The mysterious #6400 and #6000 swap

[BusHunter]

Seen a few new additions to Forest Glen this weekend. #6193 was on the #77 and #6197 was on the #152 on Friday. Also on Sunday, I seen #6725 and #6731 back to back on the #152. Also 74th has gotton more #60?? buses. #6038 I was told was on the #9 ( second hand info don't know if it's really true). Now, why would CTA take Nova buses from Archer which was completely swapped already with Chicago? Also, why would Fg get more #6000's? It has been reported here that they would become all Nova buses there right. Very mysterious!!

[Guest]

Seen a few new additions to Forest Glen this weekend. #6193 was on the #77 and #6197 was on the #152 on Friday. Also on Sunday, I seen #6725 and #6731 back to back on the #152. Also 74th has gotton more #60?? buses. #6038 I was told was on the #9 ( second hand info don't know if it's really true). Now, why would CTA take Nova buses from Archer which was completely swapped already with Chicago? Also, why would Fg get more #6000's? It has been reported here that they would become all Nova buses there right. Very mysterious!!

Spotted #6185 this morning heading north on Central to the garage. And also this morning Nova #6727 operating on Central with its sign stuck flashing "47 47th"

[RJL6000]

Seen a few new additions to Forest Glen this weekend. #6193 was on the #77 and #6197 was on the #152 on Friday. Also on Sunday, I seen #6725 and #6731 back to back on the #152. Also 74th has gotton more #60?? buses. #6038 I was told was on the #9 ( second hand info don't know if it's really true). Now, why would CTA take Nova buses from Archer which was completely swapped already with Chicago? Also, why would Fg get more #6000's? It has been reported here that they would become all Nova buses there right. Very mysterious!!

Further tweaking on the numerical order is the reason. Archer will be getting some of the 6500s which were at FG just a few weeks ago. In return, the amber LED sign-equipped 6700s which are currently at Archer will go to FG. All this will take place over the next few weeks. And the Nova moves will ultimately be grouped by destination sign type: Archer will get the LED flip-dot Novas, while FG will get all of the amber LED-equipped ones.

[jajuan]

Further tweaking on the numerical order is the reason. Archer will be getting some of the 6500s which were at FG just a few weeks ago. In return, the amber LED sign-equipped 6700s which are currently at Archer will go to FG. All this will take place over the next few weeks. And the Nova moves will ultimately be grouped by destination sign type: Archer will get the LED flip-dot Novas, while FG will get all of the amber LED-equipped ones.

So basically more wasteful moving of buses that some of us in previous posts thought wouldn't happen because it was felt the numerical sequence was not as important a reason to move a bus as long as the buses were the same model with maintenance costs savings (still not a convincing reason in my opinion) being the reason given for the original transfers.

[trainman8119]

Further tweaking on the numerical order is the reason. Archer will be getting some of the 6500s which were at FG just a few weeks ago. In return, the amber LED sign-equipped 6700s which are currently at Archer will go to FG. All this will take place over the next few weeks. And the Nova moves will ultimately be grouped by destination sign type: Archer will get the LED flip-dot Novas, while FG will get all of the amber LED-equipped ones.

I will agree with jajuan's post above. That said, the statement by RJL is further proof that the CTA has no plan and will make haphazard moves just for the sake of moving things. Is there someone's cousin in maintenance that needs to make overtime money to be constantly moving buses around ??? This lack of planning is simply ridiculous. Move the stuff if you want, but, boy, don't be crying about lack of money and how wonderful it is that Huberman has been cutting payroll and the such. Maybe he should be made aware of this garbage. Funny, I though he was suppose to be on top of all of this...someone is getting one over on him.

[Busjack]

I agree with the two above. I had the prior discussion on not being bothered by spending that improved efficiency, but this doesn't seem to fall in that category. The C to A to F moves, combined with the 6000s from K to 1 to 6 don't seem to show much planning. If the justification is the maintenance load of the two types of signs, that doesn't seem to be a large one, and CTA could do what it did with the 6000s--install LED ones if the flip dot ones were really a problem.

[BusHunter]

Further tweaking on the numerical order is the reason. Archer will be getting some of the 6500s which were at FG just a few weeks ago. In return, the amber LED sign-equipped 6700s which are currently at Archer will go to FG. All this will take place over the next few weeks. And the Nova moves will ultimately be grouped by destination sign type: Archer will get the LED flip-dot Novas, while FG will get all of the amber LED-equipped ones.

