|
|
| TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder (698990) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 6 |
|
|
|
| (698992) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Oct 28 16:13:29 2008, in response to TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by ROCKPARKMAN on Tue Oct 28 16:09:45 2008. Ok...Why do they need to raise it? Couldn't divers cut the "black box" out of the car structure? |
|
|
| (699005) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Mr. Eric on Tue Oct 28 16:34:45 2008, in response to TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by ROCKPARKMAN on Tue Oct 28 16:09:45 2008. This should be front page on every NY newspaper!!! The TA always cries poverty in contract years yet they waste millions constantly. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (699007) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by ROCKPARKMAN on Tue Oct 28 16:37:04 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Oct 28 16:13:29 2008. That is what the confidential internal memo said. It did not specify why they needed the specfic car. But I suspect that this isn't the only equipment on the car. They would also need some type of transmitting and communication devices on the car to alert command center of an attack. Also because the device had been hidden they must have done a good job of concealing it, especially if wasn't discovered during the prepartion of the car for reefing. Also can you get the right equipment down to the car that you would need to cut it out???? |
|
|
| (699012) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Tue Oct 28 16:46:05 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Oct 28 16:13:29 2008. ROCKPARKMAN said: "the car was not scheduled for reefing but was reefed sometime last month, by mistake, with a sophisticated biological / radiological sensing system still hidden within the car structure."I can't believe you didn't read that Brian! |
|
|
| (699020) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by vfrt on Tue Oct 28 16:49:35 2008, in response to TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by ROCKPARKMAN on Tue Oct 28 16:09:45 2008. 'with a sophisticated biological / radiological sensing system still hidden within the car structure'Maybe you shouldn't have posted this info here? |
|
|
| (699024) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Tue Oct 28 16:55:09 2008, in response to TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by ROCKPARKMAN on Tue Oct 28 16:09:45 2008. Maybe they should've installed it in an R68 instead of an R32/40/42! |
|
|
| (699025) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Oct 28 16:58:49 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by daDouce Man on Tue Oct 28 16:46:05 2008. It'd appear that he did, because the question remains as to why they need to raise the whole car and not just remove the black box. Of course access to the box may be limited by the bottom conditions, and there may be more than one component to be removed from the car. I'd be interested to see an actual source for this story. |
|
|
| (699026) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Oct 28 17:00:39 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by vfrt on Tue Oct 28 16:49:35 2008. Jesus fucking christ, will the paranoia never end? First the government has to be paranoid enough to equip an old car with this sensor suite, now a moron on forum has to get paranoid about the system's presence on an out of service car being posted. The idiocy is compounding on a daily basis. |
|
|
| (699033) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Oct 28 17:11:25 2008, in response to TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by ROCKPARKMAN on Tue Oct 28 16:09:45 2008. Imagine that phone call |
|
|
| (699037) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Tue Oct 28 17:14:09 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by WillD on Tue Oct 28 16:58:49 2008. With the device being hidden on the reefed subway car, divers might damage it if they attempt to remove it while still in the water.Also who knows what chemicals the device contains? Officals may not want to risk fouling the waters? I'd like to see an actual source for this story also. |
|
|
| (699049) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Tue Oct 28 17:32:15 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by daDouce Man on Tue Oct 28 17:14:09 2008. Depending on the size and location of the device, it may be only a matter of unbolting it.The biggest question is where is the car concerned in the pile? If it’s on top, then it’s going to be a lot less expensive proposition than if the car is on the bottom. |
|
|
| (699053) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by ROCKPARKMAN on Tue Oct 28 17:43:43 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by R36 #9346 on Tue Oct 28 16:55:09 2008. I would think there is more than one device being tested. So it may be on a R68 as well as other contracts. |
|
|
| (699054) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Oct 28 17:45:00 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by daDouce Man on Tue Oct 28 17:14:09 2008. Also who knows what chemicals the device contains? Officals may not want to risk fouling the waters?I guess we'll find out if piranhas start flying over New York... |
|
|
| (699055) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 28 17:47:01 2008, in response to TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by ROCKPARKMAN on Tue Oct 28 16:09:45 2008. 16 million dollars? WOW. Not only were they dumb enough to do this(prematurely reefing a car), but now they think it will cost 16 million $$$ to get it out? Maybe it would be even cheaper to leave the device down in the ocean.And this proves one more thing: The TA is HELL BENT on reefing the old SMEEs so that they can get newer NTTs which are over priced so that they can skim off money from the contracts, and then they will have a car shortage, and will have to buy more supplementary cars which will be even MORE expensive, and this is all at the taxpayer's, and rider's expense. Not to mention, some fat cats will be taking a pocket of cash from that 16 million dollar sum. I bet they will spend the full 16 million. It would be better to just give all the TA managers a colonoscopy to look for the device, and implant microphones so that the people can hear what these fat cats say behind our backs. They are laughing at this, they have the dollar signs in their eyes. SHAME BULL IGNORANCE ABUSE MCADOO!!!! DAHL!!! |
