More Bus Moves

[Busjack]

29 minutes ago, MTRSP1900-CTA3200 said:

Happy Birthday Orange Line!

 

Just think, in a year, it will have its 25th, and Jane Byrne, who redirected the highway funds to build it, won't be here to see it.

[BusHunter]

17 hours ago, Busjack said:

Just think, in a year, it will have its 25th, and Jane Byrne, who redirected the highway funds to build it, won't be here to see it.

So it's been 24 years since a rail expansion unless you want to call the Pauline connector a rail expansion.

[Busjack]

12 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

So it's been 24 years since a rail expansion unless you want to call the Pauline connector a rail expansion.

Since it has been there for about 120 years, no. So, you're right that with all the jaw flapping, it has been 24 years, the best of which were 2 New Starts to rebuild (Pink) or do a partial rehab (Brown).

Most of the yap about the RPM is that it is renewal, not expansion.

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

On 10/31/2017 at 4:20 PM, Busjack said:

Just think, in a year, it will have its 25th, and Jane Byrne, who redirected the highway funds to build it, won't be here to see it.

That's a shame. I'm not sure if in her final months she knew about the renaming of the Circle Interchange in her honor, but for someone who helped expand the CTA and thus Chicago's transportation, it's good that she is honored by a critical part of Chicago's transportation infrastructure.

13 hours ago, BusHunter said:

So it's been 24 years since a rail expansion unless you want to call the Pauline connector a rail expansion.

The Paulina Connector is interesting because it's a small part of the system in terms of trackage, yet its rebuilding played a big role in opening up new service possibilities within the system (Pink Line).

[BusHunter]

It will probably take another 7-10 years at least for the expansion of the red line to 130th. 

[Busjack]

8 hours ago, MTRSP1900-CTA3200 said:

That's a shame. I'm not sure if in her final months she knew about the renaming of the Circle Interchange in her honor,

She was sitting in a wheelchair next to the sign.

 

8 hours ago, MTRSP1900-CTA3200 said:

The Paulina Connector is interesting because it's a small part of the system in terms of trackage, yet its rebuilding played a big role in opening up new service possibilities within the system (Pink Line).

I don't think it did much, other than restrict the Pink Line to maybe 11 trainsets instead of running half the O'Hare Line to 54/Cermak. At the time, there were complaints that it was cut off from O'Hare, resulting in running one Blue Line train a half hour, which was soon discontinued.Only benefit of the whole project is that it replaced something that was said to be ready to collapse, so a retention rather than growth. And we never got the Madison/United Center station.

[BusHunter]

4 hours ago, Busjack said:

She was sitting in a wheelchair next to the sign.

 

I don't think it did much, other than restrict the Pink Line to maybe 11 trainsets instead of running half the O'Hare Line to 54/Cermak. At the time, there were complaints that it was cut off from O'Hare, resulting in running one Blue Line train a half hour, which was soon discontinued.Only benefit of the whole project is that it replaced something that was said to be ready to collapse, so a retention rather than growth. And we never got the Madison/United Center station.

You could also say why are the platforms 8 cars when only 4 are needed. Purple line could use the 8 car stations though.  

[Busjack]

32 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

You could also say why are the platforms 8 cars when only 4 are needed. Purple line could use the 8 car stations though.  

As I noted above, because it was initially planned for the Blue Line, and the Blue Line ran there for a short time after the rebuild.

[BusHunter]

4 hours ago, Busjack said:

As I noted above, because it was initially planned for the Blue Line, and the Blue Line ran there for a short time after the rebuild.

It does show a lack in planning. If CTA's master plan was to run the 4 cars on the pink why build an 8 car station to use for a few months. It doesnt make sense. Those funds could have went to the purple line that couldve used the capital money. Instead we have stations that are too short and too long. 

[Busjack]

On 11/2/2017 at 5:29 PM, BusHunter said:

It does show a lack in planning. If CTA's master plan was to run the 4 cars on the pink why build an 8 car station to use for a few months. It doesnt make sense. Those funds could have went to the purple line that couldve used the capital money. Instead we have stations that are too short and too long. 

