garbage, and they aren't deserving of your respect. That's a pretty ignorant thing to say.I'm also not sure why you seem to think that everybody on here is out to get attention. I don't think that's true. Some of us just like to discuss transit issues, and this is the place to do it. |
|
|
| (429320) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 18:40:38 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 13:38:38 2007. You spoke for more than one person, and I wasn't sure who you were referring to! |
|
|
| (429323) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 18:42:37 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun May 13 18:23:36 2007. As I've said time and time again, even with 2 operators on the train, nothing will stop a troublemaker from pulling an emergency cord in order to make it necessary for a crew member to enter the same car as the culprit to reset it, thereby setting up a possible crime against the employee or the accusation of wrong doing made by a customer against the employee. Customers and employees should not be in an isolated area together (relay position with no escape till the train gets back to a station), as the potential for an accusation or a crime is immense. Mr. Lion: as a man of the cloth, you have a very high opinion of the goodness of people, but I can assure you that working at NYCT as long as I have, the scum of the earth thrive in the subway. |
|
|
| (429325) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 18:43:56 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 13:37:39 2007. And you know he is wrong because.... |
|
|
| (429326) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 18:44:38 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 18:39:44 2007. I don't think that's what he meant. You're exaggerating it. He's referring to the unfettered fantasizing that goes on here, with people spinning facts out of, well, foaming. It doesn't mean nobody who isn't a TA employee knows anything.I like Edward's posting and I like yours a lot too. Doesn't mean I won't give you a hard time, but you and he contribute good stuff. If I don't avcknowledge that enough, I apologize. |
|
|
| (429327) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 18:45:06 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun May 13 15:53:12 2007. I lost you, If the F terminates at 169, then what terminates at 179? |
|
|
| (429328) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 18:45:38 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 18:43:56 2007. 1) It's implausible2) Everything I've found so far either doesn't support him on this topic or supports my view. |
|
|
| (429329) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 18:47:34 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 18:02:59 2007. Right...Baby steps...but looking at the "Big Picture"...will they actually make a Bronx land fall...? Spitzer himself called for it during the SAS GROUNDBREAKING SPEECH. |
|
|
| (429330) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 18:50:48 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 18:47:34 2007. Time will tell.Keep advocating for it. Tell MTA and your elected officials you want it. |
|
|
| (429331) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 18:50:56 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Grand concourse on Sun May 13 18:08:30 2007. Most likely 207th/Pitkin...or Coney Island for Broadway 4th avenue.. |
|
|
| (429332) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 18:56:51 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 15:16:00 2007. However JTrain also believes that one person, or one company, was enough to get the El torn down early, and that is patent nonsense.That's not what I said. I said that one person's political will can be inflicted on the masses, whether or not they want it. |
|
|
| (429333) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 19:00:08 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 13:46:11 2007. like getting a life outside subway trains.ROFL. You live in KANSAS CITY, and spend your time on a NYC Transit centered board, and then tell other to get a life. ROFL. |
|
|
| (429334) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 19:00:58 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 18:56:51 2007. Only if he has sufficient support and assistance from others. |
|
|
| (429335) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 19:02:17 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 19:00:08 2007. I spend my time on a lot of other things too.Ever been here? You should come and 1) Eat BBQ 2) check out the BNSF instruction/simulator at Union Station. You can even run it yourself. |
|
|
| (429336) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 19:03:32 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 13:39:16 2007. Stop making personal attacks. |
|
|
| (429337) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 19:06:27 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 14:23:55 2007. Or, suppose while the t/o changes ends he discovers a broken picture window?You guys actually look for that kind of stuff? I was on a Q train where the window to one of doors between cars wasn't broken: it was completely missing, rubber seal and all. I got off and notified the conductor at 42nd Times Sq. I don't know what happened at 57th/7th |
|
|
| (429338) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 19:07:22 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 14:48:56 2007. Why are you asking him? Everytime he expresses his opinion, you usually attack him. |
|
|
| (429339) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun May 13 19:08:14 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun May 13 18:45:06 2007. No, not terminate, take crossover from local to exp track so as to be able to reverse directly out of 179th station.see map here http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/smqueens3.png No non revenue relay no clearing of train, fallback (dropback?) staffing allows crew time for bathroom call between runs. |
|
|
| (429340) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 19:08:50 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun May 13 19:08:14 2007. This is not an issue at 179th. |
|
|
|
Page 9 of 16 |
||