|
|
| (699058) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 28 17:50:07 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by BMTLines on Tue Oct 28 17:45:00 2008. Yeah, seriously, I doubt it is anything major. The TA has probably dumped a lot more dangerous stuff than whatever is in those devices. Maybe there is some slightly radioactive material? Like the stuff found in some lasers(?) and smoke detectors(I think)? |
|
|
| (699066) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Oct 28 18:10:11 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by daDouce Man on Tue Oct 28 16:46:05 2008. WTF are you talking about? Why do you go through all the effort to use fancy HTML when making your stupid, incorrect posts? You must be illiterate to make a post like you just did. Unbelievable. |
|
|
| (699071) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Oct 28 18:14:32 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by vfrt on Tue Oct 28 16:49:35 2008. Technically he shouldn't be posting any internal communications that are not meant for the outside world to see. I don't know if the memo he references is such. |
|
|
| (699077) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Oct 28 18:24:20 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Oct 28 18:14:32 2008. I don't know if the memo he references is such.It sounds like a hoax to me. |
|
|
| (699078) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 28 18:27:34 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Oct 28 18:24:20 2008. It might sound that way, but remember, this is the MTA. |
|
|
| (699085) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 28 18:42:24 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by ROCKPARKMAN on Tue Oct 28 16:37:04 2008. From what I know of this, there are probably 2 reasons why it cannot be removed under water.First, based on other reefings, there is a greater than 70% probability that the car is sitting in such a way that it would have to be lifted in order to remove the device. Second, the device is actually two interconnected devices which cannot be removed as one unit. But if seperated, the hermetic seals would be broken and seawater would destroy the unit. Take your pick. BTW: I don't know why the car number is so secret. Most of the cleaners knew the car number. |
|
|
| (699086) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 28 18:43:34 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by vfrt on Tue Oct 28 16:49:35 2008. I don't think it was meant to be a secret since the recovery will be well documented. |
|
|
| (699090) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by vfrt on Tue Oct 28 19:02:07 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Oct 28 18:14:32 2008. 'The memo that I saw...'That doesn't tell us much but it sounds like he's divulging something that might be security-related. Since none of us have the memo in front of us, we can't deteremine if it was confidential or not. |
|
|
| (699091) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 28 19:07:38 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 28 18:43:34 2008. This discussion is about recovering a "a sophisticated biological / radiological sensing system " located in a wrongfully reefed subway car, not about the recovery of a vibrator from your rectum. But if you wish, you may still document the removal of your personal pleasure device, just don't post the videos or photos on subchat. |
|
|
| (699093) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Tue Oct 28 19:13:15 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Mr. Eric on Tue Oct 28 16:34:45 2008. There goes our raise! |
|
|
| (699106) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Mr. Eric on Tue Oct 28 19:38:56 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Tue Oct 28 19:13:15 2008. That's funny we were never going to get a raise. In this same economic climate all of the other agencies have gotten %4 a year for the life of there contracts. We couldn't even get that last time when the TA admitted to having over a 1 billion dollar surplus. |
|
|
| (699110) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Oct 28 19:53:09 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Oct 28 18:24:20 2008. it definitely sounds potentially fishy. hence my "ok..............." in my first reply :) |
|
|
| (699112) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Oct 28 19:54:51 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by R36 #9346 on Tue Oct 28 16:55:09 2008. Maybe they should've installed it in an R68 instead of an R32/40/42!In terms of space available to components, the older cars probably have more room. Thinking back to pre-GOH equipment, they sure seemed to have filled in a lot of space, especially in the electrical controls in the cabs. |
|
|
| (699117) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 28 20:11:55 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 28 19:07:38 2008. I have a serious question for you. How fast can you run before you begin to really scrape your knuckles? |
|
|
| (699125) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 28 20:28:04 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 28 18:27:34 2008. And your point is? The MTA doesn't make condoms and yet here you are? |
|
|
| (699131) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Westcode44 on Tue Oct 28 20:39:47 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 28 18:42:24 2008. This isn't car 3700-01/14/15 with the 'flywheel' added to it.? Or one of em.?WE-44 |
|
|
| (699132) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 28 20:42:54 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Westcode44 on Tue Oct 28 20:39:47 2008. What was the flywheel for? Was it connected to the motor? I would think the motors and wheels weigh enough so that no flywheel would be needed.Or did this have nothing to do with propulsion? |
