|
|
| Re: A VERY Lost A Train! (1285214) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
|
| (1285415) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 12 21:13:43 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 12 20:51:52 2014. Lindsay was tossed out of the party for caving, but don't let your propaganda stand in YOUR way. I campaigned for Lindsay when I was in High School. |
|
|
| (1285418) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 12 21:25:05 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 12 21:13:43 2014. Tossed out of the party? You getting your history from bingbong? The strike over in January 1966 and Lindsay became a demoncrat in 1971. SO I'm sorry but you are wrong again. Lindsay wanted to run for president but the Republican candidate was the incumbent, Richard Nixon. SO lindsay chose to switch parties and tried to get the democratic nomination instead of McGovern. He was not thrown out of the party. |
|
|
| (1285422) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Apr 12 21:36:53 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 12 21:25:05 2014. You getting your history from bingbong?...Lindsay became a demoncrat in 1971.Lindsay tried to run for re-election as a Republican in 1969. He lost the Republican primary to John Marchi. Mario Procaccino won the Democratic nomination. The Conservative party nominated William Buckley. Lindsay won re-election on the Liberal Party line. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1285423) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 12 21:39:05 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Apr 12 21:36:53 2014. Thank you |
|
|
| (1285431) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 12 22:07:39 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 12 21:25:05 2014. As Stephen pointed out, the party turned on him in 1969. They told him to go away and so he did. So what exactly was YOUR political awareness at the time I was covering city hall for WBAI? Why don't you just stick to what you know, which isn't much? |
|
|
| (1285433) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 12 22:10:15 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 12 22:07:39 2014. The party did not throw him out. Lets see in 1969 you would have been 16 or 17 so I hope WBAI checked your working papers. |
|
|
| (1285435) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 12 22:13:58 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 12 22:10:15 2014. And ANOTHER core of zero! :)18 ... my first journo gig. Why are you ALWAYS wrong, Dan Traindude? |
|
|
| (1285436) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 12 22:18:16 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 12 22:13:58 2014. So WBAI had you reporting on City Hall at 18 and with that brilliant career ahead of you, you left to be a conductor at NYCT only to fail there? Sounds like a great career move on your part. Got any more stories, Grimm? |
|
|
| (1285440) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 12 22:32:27 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 12 22:18:16 2014. WBAI didn't pay anybody. I volunteered for it on the advice of my English teacher and some radio folks I knew. And they were right. It was the perfect place to get my feet wet. By the time I had my fill of the Empty-yay, got right into a paid gig in radio and the sky was the limit from there. That's why I didn't NEED to come back. :)Meanwhile, all those years YOU were from government and here to help. LOL! |
|
|
| (1285443) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 12 22:38:08 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 12 22:32:27 2014. By the time you had your fill of the MTA? I thought that they fired you or are we going to get another chorus of "they offered me my job back"? |
|
|
| (1285446) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 12 22:48:23 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 12 22:38:08 2014. They didn't fire me. You already know this but you insist on perpetually being wrong. I mean really guy ... even Dan Lawrence is right every now and then. Sheesh. |
|
|
| (1285475) | |
Re: 1966 Transit Strike |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Apr 13 04:23:11 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 12 21:12:31 2014. And that strike was eventually responsible for the Taylor Law that forbids strikes by public employees.I wonder why in January 1966 it brought the City to its knees but 1980 did not do the same? April 1980 was not exactly that warm most of the time yet people walked to work and continued with those habits long after that 10-day strike ended (in many cases to this day). |
|
|
| (1285476) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Apr 13 04:24:18 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by andy on Fri Apr 11 17:59:27 2014. Who knows, that could be an option in the years ahead. |
|
|
| (1285519) | |
Re: 1966 Transit Strike |
|
|
