|
|
| Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) (381329) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 6 |
||
|
| (382467) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Tue Feb 6 20:52:46 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Mon Feb 5 20:20:43 2007. There were only 200 R-16's because they were ordered as an addition to the BMT fleet at the time, not to retire any cars. Had the decision been made to retire some Standards in the mid-50's, then the R-16 contract would've likely been larger. |
|
|
| (382484) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Tue Feb 6 21:15:21 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Tue Feb 6 20:52:46 2007. "There were only 200 R-16's because they were ordered as an addition to the BMT fleet at the time, not to retire any cars. Had the decision been made to retire some Standards in the mid-50's, then the R-16 contract would've likely been larger."Probably up to 1,000 cars. |
|
|
| (382495) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Tue Feb 6 21:34:14 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by BMTLines on Sun Feb 4 22:43:20 2007. That would be nice, that would be very nice touch. But then I wonder how long rattan and other plush/cushioned seats would last before being messed up. There is the vandalism issue. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (382498) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Tue Feb 6 21:37:03 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Feb 6 13:53:17 2007. The Standards were so indestructible that they happen to kill an R16 car years ago. If such a fleet dating back to the WWI years is so durable, I fail to see why didn't the BOT/TA/MTA made an effort to produce successive durable rolling stock for the post-war R Series fleets, instead of settling for that cheap unreliable laht? |
|
|
| (382500) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Tue Feb 6 21:40:34 2007, in response to Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Sun Feb 4 17:55:21 2007. I perfer the older for the following reasons:1. rail fan window 2. They're faster...well at least they feel faster 3. They look better (the R32 with the lines, the R40 with the slanted front) 4. They will be gone soon |
|
|
| (382501) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Tue Feb 6 21:42:13 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by error46146 on Tue Feb 6 21:40:34 2007. "1. rail fan window"Oh geeze... "2. They're faster...well at least they feel faster" Not always. "3. They look better (the R32 with the lines, the R40 with the slanted front)" The R32's look the best. "4. They will be gone soon" R32's will be around for a WHILE longer. |
|
|
| (382504) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Tue Feb 6 21:47:08 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Tue Feb 6 21:42:13 2007. Oh geeze...That's cause you believe that the rail fan window is not the most important thing. Everyone has a different opinion you know. Not always. But at least they feel like they're going faster The R32's look the best. I perfer the R40 for first place since not only is it slanted front beautiful but it is also efficient. R32 comes in 2nd place R32's will be around for a WHILE longer. Yeah, I heard. But the others won't. |
|
|
| (382512) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Tue Feb 6 21:52:05 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Tue Feb 6 21:15:21 2007. Probably up to 1,000 cars.The specific number would depend on how mcuh of the original BMT equipment would retire, how mcuh equipment would be needed for basic service requirements and whethere they would be service increases on some lines and/or the number of spare consists that would be needed. A 1,000 cars is a bit much, but not entirely unreasonable, if most of the Standards were retired, instead of them being overhauled, though that 1,000 would still been a bit too much if the Multisections and Triplexes still in service at the time. |
|
|
| (382583) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Tue Feb 6 22:49:04 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Mon Feb 5 20:20:43 2007. A thousand R-16's. I did like them, but I don't know if I like 1,000 running around. I mean, we can't dismiss the problems they had. |
|
|
| (382766) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Feb 7 08:19:31 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Tue Feb 6 22:49:04 2007. Too bad they didn't have a thousand Triplexes or R-10s. |
|
|
| (382767) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Feb 7 08:21:34 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Tue Feb 6 21:52:05 2007. The R-16s were technically specified as IND/BMT cars. They were initially assigned to the BMT because of a chronic shortage of steel subway equipment. |
|
|
| (382775) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (rolling stock decisions and issues) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Feb 7 08:29:21 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (rolling stock decisions and issues), posted by The Port of Authority on Tue Feb 6 17:35:35 2007. That's true. The TA has tried to keep as many consistent routes as possible. |
|
|
| (382776) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Feb 7 08:30:18 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Green over Green on Tue Feb 6 17:11:41 2007. Makes you want to say, "SHADDUP ALREADY!!!!!!!" |
|
|
| (382780) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Feb 7 08:35:01 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Tue Feb 6 21:37:03 2007. The BMT standards were a throwback to the good old days when even automobiles had steel, steel and more steel. |