|
|
| (699133) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Tue Oct 28 20:43:03 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Westcode44 on Tue Oct 28 20:39:47 2008. 3714/15 are Phase I's and are running around in Queens. |
|
|
| (699135) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 28 20:50:42 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 28 20:11:55 2008. HA!Even if I were an orrangutan like yourself, I would not be the type that hasn't learned to lift his knuckles to help him run faster. But even if I were like you in that sense, I would only leave behind two trails of blood, not three like you do. |
|
|
| (699136) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Tue Oct 28 20:52:14 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by JohnL on Tue Oct 28 17:32:15 2008. After the car is found, the next question is where on the car?ROCKPARKMAN said it's a "sophisticated biological / radiological sensing system still hidden within the car structure." I get the impression they don't know where it is on the car. The supervisior who authorized the reefing certainly didn't know. |
|
|
| (699140) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Tue Oct 28 20:54:48 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by ROCKPARKMAN on Tue Oct 28 17:43:43 2008. If the subway car in question was reefed, I doubt if it was a R68. |
|
|
| (699141) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Tue Oct 28 20:56:32 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by BMTLines on Tue Oct 28 17:45:00 2008. ....if piranhas start flying over New York..Or if pigs swim. |
|
|
| (699142) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 28 20:57:41 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Westcode44 on Tue Oct 28 20:39:47 2008. No - Hint. The car ran on a line where CBTC was active and the ennunciator signal could be picked up and transmitted to control center during a test. |
|
|
| (699143) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Oct 28 20:58:13 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by daDouce Man on Tue Oct 28 20:52:14 2008. OH MY GAWD.Of course they know where it is. You've really outdone yourself this time. |
|
|
| (699144) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Oct 28 20:59:15 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by daDouce Man on Tue Oct 28 20:54:48 2008. He wasn't suggesting that!!! OMG!READING COMPREHENSION!!!! TRY IT! |
|
|
| (699145) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 28 20:59:52 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 28 20:50:42 2008. I still think that the best part of you ran down your mother's leg. |
|
|
| (699146) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Tue Oct 28 21:01:04 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 28 20:57:41 2008. One of the CI overhauled R42's then? 4840 to 4949. |
|
|
| (699148) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by David on Tue Oct 28 21:02:10 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 28 19:07:38 2008. "Train Dude" was posting seriously about a serious issue. Why turn this into something it isn't?David |
|
|
| (699151) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Tue Oct 28 21:04:41 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Oct 28 18:10:11 2008. If I had asked the question you asked, you'd be on my case about why didn't I read ROCKPARKMAN's posting? Now the shoe's on the other foot. WTF are you talking about? |
|
|
| (699152) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 28 21:04:58 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Tue Oct 28 21:01:04 2008. I won't be the one to spill the beans. |
|
|
| (699153) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Tue Oct 28 21:05:52 2008, in response to TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by ROCKPARKMAN on Tue Oct 28 16:09:45 2008. wow that was retardedmaybe all this might have never happened if the MTA aren't reefing perfectly good trains in the first place !! |
|
|
| (699154) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by R42 4787 on Tue Oct 28 21:06:24 2008, in response to TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by ROCKPARKMAN on Tue Oct 28 16:09:45 2008. How about raising the Titanic instead? (No, I'd want some R36s raised and rebuilt ;)). |
|
|
| (699156) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Tue Oct 28 21:07:57 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 28 21:04:58 2008. You're better off. |
|
|
| (699158) | |
Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 28 21:09:15 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by David on Tue Oct 28 21:02:10 2008. Thanks but you are trying to reason with the unreasonable! |
|
|
| (699160) | |
Flywheel (was Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder) |
|
|
Posted by David on Tue Oct 28 21:14:53 2008, in response to Re: TAs Newest $16 Million Blunder, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 28 20:42:54 2008. In the mid-1970s, a pair of R-32s was retrofitted with a flywheel system built by the Garrett Corporation (the same company that made the propulsion system for the GT/E (Gas Turbine/Electric) LIRR cars that resembled M-1s). The flywheel essentially did what NYCT's newest cars do, which is to capture energy used in braking that is normally dissipated as heat. Apparently, however, rather than put the energy back into the third rail for use by other trains in the area as the R-142 and up cars do, the system would supply the energy to the car it came from for use in propulsion.According to the MTA 1976 annual report, the test was completed in January 1977 and was a success. However, NYCT never bought the system in quantity -- perhaps, given that this was the fiscal crisis era, there was simply no money to purchase it even though it apparently would have saved a great deal on propulsion power costs (19% overall during the test, up to 40% depending on where the test was done). David |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 6 |
|