Posted by Randyo on Sun Apr 13 14:28:51 2014, in response to Re: 1966 Transit Strike, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Apr 13 04:23:11 2014. Actually, at the time of the strike, there was another law in place that forbade strikes by public employees, the Condon-Wadlin Act. The penalties in that statute, however were highly discretionary and in many cases optional and the TWU made it clear that if the city attempted to enforce any penalties, the cure would be worse that the disease. As a result, the union wasn't penalized for that strike. The subsequent statute, the Taylor Law filled in many of the loopholes of the old law by making the penalties mandatory thus removing any discretion on the part of any politicians who wished to soft pedal the penalties. |
|
|
| (1285520) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Randyo on Sun Apr 13 14:32:48 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 12 20:45:04 2014. That would depend on whether or not it was needed to carry passengers, since it was obviously sent to Queens due to some sort of a service interruption. On the BMT, often an M routed off the West End Line to 95 St would go back north in service to cover part of the return trip that would have been made by the R train it was sent to cover for. |
|
|
| (1285529) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Sun Apr 13 14:52:56 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Apr 12 09:50:12 2014. (L) is on first and (F) is on Second ;) |
|
|
| (1285533) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Apr 13 15:53:37 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 12 20:51:52 2014. The strike occurred because of the policies of Abe BeameThis is true but only in a very general sense. As Controller, Beame held the TA's purse strings, but ultimately it was Mayor Wagener with whom the TWU had its grievance. Beame, as (then) City Controller, was not seen as the devil-in-the-details during the strike, because in the public mind, it was Wagner, later Lindsay, versus Quill. In the same way, the modern-day strike was seen as Toussaint versus Bloomberg, even though the MTA had long since become a city-state compact, with the Governor presiding over it. |
|
|
| (1285535) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Apr 13 15:54:16 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Train Dude on Sat Apr 12 20:45:04 2014. Maybe things have changed then.When E trains were sent to 168th a few years back, they remained in service for the southbound trip. |
|
|
| (1285539) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 13 16:17:29 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Apr 13 15:53:37 2014. And another forgotten detail is that in 1965, after the formation of the MCTA, Governor Rockefeller had been threatening to fold NYCTA into the MCTA which finally occurred in 1968. Quill, seeing this possibility especially with a republican Mayor, fought hard for parity with LIRR employees for his own anticipating the eventual takeover.It was actually Quill vs. Rockefeller with "Lindsley" being seen as a proxy. Wagner didn't give a crap, he was on his way out the door. :) |
|
|
| (1285540) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Apr 13 16:27:23 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 13 16:17:29 2014. That's an interesting exposition of history. But I still think neither Rockefeller nor Beame were the major players opposing Quill. The issues that arose regarding the strike began under Wagner, and Wagner threw that dead cat right onto the front lawn of Gracie Mansion on New Years' Eve 1966. I agree that Wagner knew full well what was going to happen, but Lindsay gets, IMO< waaaay too much blame for a strike that began the day he was sworn in. He essentially (after Beame submitted the city's books) inherited the TWU's gripes by default--literally and figuratively. |
|
|
| (1285545) | |
Re: 1966 Transit Strike |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Apr 13 16:35:55 2014, in response to Re: 1966 Transit Strike, posted by Randyo on Sun Apr 13 14:28:51 2014. The Taylor Law removed any discretionary penalties and replaced it with a mandatory 2 days pay lost, for each strike day. Mike Quill never saw the new Taylor Law- he died the day after the 1966 strike was settled. |
|
|
| (1285549) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 13 16:41:33 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Apr 13 16:27:23 2014. One of the reasons why I preferred to cover city politics over national politics is that back in the 60's and 70's, Washington was DULL. DAMNED dull. But in NYC, intrigue was afoot everywhere from Gracie Mansion to the Department of Sanitation. Turn any rock anywhere and enough things came crawling out that Breslin never had to leave his stool at the Blarney Stone. :)Where Mike was at though is that when NYCTA took on the debt for all those new subway cars way back when, everybody knew it'd drive the city broke. Supposedly that was Rockefeller's plan. Everybody knew that the MCTA would eventually end up with the subways and Mike looked to the deals that UTU had with the LIRR and said, "me WANT that." Yes, Wagner didn't give a shit and gladly whistled past the graveyard, but Mike saw what was coming and wanted to do everything he could to nail down a deal before the takeover happened. Got that story from the old heads when I was there in 1970 as to what the strike was REALLY about. Mike saw "Lindsley" as Rockefeller's proxy and when Lindsay was in congress, Mike came to him several times and got shown the door. So the animus was already there on day one. |