|
|
| (382922) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Wed Feb 7 16:34:24 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Tue Feb 6 22:49:04 2007. You really like those cars don't you? It's a shame St. Louis Car didn't do a good job in building carbon steel fleets that are less prone to wear and tear. I guess structural durability for daily operations was the price paid for using cheaper metals. The MTA wanted to retired them after only 20 years of service? What does that tell you about them? The R16's were poorly built equipment. |
|
|
| (382925) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Wed Feb 7 16:41:13 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Feb 7 08:19:31 2007. A thousand Triplexes, yes, a thousand R10's, I think not. But then again, I'll take an R10 over an R16 or even the Redbirds. |
|
|
| (382937) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Wed Feb 7 17:09:24 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Wed Feb 7 16:34:24 2007. Acutally, Richard, it was American Car and Foundry, not St. Louis Car that built the R-16's. |
|
|
| (382946) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Wed Feb 7 17:35:53 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Wed Feb 7 17:09:24 2007. "...it was American Car and Foundry, not St. Louis Car that built the R-16's."And I thought that company was known for building reputable rolling stock. Didn't they also built some of the BMT Standards? They were some very sturdy robust cars that handled anything the rails threw at them. |
|
|
| (382955) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Wed Feb 7 18:27:24 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Wed Feb 7 17:35:53 2007. The Standards were a very durable fleet, yes. It would've been nice if a full 8 or 9 car trainset was kept as a nostalgia train. |
|
|
| (382956) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Ian Lennon on Wed Feb 7 18:37:04 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Wed Feb 7 17:35:53 2007. They also built some of the Arnines. |
|
|
| (383075) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Wed Feb 7 23:07:58 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Wed Feb 7 18:27:24 2007. Isn't there are full-length Standard trainsest stored at Coney Island Yard? |
|
|
| (383108) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Wed Feb 7 23:56:38 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Wed Feb 7 23:07:58 2007. There might be a car or two around, but not a whole trainset. You must be thinking of that Triplex nostalgia train, and even that is not full-length. |
|
|
| (383116) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Karl B on Thu Feb 8 00:15:29 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Wed Feb 7 23:07:58 2007. There is supposedly one B set (three cars, 2390,91 & 92) still surviving.The three cars are at CI in various stages of repair. |
|
|
| (383136) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Thu Feb 8 01:17:13 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Karl B on Thu Feb 8 00:15:29 2007. Oh okay, thanks. Hopefully a fan trip is in the works sometime in the forseeable future with those cars. |
|
|
| (383137) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Thu Feb 8 01:19:25 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Wed Feb 7 23:56:38 2007. The Triplex was the train that ran two/three years ago when there were all those MOD trips, right? |
|
|
| (383138) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Feb 8 01:19:52 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Mon Feb 5 20:20:43 2007. In a sense, the IRT got a large number of cars that were cut from the same cloth as the R-16. I'm referring to the R-17s through 22s which despite the minor cosmetic differences of the R-21s and 22s were basically the same car that was designed in 1964. Electrically and mechanically, the IRT's versions of the R-16 were identical yet it seems that the IRT's cars performed much better in sevice that their BMT/IND counterparts. |
|
|
| (383139) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Thu Feb 8 01:23:24 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Thu Feb 8 01:19:25 2007. Yes, I believe so. |
|
|
| (383144) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Thu Feb 8 01:31:53 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by randyo on Thu Feb 8 01:19:52 2007. I've wondered about that, myself, why the R-17's, R-21/R-22's had less operational and mechanical issues than the R-16's, especially if they all were the same operationally wise. The R-17's never suffered from the door motor problem that the R-16's had, leading to tacky replacement motors, and the R-17's didn't have much of an issue performing in snowy weather, unlike the R-16's.Do you think maybe the size of the cars (the larger R-16's vs the smaller R-17's and R-21/R-22's had anything to do with it? |
|
|
| (383145) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (rolling stock decisions and issues) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Feb 8 01:32:36 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (rolling stock decisions and issues), posted by The Port of Authority on Tue Feb 6 17:35:35 2007. The problem is that there are several lines that have multiple destinations. The #5 Line has 2 N/B destinations, 238 St and Dyre, and 4 S/B destinations, Flatbush, New Lots, Utica and Bowling Green, and the #4 shares 3 of these S/B destinations with the exception of Flatbush. The #6 has Pelham and Pkchester and the #7 has Main St, Willets Pt and 111 St. Without going into too much detail, other lines which have multiple destinations are the A, B, E, F, M, and R. Especially now with the availability of LED technology, there is no reason why destinations cannot be displayed on the end signs of trains especially when every other transit system in the world does so. As for the inability of the LEDs to display colors, that is not quite accurate. LEDs can display colors but the MTA is just too cheap to utilize the technology to do so. |