A combination of 3 things:

• Again, the grant money (New Starts) was for a specific purpose--here to rebuild the L west of Paulina to 54th. It was not transferable to some other project, and that structure was completely rebuilt. If ridership developed, you would have said it was bad planning to build 4 car stations on a new structure. But the money wasn't going to Evanston.
• The original project was "Renew the Blue," not "Fink the Pink."
• Most importantly, the Paulina Connector was not part of the project until Kreusi found $30 million or so, and then he came up with the idea of running the Douglas on it. Hence, while I was often on Frank's case, I'm not in this case.

[TaylorTank1229]

Just a quick question, has anyone here ever seen, rode, or operated a 1983 Flyer D901A? I remember being on it once back in like 2002, I remember it was running on the #93 when I did.

http://www.hopetunnel.org/bus/040310/wb3.jpg

[sw4400]

On 11/3/2017 at 2:04 AM, TaylorTank1229 said:

Just a quick question, has anyone here ever seen, rode, or operated a 1983 Flyer D901A? I remember being on it once back in like 2002, I remember it was running on the #93 when I did. 

I rode them frequently on #77 back in the '80's. I remember the pine and lime scheme. It would've been nice to have seen one kept for IRM, or put into the CTA Heritage Fleet. But the only one kept(#1606) was a disabled bus, as the CTA mechanics at the time were under orders to cut all the fluid lines and run the bus until it seized up. The only way that bus would've run again is to get a donor Detroit 6V92TA. The bus was last with CHBM, but I think since it had to be towed from site to site, it was probably sold to a scrapper.

[TaylorTank1229]

2 hours ago, garmon757 said:

Please tell me this isn't copyright infringement..... I need a source. Otherwise, I have to take it down.

No. I just put this up so people would know which bus I’m referring to. I find the picture from the website below.

http://www.hopetunnel.org/bus/cta.html

[sw4400]

32 minutes ago, TaylorTank1229 said:

No. I just put this up so people would know which bus I’m referring to. I find the picture from the website below.

http://www.hopetunnel.org/bus/cta.html

Repost the pics like this, @TaylorTank1229, this way there's no infringement. This is a paste of the link in the URL of the pic, @garmon757. Would you still require him to maybe state in the post Copyright: hopetunnel.org?

[garmon757]

32 minutes ago, TaylorTank1229 said:

No. I just put this up so people would know which bus I’m referring to. I find the picture from the website below.

http://www.hopetunnel.org/bus/cta.html

Thank you for your clarification.

[garmon757]

6 minutes ago, sw4400 said:

Would you still require him to maybe state in the post Copyright: hopetunnel.org?

As long as I see a credible website and/or the person's name who owns the particular photo, I have no problem.

[Busjack]

7 hours ago, garmon757 said:

As long as I see a credible website and/or the person's name who owns the particular photo, I have no problem.

No, actually you do.

The urls indicate that he copied this picture onto your server. That's a copyright violation.

Now, if he used the "Insert Other Media" and then "Insert Image from URL" all that would be on your server would be a link, and that's legal.

The quick rule is: If someone copied something on your server and didn't have permission to do so, it can't stay. SW's theory that if you give credit that serves as permission is wrong.

[Kevin]

Busjack is correct. Linking is fine. Re-uploading here is not unless the photo is licensed to allow that.  

[garmon757]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

No, actually you do.

The urls indicate that he copied this picture onto your server. That's a copyright violation.

Now, if he used the "Insert Other Media" and then "Insert Image from URL" all that would be on your server would be a link, and that's legal.

The quick rule is: If someone copied something on your server and didn't have permission to do so, it can't stay. SW's theory that if you give credit that serves as permission is wrong.

That's what I meant in regard of credible website, a link (sorry for the confusion) but yes, you are absolutely right. Thanks for your help. 

[sw4400]

I took an Ashland bus today, and rung the bell to get off at the next stop. The driver did not stop but continued on. When the bus got to the next stop, I noticed the driver with their arm on the farebox looking down to the right with their eyes closed. When the light turned green, the bus sat for a moment before the driver woke up and drove to the stop to let me off, one stop after my request. I called the 74th Garage Manager to report it, as it is a serious safety violation, and gave them the Bus # and direction the bus was going.

