|
|
| Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard (538509) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 6 |
||
|
| (539945) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Dec 24 13:42:23 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Dec 24 10:53:52 2007. Add: pro-CI: there's a lot more spare capacity for yard trains on the Culver Line than on Queens Blvd. |
|
|
| (539955) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Dec 24 14:07:15 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Dec 24 11:53:36 2007. Rush hour headways probably aren't going head down until there are more trainsets available, would be my guess. The service increases proposed for the G route in 2009 are all off-peak. It's possible that the G route might actually see better off-peak service at times than peak service. |
|
|
| (539963) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Dec 24 14:17:32 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Dec 24 14:07:15 2007. You can decrease headways without increasing trainsets. Depends on by how much dwell time you have at Court Sq, and by how much you shorten headways. If at the moment, the average G train is scheduled to dwell at CSQ for 10 minutes, you can get the dwell time down to maybe just 5 minutes, which means more service and the same number of trains. Basically, the same number of trains doing more work. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (539970) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Dec 24 14:28:30 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Dec 24 14:17:32 2007. You can decrease headways without increasing trainsets. Depends on by how much dwell time you have at Court Sq, and by how much you shorten headways. If at the moment, the average G train is scheduled to dwell at CSQ for 10 minutes, you can get the dwell time down to maybe just 5 minutes, which means more service and the same number of trains.Absolutely agreed, but then you have you to increase reliability of on-time performance, since there's less margin for error. So it's definitely possible, but whether it happens or not will depend on their confidence in on-time performance and deviations therefrom. |
|
|
| (540084) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Dec 24 18:16:57 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Dec 24 11:53:36 2007. I know that but he was specifically talking about weekends.quote: The many people using Queens Plaza over Court Square on the weekends when the (G) serves there are not foamers. |
|
|
| (540168) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Dec 24 20:26:22 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Dec 24 11:48:29 2007. Really? Plenty of people, including myself utilize that transfer when it runs there, I don't know anybody who would rather use Court Square.Maybe you saw the line on bad days, it usually gets SRO after Hoyt Schermerhorn, Metropolitan, Nassau, Greenpoint, and/or Roosevelt. |
|
|
| (540564) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 07:17:29 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Dec 24 18:16:57 2007. The entire QP-36 St area is a pretty nasty design. Something like this would be so much better:
|
|
|
| (540571) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Dec 25 07:40:39 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 07:17:29 2007. WAY better arraignment. |
|
|
| (540610) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Dec 25 09:34:00 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Dec 24 12:13:02 2007. ROAR......6 minute headways on all lines would cost too mcuh money in terms of personel costs and mileage on equipment......ROAR |
|
|
| (541148) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 16:59:42 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Dec 25 07:40:39 2007. Thanks! |
|
|
| (541152) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 25 17:09:01 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 16:59:42 2007. Careful - He said 'arraignment', not arrangement! |
|
|
| (541163) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 17:22:44 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 25 17:09:01 2007. Careful - He said 'arraignment', not arrangement!Well, I wouldn't mind arraigning the IND. I can forgive the IRT and BMT most things (the main exception being the general crassness of the Brooklyn IRT); the IND should have known better in too many places. |
|
|
| (541209) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Dec 25 18:16:55 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Dec 24 10:55:47 2007. Until 1954, the F ran to Church Av. When the IND was connected to the Culver Line, the D was routed over the new connection in order to provide a direct one seat ride from the Bronx to CI. |
|
|
| (541223) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 18:29:30 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by randyo on Tue Dec 25 18:16:55 2007. Until 1954, the F ran to Church Av. When the IND was connected to the Culver Line, the D was routed over the new connection in order to provide a direct one seat ride from the Bronx to CI.What was so important about a Bronx to CI route? |
|
|
| (541227) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 25 18:32:18 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 18:29:30 2007. It was the first ex-IND to ex-BMT route, I think, foreshadowing, I suppose, the 1967 changes. |
|