Your Nova explaination makes sense, but that would mean basically all the Novas that were transferred from C to A will now get transfered to F. F needs about 115 Novas to become all 40 foot Novas, if you don't count #6516 - #6505. Also I would assume that's the case (numerical sequence) with the #6000's too. #6100 in it's newly rehabbed condition was on the #152 yesterday along with 5750's #6185 that he saw. Somewhat interesting to me, #6100 had a 103rd sticker on the windshield, being just out of rehab I don't think this bus was ever at 74th. Some buses are getting bounced around so fast that if they are in the shop when they get out they'll be on their 3rd garage, missing their 2nd. Back to the main topic, it looks as if someone high up in command does believe in numerical sequence. #6000, #6200 and #6300 buses at 74th. #6100's at Fg for now, should end up at 77th, but nothing is concrete right. You know if the 77th transfer does happen that buses like #6101 would've been at 4 different garages (1 to 74 to f to 77th?) in a two month span. I guess they are on a citywide tour huh!

[RJL6000]

I spoke a bit too soon in my previous post.

Early this afternoon I rode on #6741 northbound on the #X49. This is evidence that there are still a few kinks to be worked out.

[wordguy]

I'm wondering how the route realignments will affect the distribution of the 6000s and 6400s. It's probably safe to assume, based on the posted changes, that 77th will lose a few buses and that 74th will gain some.

So, I'm speculating that there'll be an equipment shuffle among four garages involving these two series:

-High 6400s and whatever low 6500s remaining at 77th to Archer.

-Additional 6700s from Archer to FG.

-6055-6069 from FG to 74th.

However, if 74th needs more than 15 additional buses, then some of the 6100s just recently reassigned to FG, will probably once again return to 74th.

Then again, considering the high volume of bus reassignments that will be taking place over a weekend, will numerical consistency really be a priority?

Then again, the 20 for 20 swap of 6000s between 74th and FG that happened just a couple weeks ago seemed to signify a need FOR numerical consistency! (6035-6054 were traded for 6100-6102 and 6183-6199. giving FG the entire subseries of 6100s)

Puzzling!

[wordguy]

Further tweaking on the numerical order is the reason. Archer will be getting some of the 6500s which were at FG just a few weeks ago. In return, the amber LED sign-equipped 6700s which are currently at Archer will go to FG. All this will take place over the next few weeks. And the Nova moves will ultimately be grouped by destination sign type: Archer will get the LED flip-dot Novas, while FG will get all of the amber LED-equipped ones.

===If the series consolidation is carried out as planned, then FG would end up with a sizable fleet of flip-dot Novas, spanning the mid-6600s through 6708.

[trainman8119]

And the Nova moves will ultimately be grouped by destination sign type: Archer will get the LED flip-dot Novas, while FG will get all of the amber LED-equipped ones.

Isn't this a bit of irony. Aside from the ADA requirements, isn't it funny that the CTA has electronic destination signs which is suppose to make it easier to move a bus from one garage to another and take out the old hassle of changing out the curtain signs. So, what do we have....buses being moved because of their destination signs. How silly. Bring back the curtains !!!!!

[wordguy]

Isn't this a bit of irony. Aside from the ADA requirements, isn't it funny that the CTA has electronic destination signs which is suppose to make it easier to move a bus from one garage to another and take out the old hassle of changing out the curtain signs. So, what do we have....buses being moved because of their destination signs. How silly. Bring back the curtains !!!!!

===Frankly, I doubt that the difference in electronic sign types is really a factor. As I stated in an earlier post, Forest Glen will inevitably have Novas with both types, if the CTA follows through with the series consolidation (a plan which I believe is short-sighted for a number of reasons).

[See Tea Eh]

Face it, guys. There are dozens of factors that go into bus assignments that you don't know about. Just like the garage and route realignment had to take into consideration many factors beyond the simple distance from the garage to the relief point, which some of you used as the only judge on whether or not a route move was good or not.

For example, is there special equipment, such as automatic passenger counters (which are not on all buses in the fleet, yet), which need to be distributed between garages in a more equitable manner? It's a hell of a lot cheaper to trade bus 6500 for bus 6600 rather than to take the equipment out of bus 6500 and put it into bus 6600 (or vice versa). Are there other reasons, such as perhaps average mileage of some buses vs. others, due, in part, to the type of work that one garage operates vs. another? Balancing miles out between different buses is a lot easier just by swapping a couple of buses around. Or would you rather have the #64 run out of 77th garage, and have Forest Glen run the #2, just to keep the miles balanced on the buses?