Now I realize that this may cause the driver to be suspended or lose their job, but I believe I did the right thing for the safety of the motorists, passengers and driver. Do you agree, or was I wrong in calling the 74th St. Garage Manager?

I will keep the Bus Number and Operator's gender anonymous here.

[sw4400]

8 hours ago, Kevin said:

Busjack is correct. Linking is fine. Re-uploading here is not unless the photo is licensed to allow that.  

 

6 hours ago, garmon757 said:

That's what I meant in regard of credible website, a link (sorry for the confusion) but yes, you are absolutely right. Thanks for your help. 

So if I copy a URL from the internet search bar for a pic(I'll take one from the chicagobus.org gallery for example...) This is still wrong, even though I took the link source and just pasted it to the thread? I didn't save it to the computer and upload it here.

[Busjack]

19 minutes ago, sw4400 said:

 

So if I copy a URL from the internet search bar for a pic(I'll take one from the chicagobus.org gallery for example...) This is still wrong, even though I took the link source and just pasted it to the thread? I didn't save it to the computer and upload it here.

Basically, the point was (after @garmon757 clarified his diction), is that if you pasted the link, basically as I said and Kevin confirmed, it is o.k. I illustrated the method of doing so, and Kevin said it was o.k. The distinction made by Kevin is that it is not permissible to upload an image from another website to this one using "attach," unless you have permission or it is licensed for such use.

As a matter of courtesy, once should credit the originating website, but that's courtesy rather than a copyright violation. Note that I always use the term "Embedded from ----.com."

@Kevin or @garmon757 will have to figure out whether what @TaylorTank1229 did was permissible and can stay on the server. If there wasn't an attachment, it's o.k.

[Busjack]

52 minutes ago, sw4400 said:

but I believe I did the right thing for the safety of the motorists, passengers and driver.

Either the driver had a medical emergency or was sleeping on the job, so you properly reported it. I'm surprised you got through to whom you were supposed to get to.

Since you are on the north side, I'm surprised the bus didn't plow into a building.

[BusHunter]

I'm going put in my 2 cents here. Over at vpforums, they have replicated games without permission, but what keeps them from getting shutdown is the simple fact that no one is profiting from the sale of a replicated game. Everything is free. I personally think sites like this and that one are good because there is no money exchanging hands, we are helping each other like it was meant to be and becoming friends along the way. There is a good feeling in your soul knowing that you helped someone and you shared with them your work. This is how great friendships are built on trust and generiousity. Love can be a wonderful thing.

Now in saying that, a person can request the picture be removed, but if your not out on the corner selling 5 by 9's, it not really grounds for a lawsuit. You know this can get ridiculous, what keeps me from saying hey you can't use my information on rosters and stuff because it is my work. Now if they sold a book and you could prove they used my info, I have a case.

These fan websites only gather interest in the subject matter, why sue if your a game manufacturer when the replication is actually selling you games because I've played stuff and said man this is cool and wanted to buy the real thing. Same here. I've made friends and done stuff at CTA I would never have done without these sites. Heck who knows, I know if won the lotto, I'd want to invest money into these rail museums because they are doing great things, (god's work) bringing back the past and if I've done my part, even if it's one thing then I've accomplished my mission and my heart's mission. You don't need money to share your love, it's free and it comes from within. Information is as good as money in my book.

[Busjack]

32 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

I'm going put in my 2 cents here. Over at vpforums, they have replicated games without permission, but what keeps them from getting shutdown is the simple fact that no one is profiting from the sale of a replicated game. Everything is free. I personally think sites like this and that one are good because there is no money exchanging hands, we are helping each other like it was meant to be and becoming friends along the way.

The distinction here is that there is nothing wrong with sharing each others' work, as long as you create it, or get permission from the creator. As with anything taken from this site, it's based on the license posted here, and doing stuff like @sw4400 was doing of using pictures on one part of this site on another part of this site doesn't affect anything, because this site still owns the rights to it.

However, even if there isn't anything here worth suing over, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is still the law. No sense for the moderators to be knowingly violating it or allowing others to do so.