|
|
| (383153) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Feb 8 01:55:44 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Karl B on Thu Feb 8 00:15:29 2007. Now that I have seen all the posts, I'll put in my 2 cents about my favorite equipment. I was a M/M on the Qs, steels, R-9s and every other piece of TA equipment up to and including the R-42. I was also Lo-V qualified to expedite drilling and transferring Lo-Vs between yards and was also qualified on R-44 as a Command Center T/D. As far as operating, the pre war equipment had it head and shoulders above the postwar stuff but despite my never having operated them, the BMT Multi rates at the top of my list. The D type rates high on the list also but they lacked the PCC like technology that the multis had. For a railfan, of course, the multis lacked a decent RFW although they did have something similar to what the R-62s have. Since the window was placed slightly lower on the cab door, however, an averaged sized adult would have to stoop down to look out of it. By the time I got to riding the Multis, their maximum acceleration rate had been cut down to something resembling post war R types but the old timers tell me that as delivered, they were faster accelerating and decelerating than the R-10s and 16s which were new in the 1960s. All I can say is that I would have loved to have been a M/M on the Multis during their prime when they ran on the 14 St/Canarsie and 14 St/Fulton lines. I haven't mentioned the Bluebird since it was taken out of service when I was rather young and since I rode the 14 St Line rather infrequently I don't recall ever having either ridden it or even seeing it. From the photos I have seen of it and knowing a bit about its PCC technology, I can only assume that it was a fine piece of equipment not unlike the Chicago articulateds which were closely patterned after them. The Bluebird is an example of stste of the art technology which provided an attractive comfortable and efficient ride in a railcar which had the warmth and character sorely lacking in the sterile cold and unfriendly equipment we now have running on the NYCTS today. |
|
|
| (383172) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Feb 8 03:43:11 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Thu Feb 8 01:31:53 2007. The R-16s were the first mainline cars to have all electric door operators as opposed to the electro - pneumatic door engines on the R-10s and older equipment. The first cars to have all electric door operators were the R-12s and I recall that when they were on the 3 Av El in their last days, there were always battery problems. The R-12s through 16s had door equipment manufactured by the Nat'l Pneumatic Co. while the R-17s through 22s had door equipment from the Consolidated Car Heating Corp. It may have been that Consolidated made a superior product. The IRT cars also operated on lines that a great deal more underground operation that the R-16s on the Jamaica Line and that could account for their superior performance since they were underground more and exposed less to the elements. That being said, it would be interesting to see what, if any, problems the R-12s through 15s had when they were first introduced on the Flushing Line. Mechanically and electriclly with the exception of the door operators, they were more like the R-10s so they most likely performed better than the R-16s. Also, with no backup fleet to bail the line out or no easy way to swap cars between lines, the car maintenance force at Corona Barn had more of an incentive to keep the cars in good order and do what was necessary to minimize equipment failures. |
|
|
| (383191) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Thu Feb 8 07:46:22 2007, in response to Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Sun Feb 4 17:55:21 2007. The oldest car I can remember riding was the R-9, which served on the QB line in the early and mid-1970s. I used to love riding them. The yellow bulbs, the exposed fans, the "straw" seats, the brass handles on the rollsigns, the "hiss" when the doors opened, the enamel on the poles...even as a 10 year old in 1975 I knew that this was a subway car out of a different time. I remember them like today.When the R-9's were retired, the R-44's came in on the QB line. They were really impressive in their day. Quiet, great a/c, the "ding-dong" door chimes, the bright fluorescent lighting...it was, to me, the height of modernity. The QB line also had an assortment of R-32's and R-38's on the E and F lines. I never liked them. They were plain and featureless compared to the R-9's and R-44's and were VERY loud at speed. You couldn't hear the person next to you speaking. You couldn't even hear yourself. Now the line is all R-32's and R-46's and has been for quite some time. I can't recall the last time I saw an R-46 on the E. The car I remember most fondly? Has to be the R-9. |
|
|
| (383200) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Feb 8 08:39:57 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by randyo on Thu Feb 8 03:43:11 2007. The R-15s were the first cars to have door controls in the cabs. |
|
|
| (383201) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Feb 8 08:42:04 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Karl B on Thu Feb 8 00:15:29 2007. Only two other BMT standards survive: 2204 at the Transit Museum and 2775 at Shoreline. |
