|
|
| Re: AirTrain and underserved areas (313363) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 9 |
||
|
| (315140) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 22:49:35 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 22:44:10 2006. 1. Add stops between Jamaica and the Airport2. Make the fare at these stops equal to the fare in the rest of the subway system. Optional 3. connect either the E or J to this line. |
|
|
| (315143) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 22:50:52 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 22:49:35 2006. The E and J are already connected to the line.You haven't answered my previous question: Which subway stations serve the cargo warehouses and freight forwarders on Springfield Blvd? |
|
|
| (315152) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 22:55:04 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 22:50:52 2006. The E and J are already connected to the line.No, they aren't. I'm not talking about a transfer. I'm talking about a physical track connection. I've used Jamaica far more than you. I think I know what's there. You haven't answered my previous question: That's because it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (315159) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 22:59:50 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 22:49:35 2006. Agreed..The FARE SHOULD be equal to the subway/bus fare.. It should support interboro travel.such as a rider traveling to/from Jamaica from/to Howard Beach for the regular price of a metro card one way fare. Stops along the EL above the Van Wyck were FOUGHT..by the NIMBYS..who did want the line at all...EVEN THOUGH IT WAS OVER THE HIGHWAY. So basically,they put their foot in their own mouths and got nothing. So they not only have to ride the bus to the train..but NOW they screwed themselves out of any help whatso ever. Even the proposed Rockaway reactivation has met up with harshest resistance.. Goes to show you..no matter how the TA WANTS to help..there are people out there that ONLY THINK ABOUT THEMSELVES. |
|
|
| (315160) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:01:57 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 22:55:04 2006. "I've used Jamaica far more than you."No, you haven't. When I'm in town I use the J regularly. I've also walked a good portion of Jamaica and Archer avenues. You have very little knowledge of what transit demands at the airport are, nor wha kind of transit most passengers are looking for. You even claimed in your reply to me that there is already rail in areas that I pointed to (the cargo and freight businesses) when in fact, no such subway service exists there - but it should, because that'ss the fastest growing business at Kennedy and Kennedy is one of the top 3 international cargo airports in the US. Another poster was smart enough to notice that you can connect areas of high unemployment, people who need jobs, to these businesses by extending the #3 IRT line toward the airport. That would generate a lot of ridership. Of course, that wouldn't occur to you because you're too busy babbling on about AirTrain... |
|
|
| (315164) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:04:04 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 22:59:50 2006. Exactly! |
|
|
| (315167) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:09:46 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 22:59:50 2006. I'm not disagreeing with that. But the MTA needs to tell them to shove it, and just build the thing! |
|
|
| (315168) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:10:41 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:09:46 2006. MTA can't always do that. MTA answers to elected officials and they hear from YOU. |
|
|
| (315171) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:12:44 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:01:57 2006. No, you haven't. When I'm in town I use the J regularly. I've also walked a good portion of Jamaica and Archer avenues.Ah, but you haven't considered how often I use those stations. You have very little knowledge of what transit demands at the airport are, nor wha kind of transit most passengers are looking for. Really? Thanks for the evaluation. I'll keep that in mind. You even claimed in your reply to me that there is already rail in areas that I pointed to (the cargo and freight businesses) when in fact, no such subway service exists there - but it should, because that'ss the fastest growing business at Kennedy and Kennedy is one of the top 3 international cargo airports in the US. Where'd I say that? Another poster was smart enough to notice that you can connect areas of high unemployment, people who need jobs, to these businesses by extending the #3 IRT line toward the airport. That would generate a lot of ridership. Of course, that wouldn't occur to you because you're too busy babbling on about AirTrain... LOL. Yes, connecting that area would automatically give those people the jobs there. You're a genius! |
|
|
| (315172) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 23:14:34 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:10:41 2006. Thats the KEY!Fight fire WITH FIRE. Do EXACTLY what the NIMBYS do..fight for want YOU WANT. |
|
|
| (315173) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:15:33 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 23:14:34 2006. JTrain can't do that. He'll whine here but will also be the fiurst to tell you it's a waste of time to talk to MTA. Face it, he's a wimp at heart. |
|
|
| (315176) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 23:17:50 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:12:44 2006. City Line/Spring Creek is remote as it can get..and need to be connected.The planned subway extention there via the L line was wiped clean after the Expressway went bust... Even the replacement line via the New Lots route was deferred... Now is the prime oppertunity to push for SOME THING to be done. Just like UTICA AVENUE..[without the BRT version] |
