TTC during the July 8 2013 storm

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Electrify:

Well, if you can't see the integrity of the track ahead and hit a washout like what happened near Long Branch, the results probably won't be pretty - and if it derails with the cars on their side, we'd be looking at lots of fatalities. The current outcome is one of major inconvenience, not death - and it's pretty acceptable in my books for the situation.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

GO Quiet zones simply gives other passengers the confidence to let the loud person know where to go. Prior to this they collectively put up with it.

It's absolutely unnecessary. When I'm travelling with a small child, they alwayswant to sit upstairs. And I'm supposed to tell them that they can't sit upstairs because some idiot has come up with a no talking policy!?!? Besides, how does it make any sense? Does noise not travel up stairs? If they really want to do this, why not simply make certain cars entirely quiet. Not that I can imagine why anyone thinks that necessary.

Though I don't know why everyone is trying to discuss GO here in this thread ...

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

nfitz:

When I'm travelling with a small child, they alwayswant to sit upstairs. And I'm supposed to tell them that they can't sit upstairs because some idiot has come up with a no talking policy!?!? Besides, how does it make any sense?

It makes complete sense - not everyone want to put up with your small child, besides you just mentioned the perfect solution - we should have a car for families with children (and adults) at an excitable age (plus diaper changing facilities, etc).

AoD

 

[nfitz]

It makes complete sense - not everyone want to put up with your small child, besides you just mentioned the perfect solution - we should have a car for families with children (and adults) at an excitable age (plus diaper changing facilities, etc).

Yeah, I wondered when someone here would make an ageist comment. This would clearly violate the Ontario Human Rights code. Do we really have to get into bigotry?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

nfitz:

Yes, I would love to have a noisy, disruptive child at an OHRC hearing and see just how non-ageist things can get.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

Yes, I would love to have a noisy, disruptive child at an OHRC hearing and see just how non-ageist things can get.

That would be a valid point if a child was ever required to attend an OHRC hearing - however I've never heard of such a case. And we're not talking about noisy, disruptive children here. The GO guidelines ban people even talking to each other, other than a short conversation! If it was limited to talking on cellphones, that would be different. But restricting conversation?!?!? That's absurd.

The entire policy does nothing except create potential conflict.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

nfitz:

A child is not required to sit on the 2nd level to fulfill the task of transportation from point A to point B.

AoD

 

[k10ery]

They tried. Still couldn't get out in time.

The really interesting thing is that Bombardier expected the crew to be back at work the next day.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Interesting, a passenger who spoke to the Post and CBC stated otherwise.

Just wondering, could they have tried to pull through anyways? Don't know enough about rail physics, but couldn't the weight of the train be enough to run through the water?

I'm no expert for sure, but that sounds like a case of 'the wrong kind of dew' as they say in Britain, i.e. a lack of traction.

 

[APTA-2048]

Apologies for going further off topic, but I believe it should be noted that the Quiet Zones are rush hour only. Seems to me most families travel on the train off-peak and on weekends, so it's not like kids can never sit on the top level and talk.

Maybe this can be moved to the GO thread.

 

[rbt]

It's absolutely unnecessary. When I'm travelling with a small child, they alwayswant to sit upstairs. And I'm supposed to tell them that they can't sit upstairs because some idiot has come up with a no talking policy!?!? Besides, how does it make any sense? Does noise not travel up stairs? If they really want to do this, why not simply make certain cars entirely quiet. Not that I can imagine why anyone thinks that necessary.

It's not a no talking policy. It's a don't talk loudly enough to disturb other passengers policy.

Either way, give your feedback at the end of the trial run.

 

[nfitz]

nfitz:

A child is not required to sit on the 2nd level to fulfill the task of transportation from point A to point B.

AoD

But for someone to actually think and sit there writing rules about such things is beyond ridiculous! How can you support such absurdity?

What next. People with white shirts on one floor, and people with dark shirts on another??

 

[nfitz]

It's not a no talking policy. It's a don't talk loudly enough to disturb other passengers policy.

That's not what the policy says. It says have short conversations. It does not say long conversations are fine if you speak quietly.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

That's not what the policy says. It says have short conversations. It does say long conversations are fine if you speak quietly.

So what is the difference between what you and rbt said?