BusTalk

Mr. Linsky · Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 12:21 am Post subject:

A clarification;

When I did the research for the Avenue 'B' article, I did mention 'rush hour extensions' as I have quoted myself as saying in the original text following;

"Despite having only two franchised routes, the flag did quite well over the years with rush hour extensions, race track charters and tours".

I now realize what the author of the work that I used as reference meant by the extensions.

So, in a sense of the word, my report was more accurate than I knew because I had no knowledge of the Express services.

Thanks goes to X-A for his clarification.

Regards,

Mr. 'L'

HwyHaulier · Joined: 16 Dec 2007 Posts: 932 Location: Harford County, MD

X-Astorian · Joined: 19 Feb 2009 Posts: 173 Location: Central NJ

Hart Bus · Age: 76 Joined: 24 Apr 2007 Posts: 1150

Hart Bus · Age: 76 Joined: 24 Apr 2007 Posts: 1150

Upon reflection of the MQ-20, MW-20, MN-20 and MN-21. it makes perfect sense.

20 - was probably the next express number to assign

MQ - for Aqueduct since it is in Queens ( Manhattan/Queens)

MW - for Yonkers since it is in Weschester ( Manhattan / Westchester)

MN - for Roosevelt and Belmont ( Manhattan / Nassau)

MN21 since you couldn't have two MN routes with the same number

Mr. Linsky · Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 3:53 pm Post subject:

ECA,

How well I remember the Sunday edition of the Journal American not so much for the news content but the great comics by Puck (remember, I was only about nine at the time).

Dagwood and Blondie and Bringing Up Father (Jiggs) were among my favorites and I couldn't wait for them each week.

Just to stay on theme here, we had our papers delivered to Kew Gardens years ago via Long Island Railroad from the city as can be seen in the 1950's shot below at the station during a drop off.

The local distributor would then rush the packages to all the local candy stores in the area.

You'll notice that the railroad car is a combination passenger/baggage type that were once used on the Montauk branch to carry the large steamer trunks that people used to use while away for the summer.

The large ring on the driver's left hand was a small curved knife for cutting the twine from the bundles.

Photo courtesy of NYPL Digital Gallery.

Regards,

Mr. 'L'

Hart Bus · Age: 76 Joined: 24 Apr 2007 Posts: 1150

Permit me to wax nostalgic here for a moment. At one time there were two papers, the Long Island Press and the LI Star Journal. I believe it was common ownership. I don't know where the borderlines were drawn for the papers, but in Sunnyside you could only get the SJ. Eventually the SJ was shut down and the Press took over.

Sometime between June 1971 and May 1972, Jackie Onasis was suing paparazzo Ronald Gallela for harrassment. At the time I was working for the NYC Health Dept on 125 Worth Street.

In covering news about the trial and, I guess, to fill space, they said that the trial was in courtroom 12xx of State Supreme Court, directly across from my job. Snuck out a few minutes early, waited on a short line and got into the spectator section. She was a beautiful and classy lady. Her voice never matched her beauty. She was on the stand, but after 30 minutes of "I don't remember, I don't recall, etc" it was boring and thankfully the lunch break came.

Mr. Linsky · Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:15 pm Post subject:

ECA,

I don't believe the the Star Journal was connected with the Long Island Press, and when it closed down in 1968, the L.I.P. expanded its territory to include the Star's Northern Queens customer base.

According to what I've dug up, the paper, which was originally called the Star, merged with Flushing's North Shore Journal in the 1930s and soldiered on until 1968 as the Long Island 'Star Journal'.

We never saw it in our neck of the woods.

Regards,

WCA

Mr. Linsky · Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:57 pm Post subject:

Pictured below in a shot taken somewhere in northern Queens is fleet # 801 - a 1964 Model F2D6V-401-1 Flxible and one of fifteen (801 to 815) delivered to the Triboro Coach Corporation of Jackson Heights, New York in the spring of that year.

Triboro was the first of New York City's private operators to try Flxible's version of GM's 'new look' design and liked them enough to order a total of sixty-five between 1964 and 1972.

Perhaps a deciding factor in purchasing these buses were their GM drive trains that mechanics were already quite familiar with.

#801 appears to be brand new in the image and carries Triboro's very pleasant combination of a reddish brown and cream livery.

A northern Queens fan may recognize the large building in the background which appears to be either a school or possibly a telephone company central office.

Credit within image.

Mr. Linsky - Green Bus Lines, Inc., Jamaica, New York

X-Astorian · Joined: 19 Feb 2009 Posts: 173 Location: Central NJ

X-Astorian · Joined: 19 Feb 2009 Posts: 173 Location: Central NJ

HwyHaulier · Joined: 16 Dec 2007 Posts: 932 Location: Harford County, MD

Mr. Linsky · Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:13 pm Post subject:

Vern,

I'm almost certain that you are familiar with U.S. vs GM in a class action suit spearheaded by Flxible claiming 'Restraint of Trade' and the subsequent consent decree which led to the availability of GM parts to other coach manufacturers.

Frankly, I always thought that the decision was anti free enterprise and without work product protection!

GM never stopped anyone else from building buses and I think they had the right to reserve for themselves the parts they designed and built for there own buses (but, what do I know - I'm just an 800 lb. gorilla!).

A little history below thanks to Wikipedia;

"In 1958, and as a result of the consent decree from the 1956 anti-trust case, United States v. General Motors Corp., GM was mandated to sell their bus components, engines, and transmissions to other manufacturers, free of royalties.

However, in the early 1950s and prior to the consent decree, Flxible built a small number of buses with GM diesel engine. It has been postulated that GM may have made its diesel engines available to Flxible to reduce the criticisms of GM's business practices that some felt were monopolistic.

The same has been said about GM's decision in the 1960s and 1970s not to produce a 35 ft "New Look" transit bus with an 8-cylinder engine. However, it is also possible that GM chose not to enter this market because the potential sales did not warrant the added costs of engineering and production.

Another result of the consent decree (which was not settled in its entirety until 1965) was that GM was barred from having any of its officers or directors serve as an officer or director for any other bus manufacturing company".

Regards,

Mr. 'L'

HwyHaulier · Joined: 16 Dec 2007 Posts: 932 Location: Harford County, MD

Mr 'L' -

In my cranky (I protest it is objective!) view of these decades back events, I am of beliefs that:

1) G M C - Detroit Diesel rightly and truthfully maintained it had but just so much capacity for production of motors.
It first wished to assign all of it to its own product orders, a responsibility to its share owners...

2) DoJ - Anti Trust actions? So much of the work proved specious and fatuous. A named Defendant, with the deep
pockets for seasoned and competent corporate counsel, could overcome and successfully defend against allegations.
(I have some personal, "been there, done that" as just one more hand in aiding preparation of a case.)

3) Wikipedia entry? Sigh! We are all familiar with what, "subjective writing" is when we see it. It gets all the more
specious with any 'net accounts of the postwar NCL, Et. Al. misguided business... See the "smoking gun" letter (here
earlier), where the New York M-7 operator announced he was getting out of the business...

....................Vern...................