|
|
| (315181) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:19:26 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:15:33 2006. And you suffer from extreme ignorance, but we tolerate you.Writing to the MTA would do nothing. Even many of your 'ideas' were basic things that were likely in the works already. Spare me your useless drivel. |
|
|
| (315182) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:20:21 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 23:17:50 2006. That's something worth building! |
|
|
| (315184) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:21:07 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 23:17:50 2006. If it were up to me, we'd be building many lines in the outer boroughs, especially Queens and Brooklyn (and maybe a line to Staten Island). |
|
|
| (315189) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:23:40 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:19:26 2006. "Even many of your 'ideas' were basic things that were likely in the works already"That's not what my MTA correspondence says. But you woulddn't know because you refuse to participate in this process. So if your neighborhood never gets any further subway service, it is YOUR fault personally. Not MTA. Yours. |
|
|
| (315193) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:25:35 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:21:07 2006. But MTA will have trouble figuring out what you want and so will your elected officials because you think they should use ESP to read your mind. You're too wimpy to open your mouth except on Subchat. |
|
|
| (315195) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 23:26:12 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:23:40 2006. I hope that doesn't happen..cause he uses the same train I do. |
|
|
| (315196) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:26:26 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:23:40 2006. My neighborhood isn't getting more subway service because it makes no sense to get it. It would be selfish for me to clamor for it.Incidentally, before I was born, they removed existing service to my neighborhood. Care to explain that one? |
|
|
| (315199) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:27:55 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 23:26:12 2006. So in other words, he doesn't even care that other people in his neighborhood want more service. |
|
|
| (315200) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:28:31 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:25:35 2006. No, I open my mouth when I need to. Ron, where I live subway service is as good as I can reasonably expect. If other ignoramouses want to fight lines in their area, I'm not going to stop them. |
|
|
| (315202) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 23:29:28 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:26:26 2006. You can direct that to some stupid dead politicians...and a few live ones.The tore the Myrtle down as part of the "MODEL CITIES program" that never took off. |
|
|
| (315203) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:29:34 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:27:55 2006. Other people can't reasonably expect better service on the line in question. |
|
|
| (315204) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:29:54 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 23:29:28 2006. Eliminating the Myrtle El was a mistake. |
|
|
| (315205) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:30:33 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:29:34 2006. At least one person has already disagreed with you. He seems to be better in touch with it than you are. |
|
|
| (315208) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:31:41 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:29:54 2006. NO! THEY NEVER MAKE MISTAKES!!!!! NEVER!!!!! |
|
|
| (315209) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:32:03 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:30:33 2006. No, he really hasn't. |
|
|
| (315210) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:32:28 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:31:41 2006. When you're in charge, of course. You forgot yo add that to your sentence. |
|
|
| (315212) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:33:40 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:32:28 2006. Wrong. I didn't forget that.Go to bed. Senility is wreaking havoc on your brain. |
|
|
| (315214) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 23:38:56 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:30:33 2006. I pushed for improvements to my home station[water leaks...the sewer smell..emergencey gates ..better lighting..24 hour METROCARD entrance and a police officer plainclothing/uniform..]and got it.One problem that still needs to be addressed is the terminal at Smith 9th st.. Doesn't make sense if the train turns around at 4th avenue WEEKDAYS...and weekends, reverses at Church avenue...without picking up riders. RUN the train to Church Avenue at all times so it can serve Park Slope...and the 4th Avenue subway. |
|
|
| (315215) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:41:03 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 23:38:56 2006. [water leaks...the sewer smell..emergencey gates ..better lighting..24 hour METROCARD entrance and a police officer plainclothing/uniform..]Hmm. Water leaks? Sewer Smell? I'm guessing either Broadway or Flushing. |
|
|
| (315216) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 23:41:23 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:29:34 2006. I can expect better rush hour service...Miday service is so so at best.Give me 10 trains an hour[I know it only one more,but one more will work wonders]. |
|
|