Trainman's statement that RJL's post is "proof" that there is no plan for the bus moves is laughable. It is simply "proof" that you all really have no clue about many of the dozens of factors that actually go into the overall fleet allocation decisions, and have been reduced to guessing, and using other people's guesses as "proof" of your own preconceived notions of what is going on.

Having lurked on this forum for a while, it is obvious to me that some of you just have a chip on your shoulder, and don't let a post go by without letting that interfere with your thought process. I follow other transit systems as a hobby, visit internet forums, speak with actual employees, and the like. In general, fleet swaps like this happen all the time, all over the place. I guess all those other transit systems are just wasting money then too, eh? After all, I'm sure they could have saved .00001% of their budget by not spending the fuel on moving buses between different garages. CTA probably wastes more than that on a daily basis just by letting their engines idle at layovers instead of shutting them off.

For those of you that really think you can do better, how many of you have actually applied to work for CTA? A quick check of the CTA website shows 55 jobs that have openings right now. They aren't just bus and rail operators either. If you see a job where you feel you're qualified, then apply. The home page also shows that they are looking for "Mystery Shoppers." Maybe, rather than ranting about this or that on an internet message board, you can use your daily riding experience to tell CTA what you want to see changed.

But just sitting around whining about CTA moving bus 1 in exchange for bus 2 while assuming you know what's best for the operation isn't going to accomplish anything.

[Busjack]

Face it, guys. There are dozens of factors that go into bus assignments that you don't know about. Just like the garage and route realignment had to take into consideration many factors beyond the simple distance from the garage to the relief point, which some of you used as the only judge on whether or not a route move was good or not.

For example, is there special equipment, such as automatic passenger counters (which are not on all buses in the fleet, yet), which need to be distributed between garages in a more equitable manner? It's a hell of a lot cheaper to trade bus 6500 for bus 6600 rather than to take the equipment out of bus 6500 and put it into bus 6600 (or vice versa). Are there other reasons, such as perhaps average mileage of some buses vs. others, due, in part, to the type of work that one garage operates vs. another? Balancing miles out between different buses is a lot easier just by swapping a couple of buses around. Or would you rather have the #64 run out of 77th garage, and have Forest Glen run the #2, just to keep the miles balanced on the buses?

Trainman's statement that RJL's post is "proof" that there is no plan for the bus moves is laughable. It is simply "proof" that you all really have no clue about many of the dozens of factors that actually go into the overall fleet allocation decisions, and have been reduced to guessing, and using other people's guesses as "proof" of your own preconceived notions of what is going on.

Having lurked on this forum for a while, it is obvious to me that some of you just have a chip on your shoulder, and don't let a post go by without letting that interfere with your thought process. I follow other transit systems as a hobby, visit internet forums, speak with actual employees, and the like. In general, fleet swaps like this happen all the time, all over the place. I guess all those other transit systems are just wasting money then too, eh? After all, I'm sure they could have saved .00001% of their budget by not spending the fuel on moving buses between different garages. CTA probably wastes more than that on a daily basis just by letting their engines idle at layovers instead of shutting them off.

For those of you that really think you can do better, how many of you have actually applied to work for CTA? A quick check of the CTA website shows 55 jobs that have openings right now. They aren't just bus and rail operators either. If you see a job where you feel you're qualified, then apply. The home page also shows that they are looking for "Mystery Shoppers." Maybe, rather than ranting about this or that on an internet message board, you can use your daily riding experience to tell CTA what you want to see changed.

But just sitting around whining about CTA moving bus 1 in exchange for bus 2 while assuming you know what's best for the operation isn't going to accomplish anything.

Why don't you tell us then:

• What are the specific rationales for these moves?
  
• Why is a series of buses moved two or three times in a month?
  
• Why is it always stacked that 74th gets no new equipment (since 1995)?
  

Personally, I am not interested in your speculation about or assessment of the competence or motivation of the posters, but in why CTA does certain things, not in generalities, but which do affect service.

Also, by saying "I follow other transit systems as a hobby, visit internet forums, speak with actual employees, and the like" you do admit that you are not part of CTA management making these decisions, so I doubt that you can give definitive answers, anyway.

[Buslover88]

Face it, guys. There are dozens of factors that go into bus assignments that you don't know about. Just like the garage and route realignment had to take into consideration many factors beyond the simple distance from the garage to the relief point, which some of you used as the only judge on whether or not a route move was good or not.

