|
|
| Re: R188 observations (and **sigh** disappointments) (1258915) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: R188 observations (and **sigh** disappointments) |
|
|
Posted by Randyo on Sat Nov 16 16:19:03 2013, in response to Re: R188 observations (and **sigh** disappointments), posted by SubwaySurf on Sat Nov 16 12:28:17 2013. Unlike the BMT and IRT that had AB (67 ft steel) cars and Lo-Vs respectively that were supplied under different contracts but were considered and referred to as the same basic car type the city of nY referred to the cars by their contract number even if they were the same basic car type as was the case with the R-1 through 9 , R-27/30s etc. In recent years, however, it seems that even cars that are supposed to be the same basic car type like the R-62s and 62As or R-68 and 68 As which are merely sub types to the basic contract number have enough differences between the types that they often either cannot be or in any event are not operated in mixed trains. Unfortunately the cesspool of incompetence that passes for upper MTA and NYCTA management seem to lack the will to DEMAND that certain car contracts be compatible with others as was done in the past. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|