|
|
| Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New (1437481) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
|
| (1437994) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed May 31 19:59:25 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed May 31 17:15:33 2017. Bob Morrone was the conductor. And he was an actual conductor! The actor who was supposed to play the conductor didn't show up on the day that scene was to be filmed. |
|
|
| (1437995) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed May 31 20:39:07 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed May 31 19:59:25 2017. That wasn’t the way I heard the story. Bob Morrone was supposed to actually play in the movie. During the rehearsals, he kept his uniform hat in his bag but when the time came to shoot the actual scene, his hat had been in the bag so long that it was unfit to wear and there wasn’t any time to get a replacement which is why the scene was shot without him wearing his uniform hat. |
|
|
| (1437996) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed May 31 20:57:37 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by randyo on Wed May 31 20:39:07 2017. Is it true that the TA refused to allow an actor to operate a subway train? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1438003) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed May 31 22:14:05 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed May 31 20:57:37 2017. Not knowing that as fact, but i'd say yes if I had anything to say about it. However if you want realism & maintain a safety factor, you need a real motorman. There'd be no way that the TA would allow a non qualified actor to run a train in a real setting. A studio shot would be something else |
|
|
| (1438004) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Wed May 31 22:18:28 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed May 31 22:14:05 2017. They don't need an actor.Although Jim Broderick did a good job. But that was in an abandoned station. |
|
|
| (1438007) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed May 31 22:42:48 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Joe V on Wed May 31 13:33:33 2017. Theres a Reason Why they bitch less.Not from political neutering. Most of us know how it is with the east.. Some of us actually grew up around the eastern lines,so we know how it works. Some of us actually know why the line never received platform lengthening. What the MTA did was rob Peter to pay Paul. What MORE do I want..? What more do YOU WANT? |
|
|
| (1438010) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Wed May 31 22:58:29 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Joe V on Wed May 31 07:12:04 2017. The inspection pits at 207 St are only 9 (60 foot) cars long, so it makes sense to inspect and maintain the 8-car R179s there. As for the 10 car R179s there will be only four of them, so they could inspect and maintain them at Pitkin or separate them into two 5 car sections at 207. |
|
|
| (1438015) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Jun 1 00:08:54 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by randyo on Wed May 31 16:44:26 2017. Yet,even without it,the 38s were the noisest cars ever...beating the 10s hands down!Maybe if BUDD did get the contract, those cars might still be around today. |
|
|
| (1438016) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Thu Jun 1 01:18:01 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Edwards! on Thu Jun 1 00:08:54 2017. The slants were noisemakers of America |
|
|
| (1438017) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Thu Jun 1 05:45:36 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Joe V on Wed May 31 17:17:23 2017. What else was on the roll signs of those 50 R16's ?I don't know if they are IND only or BMT & IND. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1438020) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Thu Jun 1 08:09:32 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Bill Newkirk on Thu Jun 1 05:45:36 2017. According to one of the roll sign books published by GoodTimes LLC, they only had the terminals and routes for "A", "AA", "BB", plus those connected with Rockaway Shuttle service, pre-"HH" designated.-William A. Padron ["Wash.Hgts.-207th St.", on the R-16's] |
|
|
| (1438032) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Thu Jun 1 10:41:10 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Jun 1 08:09:32 2017. According to one of the roll sign books published by GoodTimes LLC, they only had the terminals and routes for "A", "AA", "BB", plus those connected with Rockaway Shuttle service, pre-"HH" designated.Interesting, back in the late 80's when the R-16's were being scrapped, I noticed that most R-16 route signs were eastern division (10, 13, 14, 15, 16) plus (RR) & (QJ). I have an front route sign that has route 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10,13, 14, 15 & 16. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1438036) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jun 1 13:47:21 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Bill Newkirk on Thu Jun 1 10:41:10 2017. Does your route sign also have a 5? When i worked the Culver shuttle for a week back in 1969, The north car of my train was one of the few R-16s that had both a Southern and Eastern Division end route sign and I scrolled it to read 5/Culver and ran with it displayed that way all week. |
|
|
| (1438038) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Thu Jun 1 14:39:42 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by randyo on Wed May 31 16:04:57 2017. Ok, good to have my memory confirmed. I don't suppose they'd have been R7/9s, would they? From what I can tell on here, they all went East in 1968.The only car number I remember (I was 7...) was #104, which obviously was an R1 (not that I knew that then). Do you remember 104 still in service on the F in 1975? Or any R1s, for that matter? |
|
|
| (1438040) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Thu Jun 1 16:20:02 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by randyo on Thu Jun 1 13:47:21 2017. Does your route sign also have a 5?Yes, forgot about old number 5. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1438047) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jun 1 17:26:50 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by William A. Padron on Tue May 30 09:37:22 2017. True, but in their final form date only to 1938. Most people forget them being even older than that underneath the paint. |