For example, is there special equipment, such as automatic passenger counters (which are not on all buses in the fleet, yet), which need to be distributed between garages in a more equitable manner? It's a hell of a lot cheaper to trade bus 6500 for bus 6600 rather than to take the equipment out of bus 6500 and put it into bus 6600 (or vice versa). Are there other reasons, such as perhaps average mileage of some buses vs. others, due, in part, to the type of work that one garage operates vs. another? Balancing miles out between different buses is a lot easier just by swapping a couple of buses around. Or would you rather have the #64 run out of 77th garage, and have Forest Glen run the #2, just to keep the miles balanced on the buses?

Trainman's statement that RJL's post is "proof" that there is no plan for the bus moves is laughable. It is simply "proof" that you all really have no clue about many of the dozens of factors that actually go into the overall fleet allocation decisions, and have been reduced to guessing, and using other people's guesses as "proof" of your own preconceived notions of what is going on.

Having lurked on this forum for a while, it is obvious to me that some of you just have a chip on your shoulder, and don't let a post go by without letting that interfere with your thought process. I follow other transit systems as a hobby, visit internet forums, speak with actual employees, and the like. In general, fleet swaps like this happen all the time, all over the place. I guess all those other transit systems are just wasting money then too, eh? After all, I'm sure they could have saved .00001% of their budget by not spending the fuel on moving buses between different garages. CTA probably wastes more than that on a daily basis just by letting their engines idle at layovers instead of shutting them off.

For those of you that really think you can do better, how many of you have actually applied to work for CTA? A quick check of the CTA website shows 55 jobs that have openings right now. They aren't just bus and rail operators either. If you see a job where you feel you're qualified, then apply. The home page also shows that they are looking for "Mystery Shoppers." Maybe, rather than ranting about this or that on an internet message board, you can use your daily riding experience to tell CTA what you want to see changed.

But just sitting around whining about CTA moving bus 1 in exchange for bus 2 while assuming you know what's best for the operation isn't going to accomplish anything.

It sounds like you have a problem with this board. If you don't like it, don't post or anything then, we don't have time for rants like this.

I believe a few people on this forum know about the bus operations because they work or worked for CTA. And we're not whining, we're just saying.

[trainman8119]

Face it, guys. There are dozens of factors that go into bus assignments that you don't know about...

...For example, is there special equipment, such as automatic passenger counters (which are not on all buses in the fleet, yet...

Trainman's statement that RJL's post is "proof" that there is no plan for the bus moves is laughable. It is simply "proof" that you all really have no clue about many of the dozens of factors that actually go into the overall fleet allocation decisions, and have been reduced to guessing, and using other people's guesses as "proof" of your own preconceived notions of what is going on.

For those of you that really think you can do better, how many of you have actually applied to work for CTA?

I will be happy to address some of the comments made here. First, I will agree that there are many factors into bus assignments. The example of the APC's is a good one. In my days at Pace, in a facility that had 23 buses, only 2 had the counters. The buses were assigned to routes based on what information the bean counters at headquarters wanted to know. Maybe it was a school trip, maybe it was the mall route. Did anything ever change from reports manufactured from this, I doubt it...but it was there.

Second, CTA (and Pace and Metra for that matter) has a knack for reacting, instead of acting. Decisions seem to be made on the fly instead of thinking them out. I think a good example of this is the current move between Chicago and Archer with the New Flyer buses. Although there might be a valid maintenance issue (which I still doubt), then this should have been addressed at the time the Flyers were received, and plans should have been made at that time to make Chicago all Flyer, Archer all Nova, and so on. Someone will always have a reason for doing something, sometimes good and sometimes bad. My beef is that things are never thought out and then you are moving 900 buses around when maybe you only needed to move 50. Is it a preconcieved notion...no, it is happening. If we were talking about 2 buses moving to put counters in position, that is one thing, but we are talking about fleet moves here, and I will stay on my soap box here and say that is unnecessary.

Finally, yes I know I could do better. I know I could do better where I am now. I have worked for 2 of the 3 service boards here, always wanted to work for CTA, but now it would be a foolish move, given the political and financial climate. Unfortunately, unless you are a politician, with a sister or cousin in a prominent position, forget it. People like me are considered threats to those in control, and it has gotten me to the point to where I am looking at other lines of work. Experience and knowledge doesn't mean a damn thing here...politics and BS does. The biggest problem with transit in Chicago right now is that it is being run by the pols and not those who have transit experience and knowledge. Policies and daily operations show this day in and day out.