| (315220) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:46:03 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 23:41:23 2006. The G doesn't Run 9tph. It runs 7-8 during the rush, but no better than that.I'd like better rush hour serivce, but outside of maybe 2 or 3 trains the G doesn't reach optimal load. What I would like more than that would be if they stopped splitting the line at Bedford (because they can't seem to schedule the shuttle to meet the G train) and stopped single tracking it as early as 10pm. |
|
|
| (315221) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:46:51 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 23:38:56 2006. Good for you! |
|
|
| (315224) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 23:57:21 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:29:54 2006. It was much more than a mistake...It was a blunder of colossal proportions. The MTA was in a mood at the time to tear down lines that it figured it could do without or figured it would cost too much cash to fix.. They didn't take into account that the line could be repaired for half of what they assumed it would cost..not to mention that they could have attached the line to the 1968 PLAN FOR ACTION program, rebuilt it..and connected it to the Flatbush avenue BMT subway via a short tunnel portal in Fort Green. They were more concerned about getting rid of responsiblity..than the concerns of the neighborhoods the line passed thur. Even if planned nab development panned out..the walk to the Laffayette ave IND would have been out of the way[just like it is to this very day]...including the long gap between Myrtle avenue/Broadway and Myrtle/Marcy... The replacement B54 sucked worse than anything..till this very day.. The bus runs every 10 minutes..when it does..and thats hard pressing it at best... Sometimes a bus wont come for 20-30 minutes! But this is what the MTA did for North Brooklyn...gradually reducing our service to what it is today. |
|
|
| (315225) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 00:01:21 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:46:03 2006. It SEEMS like 7-8 trains..but it IS 9 TPH.Believe me. The problem is the pocket at Court Square...and at Smith 9th st. Take a trip over there[either one] and you'll see how lousy dispatching is done. |
|
|
| (315227) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 00:03:36 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 23:57:21 2006. Agreed. |
|
|
| (315232) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 00:09:42 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 23:32:03 2006. Yes, he has. |
|
|
| (315259) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Sep 25 00:41:04 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 17:19:34 2006. Sometimes for some reason the train passes over a signal and the Circut dont work and the signal remains clear and dont go to danger.This is one of the problems they was having when they was testing the techs out on the White Plains Line. |
|
|
| (315287) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Sep 25 08:30:24 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 22:21:53 2006. If CBTC works1. It doesn't take into account the operator's ability. You're confusing ATO with CBTC. It's possible to have ATO without CBTC. One example was the 42nd St Shuttle back in the 1960's. 2. As soon as the train in the station begins to move, the one behind can do the same. CBTC cannot permit a follower to proceed until it can detect the leader's movements to a degree greater than its systemic accuracy. One factor is communications delay. The CBTC system permits a 2 second delay to/from each train. Thus, CBTC must factor in a worst case 4 second delay to the follower. 4 seconds at 40 mph translates into a 240 feet. This 240 foot distance, plus a safety margin for the brakes, is the minimum gap between leader and follower before the follower will start moving. N.B. I have not even considered errors in determining a train's position. Consider the present block system. The uncertainty for the leader's location is the block length. Block lengths at a station's entrance and in the station are fairly short - on the order of 200 feet or less. As the leader in the station starts moving, it clears the blocks leading into the station. The follower can start moving, as soon as the leader has moved 400 feet. Check the action of the station approach signals as trains leave stations to verify this. I have. Net difference between CBTC and the current block system is negligible. sometimes, trains catch up to their leader...If keying by were not only allowed, but encouraged, I rode the Flushing train and Queens Blvd express, when they ran 36 and 34 tph, respectively. They did not key by. How do I know? They did not encounter red signals - not even yellow signals. They encountered green signals (for a split second). More research is needed to determine why a follower catches up to its leader. There are two possibilities: the leader is going to slow or the follower is going too fast, relative to the schedule. Schedule padding makes the former possibility very unlikely. The cure for the latter possibility is not to try to make the follower even earlier by keying by. What is needed is train supervision. CBTC is not required for train supervision. Moscow uses a simple clock at each station and operates at 43 tph. Paris uses a slightly more complicated clock at each station and operates at 36 tph. New York has virtually no train supervision and operates at 25 tph. |
|
|
| (315303) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 10:20:08 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Sep 25 08:30:24 2006. Your whole argument rests on the following:"The CBTC system permits a 2 second delay to/from each train." Source? If this figure is not accurate (ie if the TA's CBTC system's communications delay is only 1 second, then your whole argument falls apart. Also, from a standing start, 4 seconds does not translate into 240 feet. It only does so "at speed." CBTC allowes much shorter interval spaces in the context of starting and stopping trains at stations, which is where a lot of the savings occurs. |
