|
|
| Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here (804253) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||
|
| (804344) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by metropod on Fri Jul 3 18:00:32 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by arnine on Fri Jul 3 17:52:48 2009. 
|
|
|
| (804346) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Fri Jul 3 18:01:12 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by metropod on Fri Jul 3 18:00:32 2009. I like that :) |
|
|
| (804347) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by metropod on Fri Jul 3 18:02:46 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by arnine on Fri Jul 3 18:01:12 2009. A href="http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.vul.bc.ca/v3/team/pictures/180px-CircularReasoning.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.vul.bc.ca/v3/team/page/%3FTeamID%3D784&usg=__KZTQxTseeMi85H-seE_TfdMMpKM=&h=169&w=180&sz=5&hl=en&start=7&um=1&tbnid=eOo5NSiXiCLgaM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=101&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcircular%2Blogic%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7HPIB_en%26sa%3DX%26um%3D1"> this is where i found i Someone else had used it the last fight, and I went looking for it. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (804350) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jul 3 18:03:36 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jul 3 17:21:34 2009. Nobody ever said you lied.All I ever said is that as hearsay, it would be inadmissible in court. ROAR |
|
|
| (804352) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Fri Jul 3 18:05:26 2009, in response to G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by arnine on Fri Jul 3 16:14:09 2009. This of course is long overdue and a symbol of the contempt the MTA has had and still has for its riders.Smith-9th was never meant to be a terminal...the tracks were laid out the way they were during the construction of the South Brooklyn portion of the IND to get service started as soon as possible. There were plans to construct to Staten Island but the terminal for the South Brooklyn portion of the IND was always meant to be Church Avenue and it was constructed as a terminal station. The fact they continued to use Smith-9th Street as a terminal, causing the relay that slows up F service and forces passengers to wait out in the cold, rain, heat and whatever at 4th Avenue to go one stop to transfer to the old BMT shows just how little they give a damn. And then to announce this as a temporary solution for the construction rather than a permanent extension again is outright asinine. |
|
|
| (804353) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Fri Jul 3 18:05:34 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by metropod on Fri Jul 3 18:02:46 2009. Thanks, I will use it I am sure |
|
|
| (804354) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Fri Jul 3 18:07:47 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Jul 3 18:05:26 2009. I agree with you but at least this can help for 4 years maybe they will see people like it and keep it but then again it is MTA |
|
|
| (804356) | |
Re: why extend? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jul 3 18:08:43 2009, in response to Re: why extend?, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jul 3 16:52:09 2009. No. It is the LOCAL tracks that are being taken out of service, and all service will operate on the express tracks. Obviously then the express tracks can no longer be used to turn the (GG) train.ROAR |
|
|
| (804360) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jul 3 18:12:23 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Jul 3 18:05:26 2009. If MTA has so much contempt for it's riders. then why was the #5 extended to Flatbush Ave. all day?I look forward to the same rant when the G goes back to Smith/9th in 4 years! |
|
|
| (804361) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jul 3 18:15:07 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Jul 3 18:05:26 2009. BTW: the city of New York built the IND necessitating the 1 stop ride to transfer to the 4th Ave. subway and not the MTA, so why don't you blame the mayor at the time who approved the design and not the MTA that wasn't even thought about yet?Why is it any time you post here it's always a rant? |
|
|
| (804363) | |
Re: why extend? |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jul 3 18:18:20 2009, in response to Re: why extend?, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jul 3 18:08:43 2009. All tracks will be out of service at one time or another as the whole viaduct has to be rebuilt. You'll likely see "hard rail connections" from the local to express tracks (then vice versa) during the course of the 4 years. I expect to see periodic bustitutions from Church to Jay to accomplish these connections from time to time. |
|
|
| (804365) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Fri Jul 3 18:18:33 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jul 3 18:12:23 2009. Bill...I don't get what you're saying.....was my original statement wrong from a historical and current point of view? Tell me as I am not as smart as others here. why would anybody given the way things worked out have a terminal at Smith-9th Street clearly inconveniencing passengers 1 short stop from a major transfer point? And why would you want the relay as first the G train ending at Smith-9th has to be fumigated (is that the word?) and that slows up F service before it can switch onto the express tracks allowing the trailing F train to pass.....I'm not familiar with the layout but would that be necessary at Church Avenue? And also, pray tell, please explain to me why on weekedns, passengers are forced off the G trains at Smith-9th and then it runs empty to Church Avenue to avoid the relay (obviously to save a bit on man (or woman) power to effect the relay...but again given the way things exist today wouldn't it make more sense to simply keep the G in revenue service to Church Avenue. All I would love to know is the rationale behind these decisions. Can it be anything else other than contempt. The money saving just cannot be that great. |