|
| (541232) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Dec 25 18:37:30 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by randyo on Tue Dec 25 18:16:55 2007. It made little sense to do that..other than a "promise" by Mayor Hylan to keep[one of the very few he did]..The natural track connections are Queens Blvd,53rd st,6th avenue,CHURCH ST..to the WTC. The way the MTA and the TA before it operates this line is 6th Avenue TO HOUSTON ST..via Essex st..to Brooklyn.. |
|
|
| (541234) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 25 18:40:58 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Edwards! on Tue Dec 25 18:37:30 2007. It made little sense to do that..other than a "promise" by Mayor Hylan to keep[one of the very few he did]..By 1954, though, wasn't Hylan already dead for a score or so? |
|
|
| (541235) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 18:41:47 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 25 18:32:18 2007. But the F would have achieved that. |
|
|
| (541241) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Dec 25 18:51:10 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 18:29:30 2007. It was part of a plan by the former mayor of NY to "recapture" the IRT/BMT lines built by the city..One of "his" plans had a the Concourse line or one of the other planned Bronx routes operate to Coney Island via the Culver..and a new route along Ft Hamilton Pky and 86th st to the West End line. The BOT accomplished as much as it could with WPA FUNDS..BOND ISSUES..and whatever else they could come across..to complete the ONLY portion of this route they could at the time..the Culver line. One good reason WHY none of the other routes were completed layed at the feet of ONE MAN..who believed the city didn't need rapid transit,but DID NEED the CAR. Can you figure out who the bastard was? |
|
|
| (541244) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Tue Dec 25 18:53:18 2007, in response to (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Dec 22 10:56:08 2007. This'll seem a little stupid, but I wathc the "rail & Road" reports on Channel 1, which leads me to ask, can anyone tell me the last time the G made even a single run to 71st/Continental? |
|
|
| (541247) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 18:54:44 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Edwards! on Tue Dec 25 18:51:10 2007. One of "his" plans had a the Concourse line or one of the other planned Bronx routes operate to Coney Island via the Culver..and a new route along Ft Hamilton Pky and 86th st to the West End line.Then why were the tracks obviously laid out to send that route to South 4th Street? I suspect the real D versus F issue was that Culver Line platforms weren't long enough for 11-car F trains. |
|
|
| (541248) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 25 18:55:24 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 18:41:47 2007. True. But they picked the D train. Until they picked the F train instead.... |
|
|
| (541249) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Dec 25 18:56:10 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 25 18:40:58 2007. True,but the TA still was headed by the old BOT members..who Wanted the same old routings without deviations.Some changes WERE made..which SHOULD have been built...but why rehash it? |
|
|
| (541251) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Dec 25 18:56:58 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by MainR3664 on Tue Dec 25 18:53:18 2007. A few days ago...I was on it as far as Queens Plaza. |
|
|
| (541252) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 18:57:01 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 25 18:55:24 2007. True. But they picked the D train. Until they picked the F train instead....That's always struck me as odd though. Unless it's the 11-car issue, the D's "natural" southern terminal at this time would have been 34/6. |
|
|
| (541259) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Dec 25 19:04:17 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 18:54:44 2007. The 6th avenue/Houston st EXPRESS tracks lead to the proposed South 4th st line.All in all..the IND was built to interline almost every route it operated..trains could end up ANYWHERE in its system. Like the Washington Heights line Could have become the 6th Avenue EXPRESS without a problem..or The Concourse line the 8th Avenue Fulton st Express.. Perhaps the South 4th st line SHOULD have been built,instead of Chrystie st...with a connection to the Downtown Brooklyn network.. |
|
|
| (541272) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 25 19:13:15 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 18:57:01 2007. the D's "natural" southern terminal at this time would have been 34/6.Why? |
|
|
| (541275) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Dec 25 19:15:56 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 25 17:09:01 2007. Opps, I mean, Oops. |
|
|
| (541276) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Tue Dec 25 19:17:00 2007, in response to (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Dec 22 10:56:08 2007. Why didn't they officially announce it earlier? |
|
|
| (541278) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 19:18:54 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 25 19:13:15 2007. the D's "natural" southern terminal at this time would have been 34/6.Why? Would have avoided an unnecessary merge. |