|
|
| (1285556) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 13 16:50:57 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Nilet on Sun Apr 13 15:54:16 2014. Not necessarily. It's up to the dispatcher @ 168. By 42/8 they would definitely back in service. |
|
|
| (1285560) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Apr 13 17:13:34 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 13 16:50:57 2014. It may be up to the dispatcher to make the call, but I rode one southbound so I know it was in service. |
|
|
| (1285563) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Apr 13 17:30:02 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 13 16:41:33 2014. You are absolutely correct about the huge cost of the fleet modernization that took place in the Fifties and Sixties. The two major subway construction projects (Chrystie and the Rockaway Extension) didn't help. BUT, also remember that the MCTA had, by the time of the strike, already ordered the Metropolitan and Cosmopolitan MUs for the LIRR and NYC/NH lines it took over, so they weren't exactly flush with cash, either.Pay parity with those commuter lines for NYCTA crews, therefore, wasn't likely to happen, IMHO, no matter how much Quill lobbied for it. Lindsay, it is true, erred badly in rebuffing Quill, something he had to pay dearly for later. But even if Rocky had publicly intervened and pointed out that the subways would soon be jointly operated, it still wouldn't have changed history. The TWU, in choosing the coldest month of the year, with a new mayor just coming into office, got the public quickly on their side, financial realities notwithstanding. They got the better of the outcome, even though the takeover occurred in due course. Lindsay never knew what hit him. :) |
|
|
| (1285570) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 13 17:57:54 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Nilet on Sun Apr 13 17:13:34 2014. I have come across many more trains coming up there because I worked that terminal for many years. I'm telling you most go back lite to 42/8. I am not saying once in a while one does go back in service s/b, especially when he has a delay in C service. |
|
|
| (1285574) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 13 18:07:02 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Apr 13 17:30:02 2014. The whole MCTA and later MTA thing though took the city out of the picture for the enormous cost of all that bonding. Rockefeller was a real smart guy and was the real puppeteer behind the whole deal with lessons learned from the consolidation of Penn Central Corp. All of that bonding and backing went to his brother David and Chase Manhattan through a cute little "leaseback" arrangement.In fact, the cars originally carried plates that indicated that they were actually owned by Chase Manhattan and sub-investors. Taking the MTA was a natural because rolling stock doesn't serve well as assets but real estate DOES. That was the PennCentral lesson. By creating a STATE agency with bonding authority, the cash flows were guaranteed even if the city went under. And it DID shortly thereafter. Holes in the ground aren't worth all that much, but the land under railroads WERE. I giggle when I hear folks thinking the creation of the MTA was to take politics out of the subways. LOL! No, it was to assign the assets to the banksters and Rockefeller's brother did VERY well for himself. Mike Quill saw this all too. |
|
|
| (1285576) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Apr 13 18:13:15 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 12 17:19:08 2014. "What the hell is that D train doing here?":) |
|
|
| (1285579) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 13 18:20:08 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Apr 13 18:13:15 2014. Nah ... they KNEW what happened, all they wanted was that POS off THEIR railroad. Now. :) |
|
|