|
|
| (315306) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by TheCanarsieConnection on Mon Sep 25 10:26:16 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Sep 25 08:30:24 2006. It would be nice if CBTC allowed the train to pull into the station at a normal clip, but when the L Train pulls into E.105 St it slows to a crawl even before itbgets to the station and then after it is lined up the conductor still waits about 35-40 secs before opening the doors. I think that is just ridiculous and what I meant by the old way is that in the "golden age" of the subways (over 50 yrs ago) the trains operated at impressive headways with a hell of a lot more passengers than they have now. My two uncles were both motormen at that time one on the 16(Canarsie Line) and the other on the 1(Brighton Express). What's the excuse for the pitiful transit operations of today? automated announcements and clean cars mean shit to me, I don't care if the train is ratty and shakes like crazy as long as it get's me where I want to go! |
|
|
| (315308) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 10:37:39 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by TheCanarsieConnection on Mon Sep 25 10:26:16 2006. It's called:1)Improved safety: The trains of yesteryear injured passengers a lot more frequently than they do today. 2) Liability: More lawsuits today than there were 50 years ago. "I don't care if the train is ratty and shakes like crazy as long as it get's me where I want to go!" You also don't care much if people get hurt riding the trains. I'm not sure you have any clue of what it's like to suffer a disabling injury that has repercussions for your life, career and family for the years ahead. That's why railbuffs don't hold much sway at the TA - nor should they. The TA perceives that they care about trains but can't relate to people. A lot of times the TA is right. As far as current CBTC goes, it's still in its "shake-out" test period, and you'll see performance get better as the implementation continues. |
|
|
| (315310) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Mon Sep 25 10:56:49 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 10:37:39 2006. "I don't care if the train is ratty and shakes like crazy as long as it get's me where I want to go!"I know way too many people who are not railbuffs who think that way, both about the trains and buses. It is not a railbuff thing, so don't even try to pass it off as such. |
|
|
| (315312) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by TheCanarsieConnection on Mon Sep 25 11:18:56 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by mambomta on Mon Sep 25 10:56:49 2006. Ohhh...sounds like you're an MTA big wig or some idiot with an undeserved title Mr.Bayside. So defensive of an agency that can't get anything done and hires morons to do it for them. Attack and criticize me all you want, been injured by the closing doors?!?! Or maybe the gap in the platform? I have been injured countless times and it has only made my love for the trains and this screwed up system stronger, if you're so worried about injuries in the system tell those moron contracting firms you hire to learn how to put their equipment away when noton the job etc... By the way nothing gives me more pleasure then watching a yuppie get stuck in between the doors of an old train. Rail Fans Unite!!! |
|
|
| (315315) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Sep 25 11:21:48 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by TheCanarsieConnection on Mon Sep 25 10:26:16 2006. It would be nice if CBTC allowed the train to pull into the station at a normal clip, but when the L Train pulls into E.105 St it slows to a crawl even before itbgets to the station and then after it is lined up the conductor still waits about 35-40 secs before opening the doors.I assume that you are describing the ATO aspect of the Canarsie project. As I mentioned earlier, ATO does not require CBTC. They can operate without ATO on the Canarsie Line by going back to full manual control. Braking rates should return to the pre-CBTC days. However, somebody at the MTA will have to explain ATO's failure. The Canarsie CBTC needed the potential cost savings from ATO to justify its high expense. The TA has a lot of experience in brushing new technology failures under the rug. Remember the regenerative braking on the R142's that was supposed to yield a 25% savings in electricity? Has anything been heard about those refrigerators near Broad Channel lateley? |
|
|
| (315323) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 11:44:11 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by mambomta on Mon Sep 25 10:56:49 2006. "I know way too many people who are not railbuffs who think that way, both about the trains and buses. "And those people aren't any less thoughtless than the railbuffs. With the railbuffs, of course, the effect is magnified. |
|
|
| (315335) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Mon Sep 25 12:21:24 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 11:44:11 2006. And those people aren't any less thoughtless than the railbuffs.Than the railbuffs that think that way, which is few. With the railbuffs, of course, the effect is magnified. Reality says otherwise. Only bigotted minds such as yours thinks so. |
|
|
| (315339) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 12:43:51 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by mambomta on Mon Sep 25 12:21:24 2006. "Reality says otherwise"Railbuff "reality," which is the only reality you are referring to = fantasy. |
|
|
| (315341) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Mon Sep 25 12:48:34 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 12:43:51 2006. "Reality says otherwise"Railbuff "reality," which is the only reality you are referring to = fantasy. No. You ware the one living in a fantasy world which you so desperately cling to in order to make yourself fell superior. |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 9 |
||