[BUSANGEL#1]

It seems like the CTA is breeding garages(LOL).

74th-6000s

Archer-6400s

Chicago-1000s(almost)

NP-4000/4400(were almost until 5800s/ 1000s/7500s)

[Busjack]

It seems like the CTA is breeding garages(LOL).

74th-6000s

Archer-6400s

Chicago-1000s(almost)

NP-4000/4400(were almost until 5800s/ 1000s/7500s)

Or is it that inbreeding is occurring in garages? When will we see the baby Flxs?

[jajuan]

Busangel and Busjack, funny jokes guys. Thanks for the laugh after reading the rant that borders on arrogance a few posts above. It's funny how others want to make a rant about what they assume is trivial without actually reading thoroughly what some others have been saying. As Trainman says, if we were talking about the movement of only a few buses, as we were accused of 'whining' about, that would be one thing. But we are talking about the movement back and forward of a few hundred buses over the course of the past few weeks. It's a lack of planning and waste of money plain and simple. The mileage used in moving all these buses around like this should be used for service to the customers not this chess game management seems to have been playing between garages the past month.

And as has been stated by plenty of us on the forum repeatedly, one has to consider what is going on behind the scenes in which 74th (and 103rd until recently with the delivery of the NABIs and New Flyer 1000s) has been getting the short end of the stick when it comes down to getting new equipment. This garage hasn't seen new equipment since 1995 and won't see any now until maybe 2009 or 2010 with the current consolidation of 6000s there. With all the recent orders of new buses to the agency after the 6000s, 74th has been passed over time and time again in favor of just shifting the older equipment displaced by the newer buses to 74th and 103rd. The service standards, drafted before Huberman taking the top spot, to bring better, more efficient service to CTA customers have been shucked out the window. How efficient is it to stock a garage with all 12 and 13 year old buses under some new untested idea of cutting maintenance costs? It's also a questionable move in terms of the question of degrading service because now you have a higher chance of bus breakdowns in the communities served by the routes assigned to that garage than if there were newer, lower mileage buses added to the mix within that garage.

Which brings up a big hole in the logic used to justify these consolidations in the first place. Now CTA management makes the claim that by consolidating single models of buses to one particular garage, they are cutting maintenance costs because now the garages only have to keep parts for one single model or has been stated by other members of the forum costs are cut by way of mechanics only having to be trained to fix just one type of bus instead of two or three. However, Huberman states, in his appeal that the capital funding issue be resolved soon by Springfield, that it costs more to maintain an older bus because of the high mileage accumulated on the older bus models. So aren't they just increasing the maintenance costs or should I say saving little at 74th because the garage is completely stocked by what will soon be the oldest buses in the CTA fleet. As a matter of fact, the same could be said for Archer to a certain degree because, although they're far from being as old as the 6000s, the Novas are or soon will be at the middle of their usable service life at 7 years of usage by the CTA and the average bus age at that garage has now increased by trading out its Flyers to Chicago. That really doesn't sound very consistent.

[nflyer22]

All I can say is that the trade has probably begun, saw 6514 on 62 Archer today.

[BusExpert32]

It sounds like you have a problem with this board. If you don't like it, don't post or anything then, we don't have time for rants like this.

I believe a few people on this forum know about the bus operations because they work or worked for CTA.

I have to say more later, I have to leave.

Or maybe we should just ignore the posts that we dislike and not reply to them, instead of starting a pointless arguement that destroys the discussion of the topic.

See Tea Eh did prove his point of view on this topic, and let's see it basically, there are many reasons for innumerable bus transfers that the public might never know about, and the CTA employees may also be entitled not to reveal it. Also, with the future transfers of buses and deliveries of the 600s, no garage, except for 74th, will be consolidated with one fleet type(6000s) in the near future.

[Buslover88]

Or maybe we should just ignore the posts that we dislike and not reply to them, instead of starting a pointless arguement that destroys the discussion of the topic.

I don't believe I was talking to you. And my arguement's not pointless.

See Tea Eh did prove his point of view on this topic, and let's see it basically, there are many reasons for innumerable bus transfers that the public might never know about, and the CTA employees may also be entitled not to reveal it. Also, with the future transfers of buses and deliveries of the 600s, no garage, except for 74th, will be consolidated with one fleet type(6000s) in the near future.