|
|
| (804370) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Fri Jul 3 18:23:08 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jul 3 18:15:07 2009. ....because I love to rant....but seriously instead of knocking me I understand there were political considerations when the IND was built and a lot of it was meant originally to screw the IRT and BMT (historical) but the question I have always had is, as I stated, what exists today given the way things were built have they continued to use Smith-9th as the terminal...simple question not a rant.(BTW aren't boards like this meant for rants?) |
|
|
| (804375) | |
Re: why extend? |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Jul 3 18:29:34 2009, in response to Re: why extend?, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jul 3 18:08:43 2009. No for now it's the Express Tracks that are OS. The Local is the only tracks avable. |
|
|
| (804381) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Fri Jul 3 18:53:18 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jul 3 17:16:05 2009. Nothing is official for RTO personnel until the General Order has been issued.You can twist it and play semantic games anyway you want but my last statement is fact. Do you actually know what a General Order is and how many departments are involved in it? |
|
|
| (804393) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jul 3 19:18:14 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Jul 3 18:18:33 2009. I am the first guy who wants more service because as a transit worker it means more jobs for me and my fellow workers.It has a traditional pain in the ass for G riders going to/from 4th Ave. I had to deal with it when I lived by Nassau Ave. and needed that stop to go to/from work to 95 St. so I know the pain. Yes, the G did go to Church for a while in the '70 but that was not for the convience for G riders "from the north" and was quickly rescinded because the residents of Park Slope made noise about losing their 1 seat ride to Manhattan. I suppose there has never been a political constituency to fight for the G riders to have the line extended south for them. Maybe NYCT never wanted to extend the G because it would cost them more money due to the longer route: crew costs, more equipment required, budgets. F trains will now be delayed at Church s/b because the discharge set-up is the same as it is at Smith/9th. Finally the G runs lite to Church Ave. weekends because the shorter weekend headway does not give the t/o enough time to change ends at 4th Ave. (esp. if he arrives a few minutes late) with possibly delaying the following G on the mainline which in turn could delay the next F. We all know the F runs lousy, but on paper it has much more service than the G and their thought process is the riders only have to wait a few minutes to go the one stop but you and I know that is not the case. I don't say this sarcastically, but in 3 years write a signed snail mail letter to the G line General Manager to get G to Church service permanent, which I can see happening anyway because one of these days Church will become the dominant 24/7 terminal with cars from CI rather than Jamaica. Church eventually should handle all lay-up's, put-ins and crew reports too. |
|
|
| (804395) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jul 3 19:20:19 2009, in response to G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by arnine on Fri Jul 3 16:14:09 2009. I have a strong feeling it will become permanent if the plan is to run it to Church for 4 years. People will get used to it. |
|
|
| (804396) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Fri Jul 3 19:20:32 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Jul 3 18:18:33 2009. I'm not familiar with the layout but would that be necessary at Church Avenue?Theoretically, the F train could switch to the express track, skipping 4th Avenue and running express to Church Avenue. However, that would force everyone to transfer to the G train at Bergen through Smith-9th. Otherwise, with both the F and G running on the local at Church Avenue, it would only shift the point of delay. At least there would be fewer people inconvenienced by transferring from the G to the F for service to stations south of the G terminal. |
|
|
| (804397) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Fri Jul 3 19:20:39 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Jul 3 18:18:33 2009. I'm not familiar with the layout but would that be necessary at Church Avenue?Theoretically, the F train could switch to the express track, skipping 4th Avenue and running express to Church Avenue. However, that would force everyone to transfer to the G train at Bergen through Smith-9th. Otherwise, with both the F and G running on the local at Church Avenue, it would only shift the point of delay. At least there would be fewer people inconvenienced by transferring from the G to the F for service to stations south of the G terminal. |
|
|