|
|
| (1438052) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Jun 1 19:36:33 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Catfish 44 on Wed May 31 22:18:28 2017. He wasn't going all that fast by the tine they cut to that scene. |
|
|
| (1438053) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Jun 1 19:38:34 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Catfish 44 on Thu Jun 1 01:18:01 2017. They were mice compared to Chicago's 6000-series cars. You had to hold your ears in the State St. subway. |
|
|
| (1438055) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jun 1 20:27:49 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by VictorM on Wed May 31 22:58:29 2017. Exactly. |
|
|
| (1438057) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jun 1 20:38:01 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by MainR3664 on Thu Jun 1 14:39:42 2017. I remember R1 #104. It had the 2 tone blue paint scheme, but the paint was peeling off bad. |
|
|
| (1438059) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Jun 1 20:47:37 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jun 1 20:38:01 2017. Most of the R-1s were pulled once the R-42s had arrived. |
|
|
| (1438070) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Fri Jun 2 00:36:44 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Jun 1 19:36:33 2017. Not at allI'm just saying they did let an actor move the train. |
|
|
| (1438071) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Fri Jun 2 00:37:13 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Jun 1 19:38:34 2017. Is that right? |
|
|
| (1438083) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Jun 2 07:00:17 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jun 1 20:38:01 2017. Thanks!! That two-tone paint was on the inside only, right? I remember it having a dark exterior... |
|
|
| (1438084) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Jun 2 07:12:03 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Catfish 44 on Thu Jun 1 01:18:01 2017. No doubt. Walking along Whitehall Street (the actual street- I've worked in the area for years) I EASILY could hear them pulling into the station below. An R46 or R68? Not audible from the sidewalk.This was from the 2001-2007-ish period, before R160s changed everything (you can still hear the W train dump its brakes from the sidewalk above). When I was really little- 7 or so, my mom frequently took me on the Queens Blvd IND- and the E was entirely Slants and the F mostly so, I associated the huge noise and the Slanted front as perfect for an express run- kind of like "F*** you, I'm the EXPRESS". Right until the end, I thought it weird to see Slants on all-local routes like the L or W, or part-time routes, like the old Orange Q. They shoulda stayed on the E, F, and A forever. Too bad they never made it to the D on any regular basis. |
|
|
| (1438089) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Jun 2 09:54:50 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Jun 2 07:12:03 2017. What was really weird looking was seeing them go thru that 90' curve just beyond QBP enroute to Astoria on the W |
|
|
| (1438100) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Jun 2 12:23:17 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Jun 2 07:00:17 2017. Inside it has the 2nd tone blue paint. |
|
|
| (1438101) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Fri Jun 2 12:31:54 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Jun 2 07:12:03 2017. Cool |
|
|
| (1438113) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jun 2 15:24:24 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Catfish 44 on Fri Jun 2 00:37:13 2017. The State St subway in Chicago was pretty noisy. |
|
|
| (1438116) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Jun 2 15:55:15 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by randyo on Fri Jun 2 15:24:24 2017. Yes, phenomenally loud. |
|
|
| (1438143) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Jun 2 21:24:37 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Catfish 44 on Fri Jun 2 00:36:44 2017. Then you had Martin Balsam doing quite a bit of operating. He LOVED playing a villain for once. |
|
|
| (1438144) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Jun 2 21:25:05 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Jun 2 15:55:15 2017. Painfully loud. |
|
|
| (1438145) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Jun 2 21:27:11 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Jun 2 07:12:03 2017. The slants were a worthy successor to the Thunderbirds, the R-10s, on the Abbott. |
|
|
| (1438147) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Jun 2 21:29:50 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Jun 2 12:23:17 2017. A la 401 and 1000 (and 1689), I presume? |
|
|
| (1438150) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Jun 2 21:44:18 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Jun 2 21:25:05 2017. indeed. |
|
|
| (1438151) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Fri Jun 2 22:11:15 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Jun 2 21:24:37 2017. True and true |
|
|
| (1438180) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Jun 3 15:31:27 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Jun 2 21:27:11 2017. I never liked the slants from the very first time I saw one on display at 34/6. |
|
|
| (1438185) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jun 3 16:12:30 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by randyo on Sat Jun 3 15:31:27 2017. My sister actually liked them - and she is definitely not a subway buff! We even took a slant F one stop from 34th to 42nd once just to appease her. Funny thing - I was so accustomed to looking above the storm door for route and destination signs that I didn't notice the huge magenta F sign until my mother pointed it out to me.I saw the slants plenty of times on the Ethel when they were new, but never rode on them when they were new except for that one-stop ride on that Fred train. In those days I flatly refused to take an E south of 42nd - it was an Abbot or nothing. |
|
|