| (1285589) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Apr 13 18:36:54 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 13 18:07:02 2014. I always wondered about the financial shell game that went on between the MCTA and Budd/GE. I clearly remember seeing plates in the '70s, on the M-1s that read, "Port Authority Of New York and New Jersey--Owner and Lessor". If Chase and the other investors originally owned the cars, how did PANYNJ end up with them? Somebody, somewhere, made a bundle off THAT deal, however it happened.Interestingly, the strange game continues, with real estate developers snapping up the air rights to the High Line Park, which, of course, was sold to Peter Obletz, a railfan, for $10 in 1984, but it reverted back to Conrail five years later. Eventually, CSX inherited the High Line, and the STB ruled the structure could be repurposed in 2005. The real-estate barons have been in a feeding frenzy ever since, driving up property values (and rents) all the while. The banks are in it, the city is in it, and poor Obletz is crying himself to seep every night, wishing he'd done something with the property. The parallels to the MCTA business are, Chase is one of the big sponsors of the High Line, and, in fact, is financing a LOT of the area's redevelopment. I'll bet those banksters even knew about the (7) line Javits extension before anybody else...the (&) line, when the extension opens, will directly abut the extension of the High Line. How's THAT for being slick? |
|
|
| (1285596) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 13 18:50:34 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Apr 13 18:36:54 2014. It was a tax gimmick that Nixon insisted on having for the banks. The vendors wanted to get paid and government didn't have it. So the banks bought the stuff and RENTED it to PANYNJ, MTA and many others over long term leases. Goes back to what constitutes an ASSET. Stuff that can crash and wear out didn't cut it for the banks and so they front-loaded the terms. Renters had to pay it off LONG before the writeoffs and deductions for the banks expired and so that money was QUITE the windfall for the banksters.And as to the rest, politicians know that they'd better do what they're lobbied for or they might end up like Lindsay. |
|
|
| (1285602) | |
Re: 1966 Transit Strike |
|
|
Posted by Hart Bus on Sun Apr 13 19:44:06 2014, in response to Re: 1966 Transit Strike, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Apr 13 16:35:55 2014. Close but no cigar! According to Wikipedia, Quill was jailed for contempt during the strike where he suffered a heart attack, but died 3 days, not one day after the strike.That strike brought about the Taylor law with no discretion to impose penalties on striking workers. |
|
|
| (1285608) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Apr 13 20:34:27 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 13 18:50:34 2014. So if I'm understanding the scheme correctly, the banks bought the subway cars and MUs for the MTA, and recovered the money they paid Budd, GE, St. Louis Car, and Pullman, by leasing all the rolling stock to the PA, which then sublet them back to the MTA...oh, my, I see how those banksters got so fat upon their carcasses......and to think Big Al once got millions for just one phone call on behalf of Bombardier...SMH! |
|
|
| (1285612) | |
Re: 1966 Transit Strike |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Apr 13 20:37:59 2014, in response to Re: 1966 Transit Strike, posted by Hart Bus on Sun Apr 13 19:44:06 2014. We are both wrong! The strike ended on Jan 13th, 1966. Quill died on Jan 28th. |
|
|
| (1285613) | |
Re: 1966 Transit Strike |
|
|
Posted by bklynsubwaybob on Sun Apr 13 20:39:40 2014, in response to Re: 1966 Transit Strike, posted by Hart Bus on Sun Apr 13 19:44:06 2014. Didn't the Taylor law come about during the 1980 strike. I remember getting sandbagged for 22 days pay for the 11 day strike? |
|
|
| (1285618) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 13 20:56:44 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Apr 13 20:34:27 2014. By Jove, I think you've got it! NOW you know why MTA had to happen to NYCTA. They couldn't afford those shiny new cars to begin with. The ones getting cut up now. And they got to issue TAX FREE BONDS and then ate those profits with additional tax deductions for doing it in the first place. And the first time the MTA failed to MEET the payments, they got to repossess real estate. Talk about sword of Damocles.Meanwhile, the fares went up and up to ensure those profits for "debt service" in addition to the rentals. Poor Mike ... he only wanted a small piece of that action ... for his own. :( |
|
|
| (1285621) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Apr 13 21:02:02 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 13 20:56:44 2014. As usual, Mike and the ordinary working stiff got shafted. Sad but not surprising. |
|
|
| (1285623) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 13 21:14:42 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Apr 13 21:02:02 2014. Gravy train on track two, that's a layup ... layup. :( |
|
|
| (1285625) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 13 21:16:54 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Apr 13 20:34:27 2014. BTW: The banks also charged fees for each and every paper shuffle along the way, and they were pretty impressive. |
|
|