| (804402) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Fri Jul 3 19:26:50 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Jul 3 18:18:33 2009. I'm not familiar with the layout but would that be necessary at Church Avenue?Theoretically, the F train could switch to the express track, skipping 4th Avenue and running express to Church Avenue. However, that would force everyone wanting local stations to transfer to the G train at Bergen through Smith-9th. Otherwise, with both the F and G running on the local at Church Avenue, it would only shift the point of delay. At least there would be fewer people inconvenienced by transferring from the G to the F for service to stations south of the G terminal. Hopefully, the Jay-Lawrence transfer will reduce the need for the transfer at 4th Avenue. |
|
|
| (804403) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jul 3 19:29:07 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by R36 #9346 on Fri Jul 3 19:20:39 2009. The F is not going express. Both services will share the same trackage because the viaduct is being replaced in phases and switches are being removed. |
|
|
| (804404) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jul 3 19:31:09 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by R36 #9346 on Fri Jul 3 19:26:50 2009. The Jay-Lawrence transfer will not help G riders. In fact. I'd venture most 4th Ave./9th St. transferees are actually G riders and not F riders. |
|
|
| (804405) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Fri Jul 3 19:40:14 2009, in response to G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by arnine on Fri Jul 3 16:14:09 2009. Wow!! That and the story about the R-42s on the V are the two most unbelievable things I heard about this year!! Maybe they should add it to the Twilight Zone marathon. |
|
|
| (804415) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Jul 3 20:23:00 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Jeff Rosen on Fri Jul 3 19:40:14 2009. This place IS the twilight zone marathon |
|
|
| (804433) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Jul 3 20:56:48 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Jul 3 18:23:08 2009. BTW aren't boards like this meant for rants?While the occasional rant is OK, I feel that Subtalk and Subchat were never meant for rants. (There's Strappies for that) |
|
|
| (804444) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Jul 3 21:15:26 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Jul 3 18:05:26 2009. The original IND subway was built in the 1930's in such a way as to discourage transfers between itself and the various other subway lines. So any criticism should go to the original planners and Mayor Hylan of the times.Since the MTA did not come into existence until 1968, it seems a bit much to criticize it for the building of transit facilities that were in opertion for some 30 years before the MTA was ever thought of. Another unwarranted aspect of the criticism was the lack of acknowledgement of the extension of the G-train during the rush hours in the 1970's to Church Avenue, and the use those express tracks by F-trains. That by the way was during the reign of the MTA. However Park Slope residents did not like the reduction in service and the transfers - so they compaigned along with their political representatives to have the rush hour F-service changed. The 1970's fiscal crisis and many other issues over the years have contributed to the subways that we have today. Just a thought. Mike |
|
|
| (804446) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by metropod on Fri Jul 3 21:26:17 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by BMTLines on Fri Jul 3 20:23:00 2009. Are you kidding, the Twilight zone is a day spa with an all expense paid account comapired to this place. |
|
|
| (804471) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by EBTMikado on Fri Jul 3 22:11:54 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jul 3 16:39:52 2009. Could it be that people don't trust what you say? |
|
|
| (804472) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by EBTMikado on Fri Jul 3 22:12:05 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jul 3 16:39:52 2009. Could it be that people don't trust what you say? |
|
|
| (804478) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Jul 3 22:39:11 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by MJF on Fri Jul 3 18:53:18 2009. Is a General Order that a General tells people to do thing. I think I am right. |
|
|
| (804497) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by GOLD_12th on Sat Jul 4 00:21:37 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jul 3 16:39:52 2009. U know why no one visits your blog, Your blog sucks....same posts over here (Subchat) so why bother read your blog since its duplicate? |
|
|
| (804516) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Sat Jul 4 01:23:10 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Jul 3 17:58:13 2009. Robert what did we disscuss last week? |
|
|
| (804537) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Sat Jul 4 04:18:00 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Michael549 on Fri Jul 3 21:15:26 2009. Mike...Understood but.....I still (call it a rant, call it anything you want) the continued use of the out of the way Smith-9th Street as a terminal one stop short of a very important (at least today) transfer point. Nobody is suggesting going back and making the F an express (although it really isn't a bad idea but then again I don't live in Park Slope)....Church Avenue, as far as I know and understand, was always meant to be a terminal station (don't they have storage tracks there)..... |
|
|
| (804568) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Jul 4 09:18:37 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Jul 3 22:39:11 2009. Only if a General signs the General Order. Then it becomes a General's Order. |
|
|