Well, I do agree with this and about the whole thing about the employees revealing info, if you non-employess want to know so much about what's going on, go outside and OBSERVE.

[BusExpert32]

I don't believe I was talking to you. And my arguement's not pointless.

That's why I used the term "we", instead of "you". Also, the arguements about who likes the board or not do have a point, but they are completely fruitless in contributing to the board. If you think See Tea Eh was doing anything inappropriate, then why not notify him via PM, instead of disrupting the process of discussion. (Notice that I involved your concept of the PM ) That will be enough from my opinion about this.

[wordguy]

Busangel and Busjack, funny jokes guys. Thanks for the laugh after reading the rant that borders on arrogance a few posts above. It's funny how others want to make a rant about what they assume is trivial without actually reading thoroughly what some others have been saying. As Trainman says, if we were talking about the movement of only a few buses, as we were accused of 'whining' about, that would be one thing. But we are talking about the movement back and forward of a few hundred buses over the course of the past few weeks. It's a lack of planning and waste of money plain and simple. The mileage used in moving all these buses around like this should be used for service to the customers not this chess game management seems to have been playing between garages the past month.

And as has been stated by plenty of us on the forum repeatedly, one has to consider what is going on behind the scenes in which 74th (and 103rd until recently with the delivery of the NABIs and New Flyer 1000s) has been getting the short end of the stick when it comes down to getting new equipment. This garage hasn't seen new equipment since 1995 and won't see any now until maybe 2009 or 2010 with the current consolidation of 6000s there. With all the recent orders of new buses to the agency after the 6000s, 74th has been passed over time and time again in favor of just shifting the older equipment displaced by the newer buses to 74th and 103rd. The service standards, drafted before Huberman taking the top spot, to bring better, more efficient service to CTA customers have been shucked out the window. How efficient is it to stock a garage with all 12 and 13 year old buses under some new untested idea of cutting maintenance costs? It's also a questionable move in terms of the question of degrading service because now you have a higher chance of bus breakdowns in the communities served by the routes assigned to that garage than if there were newer, lower mileage buses added to the mix within that garage.

Which brings up a big hole in the logic used to justify these consolidations in the first place. Now CTA management makes the claim that by consolidating single models of buses to one particular garage, they are cutting maintenance costs because now the garages only have to keep parts for one single model or has been stated by other members of the forum costs are cut by way of mechanics only having to be trained to fix just one type of bus instead of two or three. However, Huberman states, in his appeal that the capital funding issue be resolved soon by Springfield, that it costs more to maintain an older bus because of the high mileage accumulated on the older bus models. So aren't they just increasing the maintenance costs or should I say saving little at 74th because the garage is completely stocked by what will soon be the oldest buses in the CTA fleet. As a matter of fact, the same could be said for Archer to a certain degree because, although they're far from being as old as the 6000s, the Novas are or soon will be at the middle of their usable service life at 7 years of usage by the CTA and the average bus age at that garage has now increased by trading out its Flyers to Chicago. That really doesn't sound very consistent.

===Right on the noggin, Jajuan --- on every point! We share many of the same perspectives.

Last January 31, I wrote a detailed post on this theme under the thread labeled "Bus Trading" (Message #35). It never received any feedback. The lesson I learned in the wake of that post was, "never post a message on a dying thread" (lol).

Anyway, I believe that the concern Jajuan raised over the concentration of soon-to-be-aging Novas at only two garages is a legitimate one, as are his comments about the 6000s at 74th. However, now that the contract for the New Flyer hybrid artics has been approved, a few posters, who seem to be in the know, have estimated the number of remaining 6000s, when all is said and done, at about 150(?) or so --- not enough to completely fill the roster of 74th or any other garage.

So, is it safe to assume that maybe 74th will finally receive some new equipment? I would hope so. One more reason, I believe, to express healthy skepticism over the series consolidation plan as several knowledgeable members (including Jajuan, Busjack, and Trainman) have also been doing.

[Buslover88]

That's why I used the term "we", instead of "you". Also, the arguements about who likes the board or not do have a point, but they are completely fruitless in contributing to the board. If you think See Tea Eh was doing anything inappropriate, then why not notify him via PM, instead of disrupting the process of discussion. (Notice that I involved your concept of the PM ) That will be enough from my opinion about this.

The only thing i'm saying to this is that I thought this was a board issue and not an issue to PM about since other members were also mentioned. That's all i'm saying, i'm out.