| (1438191) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jun 3 16:38:09 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by randyo on Sat Jun 3 15:31:27 2017. I knew right away the cars would be problematical. I heard that when they first started being delivered the fiberglass fronts were cracking.My first ride on them I had no problem with the slant design, but when I saw the cars added and you crossed in between cars, somebody was going down. Kids would sit on the little ledge in between cars while the train was in motion. I'm shocked Raymond Lowey didn't figure out how his slant design would come out once the units were added together. |
|
|
| (1438215) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by ftgreeneg on Sun Jun 4 00:01:32 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by randyo on Sat Jun 3 15:31:27 2017. Growing up I loved the slants no really for any technical reasons just loved that they were different. A little disappointed I came into mta too late to operate one. Senior guys told me they were falling apart but fast. Kinda sad for me to see all the NTT's all looking the same I can understand why they are though. |
|
|
| (1438216) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by ftgreeneg on Sun Jun 4 00:01:34 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by randyo on Sat Jun 3 15:31:27 2017. Growing up I loved the slants no really for any technical reasons just loved that they were different. A little disappointed I came into mta too late to operate one. Senior guys told me they were falling apart but fast. Kinda sad for me to see all the NTT's all looking the same I can understand why they are though. |
|
|
| (1438235) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Handbrake on Sun Jun 4 11:43:58 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Joe V on Wed May 31 07:08:01 2017. In late 1975 late one night I rode a pre war IND consist from Ditmas Avenue into mid-town Manhattan. I was surprised to see the R1/9 equipment as such a late date considering the amount of R40/42/R44 equipment were in operation at the time, and the time of day. |
|
|
| (1438236) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Handbrake on Sun Jun 4 11:55:29 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Joe V on Tue May 30 19:15:47 2017. R32's were originally planned for deployment on the IND, but instead placed on the BMT to replace the A/B & D Tyes in anticipation to the BMT/IND merger of November 1967. For what ever reason, the NYCTA did not want to operate BRT A/B equipment, possibly D Types as well, on the main line IND. If I recall an earlier post, the NYCT placed into service on the F Line a few BRT Standards to determine how well those cars would hold up on the IND and maintain running schedules in conjunction with IND equipment.From an old time BMT motorman, while on the IND QBL, R1/9's would just screamed past the BRT A/B equipment, not o mention having to take a brake reduction even before entering stations. |
|
|
| (1438237) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Handbrake on Sun Jun 4 11:57:55 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by randyo on Wed May 31 16:41:15 2017. A NYCTA subway map of the late 1950's depicts an R16 with IND A Line destination markings. |
|
|
| (1438238) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Jun 4 12:20:18 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jun 3 16:38:09 2017. " I'm shocked Raymond Lowey didn't figure out how his slant design would come out once the units were added together."I'm suprised that the TA accepted that design in the first place. |
|
|
| (1438239) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 4 12:27:25 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Handbrake on Sun Jun 4 11:55:29 2017. It was time for the Standards to go anyway by 1968. They got the R16's out of ENY because they did not want 6 car Standards on the QJ during snowstorms, as they had done with the 15 service.The TA hated anything associated with BMT innovation, therefore the D types were evil. I think they would have done quite well on a post Chrystie D train, given an overhaul. Yest they had to pull nonrebuilt Southern Division Standards off the scrap track and place back in service because the R1's in Jamaica Yard were falling apart thanks to late deliveries of R38's. The worst of the Arnines from Concourse Yard and R32's from the former Q train were there instead. The Arnines could barely make it over the Manhattan Bridge, and the R32's performance was reduced while getting caught behind Arnines. Someone(s) should have gotten fired for the R1/D-type decision in 1965. |
|
|
| (1438241) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Bzuck on Sun Jun 4 12:31:48 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Handbrake on Sun Jun 4 11:55:29 2017. I heard somewhere the Christie Street connection to the bridge could have opened as early as 1963 but did not because they did not want to run the a A/B equipment on the IND. Had they opened it that early it would have been a phase 1 without the 6th avenue express tracks. Only the D would have been routed to the Brighton line and the F extended to CI. The rest of the reroutes would have come later.If that is true I wonder why they did not do phase 1 in 1965 after the 32s were all in service. |
|
|
| (1438242) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 4 12:45:42 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Bzuck on Sun Jun 4 12:31:48 2017. That dilemma could have been easily overcome with some equipment swaps.The QT and RR's R27's could have gone to such a D service, and those 2 Broadway locals get their Standards back, even though one of them ran to Forest Hills when that service started. Nine car Standards on the IND would have been interesting though. |
|
|
| (1438246) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 4 12:55:49 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Jun 4 12:20:18 2017. Didn't Lindsay ram that down their throats, and the slope was originally set to be steeper ? |
|
|
| (1438248) | |
Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 4 13:06:16 2017, in response to Re: [PHOTO] When The R-40M's Were New, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 4 12:55:49 2017. He wanted a change in car design...from boxy to streamlined futuristic.If the TA stuck with the original designs for the cars,there wouldn't have been much problems with them. Funny thing,though. The following R units,from the 44s to the NTT cars,Did carry the cab/trailer (abbba or abba) designs that was intended for the R40s.. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