| (804586) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Jul 4 09:34:21 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by MATHA531 on Sat Jul 4 04:18:00 2009. Church Ave. was meant to be a terminal staion because that's how far the original IND went till the extension to Ditmas Ave. which from there was original BMT. So when that happened, Church Ave. yard became excess. |
|
|
| (804605) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Zman179 on Sat Jul 4 09:53:21 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by MJF on Fri Jul 3 18:53:18 2009. Got that right. When it comes to service changes, by rule we can only follow General Orders. If an official MTA press release says that the G is being extended from Church Ave to Stillwell Avenue, but there is no General Order stating so, then I'm terminating at Church Ave. Period. |
|
|
| (804607) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sat Jul 4 09:55:14 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Zman179 on Sat Jul 4 09:53:21 2009. Good call, Z!! Hey, what are you doing these days, man?? Since you are not in the mood to respond to emails or never come on AOL!! :-D |
|
|
| (804609) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sat Jul 4 09:56:30 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Railman718 on Sat Jul 4 01:23:10 2009. I heard you two discussed comparing the both of you as to who is the slowest T/O in the B Division!! LMAO!! :-D |
|
|
| (804612) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Zman179 on Sat Jul 4 10:01:48 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sat Jul 4 09:55:14 2009. Same ol' same ol'. I only go on AOL to check e-mail. Sorry I didn't respond when you sent me an e-mail, just had a lot going on.Otherwise, everything's peachy keen! You? |
|
|
| (804616) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sat Jul 4 10:07:20 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Zman179 on Sat Jul 4 10:01:48 2009. When not verbally (and refraining from physically) whippin' Dutchrailnut, I am all good, keeping the NH moving smooth as ever!! Landing the big $$$$ holddowns off the extra board for the week, and just enjoying life!! I am good, family is good, so far all is well. Been looking at some nice houses in Queens, so yours truly might be coming back there real soon!! We need to meet up and hang out man!! What line do you work?? Thinkin' I need to ride along and rate you much as I did NETO and Railman (the overall ratings for them are good, and they even earned plus marks for scaring the crap out of some would-be vandals on a J "R-160" train), and after all this time, I need to see if you got any better!! :-D |
|
|
| (804632) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Sat Jul 4 10:18:28 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Clayton on Fri Jul 3 17:04:00 2009. You're right- what a neat evasion of the issue... |
|
|
| (804634) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Sat Jul 4 10:19:57 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Jul 3 17:20:02 2009. This answers a question I've had- WHYis the R extended to 179th during these GOs. Makes sense now. |
|
|
| (804644) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sat Jul 4 10:41:52 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by MATHA531 on Sat Jul 4 04:18:00 2009. There have been plenty of transit fans who wanted the G-train to terminate at Church Avenue, and they have expressed the same wish for several years. It is not the wish for the new operation that I was talking about, but the nature of the rant or complaint. In any case, I am pleased (among others) that the G-train will be extended to Church Avenue, a real terminal that was designed as such.Mike |
|
|
| (804659) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sat Jul 4 11:19:12 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sat Jul 4 10:07:20 2009. No sense looking for a ride along with Z since he rarely operates trains these days. ;-) |
|
|
| (804667) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Zman179 on Sat Jul 4 11:53:31 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by MJF on Sat Jul 4 11:19:12 2009. Boy you'll hear it from me on Tuesday, bub. |
|
|
| (804669) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Zman179 on Sat Jul 4 11:55:37 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sat Jul 4 10:07:20 2009. You've got my e-mail address. Gimme your schedule and maybe I'll catch a ride with ya. |
|
|
| (804806) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Jul 4 23:42:45 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by MJF on Fri Jul 3 18:53:18 2009. I never claimed that anything was official for RTO in terms of doing their jobs. This is a railfan board. I was stating in no uncertain terms that the start date was STILL July 5, 2009. And I was right. And of course I was right, because I don't post lies.I was not telling the RTO employees here to start stopping at Church on July 5. But I was telling them that the service is still scheduled to begin on schedule on July 5. It's amazing how many of you continue to not understand this. |
|
|
| (804807) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Jul 4 23:43:40 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by arnine on Fri Jul 3 17:52:48 2009. No, you just fail to understand what I am asking you in very clear terms. |
|
|
| (804808) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by d_mind on Sat Jul 4 23:44:19 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Jul 4 23:42:45 2009. 
|
|
|
| (804809) | |
Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Jul 4 23:44:47 2009, in response to Re: G to Church 7/5/09 Confirmed Pic Here, posted by arnine on Fri Jul 3 17:47:24 2009. Read my previous post again. You seem to have a problem understanding. Thanks for making me laugh though :) |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||