| (1285630) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 13 21:54:44 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 13 17:57:54 2014. Hey Bill, What do you know anyway? You only worked there. I'm sure train buffs know way more than a person like you who lived it on a daily basis. |
|
|
| (1285633) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 13 22:04:55 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Apr 13 20:34:27 2014. You almost got it right. It's sort of like when you want to buy a car or a house or a new pair of pants and you don't have the cash. So the bank loans you the money. In this case a number of cars were purchased like that. Like most lease equipment, the owners were allowed to take a certain amount for depreciation - a legal benefit. Of course the alternative would have been new cars would not have been purchased. In addition, the cars for the NYCT were manufactured in NY State so jobs were created. I do recall that there were a relatively small number of R-62s and about 30 or 40 R-68s that were purchased under this program. I don't know how you feel workers got shafted or you figured that "Al" had any personal gain due to the deal. So far only you and selschmattah see corruption there. |
|
|
| (1285634) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Apr 13 22:05:56 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 13 21:54:44 2014. It doesn't take more than 1 ride to know that the train one rode existed. |
|
|
| (1285635) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 13 22:09:23 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Nilet on Sun Apr 13 22:05:56 2014. What was the date and interval? |
|
|
| (1285636) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 13 22:09:38 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 13 22:04:55 2014. And the 38's, 40's, 42's, 44's and 46's were built in NYS? I had no idea St Louis Crap set up operations here. Where were they again?Damn ... wrong again ... why are you always wrong? C'mon, man ... Dan Lawrence is laughing at you. |
|
|
| (1285638) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 13 22:16:20 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 13 22:09:38 2014. And every one of those cars was OWNED by the NYCT. The first Leased cars in the NYCT fleet were in the R-62 and R-68 fleet (except for 2 R-42s which were owned by the Feds). Why are you such a schmuck? Stick to things you know about like sabotaged brake valves. |
|
|
| (1285639) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Apr 13 22:25:02 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 13 22:09:23 2014. I don't remember the specific day, but it must have been before 2006 because I wasn't taking photos yet. |
|
|
| (1285640) | |
The Story (Re: A VERY Lost A Train!) |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Sun Apr 13 22:27:56 2014, in response to A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by R36 #9346 on Fri Apr 11 16:59:04 2014. On my way home Thursday afternoon, I boarded a train at Grand Avenue. The first two cars were signed as an R to Whitehall Street. I boarded the third car, and soon spotted the sign showing A to Far Rockaway. Interestingly, the other sign in the car was showing R to Whitehall. When the train got to Roosevelt, I took the picture.So I'm guessing it's a communication issue with that particular unit. |
|
|
| (1285641) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 13 22:35:19 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Nilet on Sun Apr 13 22:25:02 2014. As RandyO speculated, In your particular instance, the railroad may have been so jacked up that they needed a "foreign" train to make an interval. Then any available train is used. BUT the usual scenario (for example) would be a blockage on the uptown A line so trains would either be turned south or sent out to Queens. Since the Queens service was not blocked, those trains would be sent light back to their home line. In the instance you related it would also depend on why the "E" was sent to 168th St. but it would be very rare that it would be used for southbound service. Not never but very rare. |
|
|
| (1285642) | |
Re: The Story (Re: A VERY Lost A Train!) |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 13 22:37:27 2014, in response to The Story (Re: A VERY Lost A Train!), posted by R36 #9346 on Sun Apr 13 22:27:56 2014. Which is what I suggested as the most likely cause in the first place. The SCU in that particular pair was not taking commands from the head SCU so the signs in that pair never switched over to an "R Line" message. |
|
|
| (1285643) | |
Re: A VERY Lost A Train! |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 13 22:40:37 2014, in response to Re: A VERY Lost A Train!, posted by Nilet on Sun Apr 13 22:05:56 2014. The way you were telling it, based on your experience most returned to service after the relay. All I'm saying is that I spent a lot more time up there and your 1 time experience was not the norm.I can't believe this discussion is still going on! |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