|
|
| (541279) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 25 19:21:53 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 19:18:54 2007. Would have avoided an unnecessary merge.Unless one wanted to run both routes south of 34th St, in which case the merge had to be tolerated, since the express tracks hadn't yet been completed. |
|
|
| (541296) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 19:52:54 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 25 19:21:53 2007. "Would have avoided an unnecessary merge."Unless one wanted to run both routes south of 34th St, in which case the merge had to be tolerated, since the express tracks hadn't yet been completed. In principle, the hours of needing two services below 34th should have been fairly easy to align with the hours of BB operation, so the D train really shouldn't have come into it. |
|
|
| (541298) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Tue Dec 25 19:55:39 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 18:29:30 2007. What was so important about a Bronx to CI route?the man who wanted the IND system to be built dreamed of a bronx to coney island line, so when they built the connection they sent the D on the culver and truncated the f at 2nd ave, then bway/laff and then 34/6 |
|
|
| (541334) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Dec 25 21:14:19 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Edwards! on Tue Dec 25 18:51:10 2007. Robert Moses. |
|
|
| (541436) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Dec 26 00:09:41 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Michael549 on Sat Dec 22 12:07:55 2007. Eh, I know I'm late to the table here, I don't visit here often anymore.But as a former (and seasonally current) Queens Blvd local rider, cutting the G on weekends/holidays is a BAD IDEA. It's one thing to cut it and replace it with the V, but it's quite another to eliminate 6-7 reliable TPH [due to it being an otherwise isolated line] and replace it with nothing. There is no mention of any frequency increase for the R. Before the 63st alterations, and on weekends with the cut G, it is very common to see two Es and Fs (4 trains total) speed by while you're left waiting at a local stop because of delays on the R, which due to the length of the route, are unavoidable. It would take divine intervention for Queens Plaza to send an express local, now that those who control the interlocking no longer see the crowds on the Roosevelt ave platform. I would not be adverse to sending the E local to augment the R, or the institution of weekend V service, but only one local with two expresses that skip 10 stops (of which, at least 4 can be considered feeder stops to bus routes) is too unbalanced. On a side note, the document does not mention either way of the overnight E during 24/7 R service. I suspect it will join the F on the Express. Hopefully Queens Blvd local riders recognize how screwed they're getting by this deal. The current set up (if the G is not cut for a GO) is the most optimal Queens Blvd has seen in decades. |
|
|
| (541439) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 26 00:14:31 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Dec 26 00:09:41 2007. Then call the TA and your local legislators and ask them to beef up R frequencies.Incidentally, why do you say they are replacing it with nothing? If the V's hours of service increase, that is not = nothing. |
|
|
| (541441) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Dec 26 00:15:02 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 25 17:22:44 2007. The problem with QP (and 36th St) is that they had two additions that came much later...that is the cut to the 60th St tunnel and the one to the Connector. Under the circumstances they did all right. It was originally built to only feed into the 53rd and Crosstown lines. |
|
|
| (541449) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Wed Dec 26 00:36:51 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 26 00:14:31 2007. The V's hours of service are not going to increase under the current proposal, Ron... |
|
|
| (541461) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 26 00:49:44 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Wed Dec 26 00:36:51 2007. My bad. I went back and examined the document again, and you are correct.Well, then he can push for increased R frequency, or he can suggest extending the V's operational hours. The fact that it's not on that document doesn't mean MTA wouldn't consider it if it came up in discussion and enough people asked for it. Extending the R's hours of operation will help (that's not "nothing" either). If it isn't enough, make sure your elected officials know that. |
|
|
| (541469) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Dec 26 00:57:19 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 26 00:14:31 2007. The constant GO's ruin Queens Blvd. They always did.You'll see a GO with all n/b trains running express from Roosevelt to Forest Hills quite often. TA even pulls this shit during the month of December when Woodhaven and 63rd are extra busy with shoppers. This overcrowds the only local s/b service for obvious reasons. It's a mess for customers, and train crews. It's pointless to tell Queens customers that they're getting two local services on weekends. That will happen maybe 10 weekends a year at most. The rest of the time, they run a supplement, and can't handle 4 lines running on Queens Blvd. |
|
|
| (541502) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed Dec 26 03:38:30 2007, in response to (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Dec 22 10:56:08 2007. I doubt any uproar will ensue. The G has always been the red-headed stepchild of the IND. Its one true claim to fame was its early role as the only train that served the World's Fair line in 1939-40.The G line stations, especially the ones in Queens, have to be among the most poorly-maintained stations on the IND, if not the entire system. |
|
|
| (541641) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Dec 26 11:40:38 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Dec 26 03:38:30 2007. No, that title goes to the Sea Beach line. |
|
|
| (541649) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 26 11:51:31 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Dec 26 03:38:30 2007. "Its one true claim to fame was its early role as the only train that served the World's Fair line in 1939-40."I didn't realize that was the G. Cool. Thanks for sharing. |
|
|
| (541694) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Wed Dec 26 12:47:21 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 26 00:49:44 2007. If the V were to operate on weekends with the E making local stops on Queens Boulevard when the V does not operate, cutting the G back to Court Square wouldn't be so bad. Even with increased R service, unless the G goes at least to Queens Plaza, two transfers are needed for what was once a one seat ride.There is no question that most Queens Boulevard riders want more direct service to Manhattan than to Brooklyn, and without an infinate amount of capacity on the Queens Boulevard Local tracks, only so many trains can run there each hour and those trains are destined for Manhattan. When service is frequent, transfering is inconvenient, but the inconvenience is counterbalanced by the fact the V stops at 23rd Avenue, makes local stops, and comes often. This will not be the case under the current proposal outside of the V's hours of operation, and I personally don't think the TA should cut the G back under those circumstances. I am a proponent of weekend V service though, and think it would benefit G riders if the G is cut back, as well as reestablish a link between the Lexington Avenue Line and 6th Avenue Line that was severed when the 63rd Street Line opened. |
|
|
| (541789) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Wed Dec 26 15:35:45 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by SMAZ on Wed Dec 26 00:15:02 2007. The problem with QP (and 36th St) is that they had two additions that came much later...that is the cut to the 60th St tunnel and the one to the Connector. Under the circumstances they did all right. It was originally built to only feed into the 53rd and Crosstown lines.Yeah, that's history, but there were pretty fundamental errors with tunnel capacity and corridor definition. The worst thing about these errors was that they flew in the face of all precedent. |
|
|
| (541883) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Dec 26 19:33:35 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Dec 26 03:38:30 2007. Wrong..The Fair was served during rush hour periods by the "E" SPECIALS,that operated express along Q.B..also it operated a "S" SPECIAL service during middays. You are also wrong about the "uproar".. Rider in North Brooklyn and Queens depend on the G line....otherwise the would be websites like "SAVE THE G" around.. My HOME STATION on the G line is maintained pretty well..and was 'spruced' up after we our neighborhood group complained enough about the condition of it. Also..My MAIN problem here is since the R143 came in..the so called car shortage has been abated somewhat..so WHY DOES THE G STILL OPERATE FOUR CAR TRAINS AT RIDICULOUS HEADWAYS...? |
|
|
| (541884) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Dec 26 19:34:30 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Dec 26 03:38:30 2007. Wrong..The Fair was served during rush hour periods by the "E" SPECIALS,that operated express along Q.B..also it operated a "S" SPECIAL service during middays. You are also wrong about the "uproar".. Rider in North Brooklyn and Queens depend on the G line....otherwise the wouldn't be websites like "SAVE THE G" around.. My HOME STATION on the G line is maintained pretty well..and was 'spruced' up after we our neighborhood group complained enough about the condition of it. Also..My MAIN problem here is since the R143 came in..the so called car shortage has been abated somewhat..so WHY DOES THE G STILL OPERATE FOUR CAR TRAINS AT RIDICULOUS HEADWAYS...? |
|
|
| (541886) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Dec 26 19:35:56 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 26 11:51:31 2007. He is wrong..The E and a S SPECIAL served the Fair also. |
|
|
| (541887) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Dec 26 19:40:43 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Dec 23 04:24:53 2007. Yeah, that's a good Romeo job. And those who do three relays, two trips, and get a short lunch, pay the price for that job. |
|
|
| (541900) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Wed Dec 26 20:29:54 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 13:43:53 2007. At least the G's better than the R! |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 6 |
||