|
|
| (383214) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Feb 8 09:29:06 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Thu Feb 8 01:19:25 2007. The Triplex was the train that ran two/three years ago when there were all those MOD trips, right?The last trip on the Triplexes was 9/28/03. They made a breif appearance for the Centennial but had mechanical problems. Here they are on the 8/26/01 "D-Types to the Dock" fantrip: 
|
|
|
| (383285) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Thu Feb 8 11:33:42 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Thu Feb 8 01:23:24 2007. So, Xtrain, what was ACF's problem? Why did they produce poor quality rolling stock like the R16's? |
|
|
| (383293) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Thu Feb 8 11:41:12 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Feb 8 09:29:06 2007. Now that's one set of older equipment I wouldn't mind riding. |
|
|
| (383302) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (rolling stock decisions and issues) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Thu Feb 8 11:52:58 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (rolling stock decisions and issues), posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Feb 5 08:42:54 2007. It'd be nice, but if there are electric LED side signs, which apparently are becoming standard as demonstrated on the new tech cars, the destination signs on the front bulkhead of the trains won't be as important as they once were. It seems that the laht era of rolling stock had made the front destination signs such a tiresome and dated feature. No wonder by the time those Slants, R42's R44's and R46's and later fleets arrived, that feature was gone entirely. |
|
|
| (383315) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Feb 8 12:25:18 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Thu Feb 8 11:41:12 2007. Here, here. I was bummed when I found out the Triplexes wouldn't be running during the week of the centennial. I still have yet to ride on them. |
|
|
| (383444) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Thu Feb 8 17:27:53 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Thu Feb 8 11:33:42 2007. Why are you asking me? I don't know. Maybe the parties involved--the TA and ACF--thought the overall car-body shell design and operational function would be an improvement over earlier improvement. The R-16's was one of the early fleets to use electric door motors and featured the modern version of the half-width cabs (following the lead of the R-15's). It also did streamline the basic build of NYCT subway cars for the next decade. |
|
|
| (383484) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Thu Feb 8 19:18:21 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Thu Feb 8 17:27:53 2007. I wonder if ACF is still around. That's a burning question I like to ask them. |
|
|
| (383494) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Thu Feb 8 19:29:18 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Thu Feb 8 19:18:21 2007. ACF is gone, Richard. |
|
|
| (383498) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Thu Feb 8 19:40:15 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Thu Feb 8 19:29:18 2007. Damn, Now we'll never know. |
|
|
| (383505) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Thu Feb 8 19:57:56 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Thu Feb 8 19:40:15 2007. Being that the R-16's have long since retired, whatever issue you wanted to raise with ACF, hardly matters now. |
|
|
| (383517) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 8 20:11:09 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Thu Feb 8 19:57:56 2007. Isn't ACF also long gone? |
|
|
| (383543) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Feb 8 20:43:40 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Green over Green on Tue Feb 6 17:11:41 2007. The c/r could shut it off, my ride yesterday was quiet on the Manhattan bound direction. |
|
|
| (383548) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by tracksionmotor on Thu Feb 8 20:53:18 2007, in response to Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Sun Feb 4 17:55:21 2007. I've had my hands into R16s/17s/26s/29s/33s/EPs/68s/142s and did a tour of the R110 (on my own.) IF you work 'New Tech,' basic inspection is easy because so many systems go under software control and you lack direct electropneumatic systems to deal with. IF you work 'Old Tech' you are faced with electropneumatic systems to inspect and test.'Line in the sand' is troubleshooting problems. With 'New Tech,' many problems are embedded in software. 'Old Tech' takes a bit of electromechanical skill...and some luck...to troubleshoot. I'm not into nostalgia....the Redbirds taught me craft....I can look at something without the aid of a 'Portable Test Unit' (laptop) coming up with a preliminary diagnosis just by what is 'in my face.' A computer cannot pinpoint broken parts....takes a Car Inspector over Quality Assurance Inspectors to look into and get really dirty. I prefer older DC electropneumatic trainzzzz. I work Bombardier M7 heavy passenger railcars. My new post on inspection of M7 HVAC systems is on tracksionmotor.blogspot.com I just did the inspection of 4260/4261 today of HVAC rooftop seals.....it is very time consuming like changing out HVAC units four times in one day. Crew took pics of me and I will post when I receive them. RRCI Peter |
|
|
| (383640) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Thu Feb 8 23:07:06 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Thu Feb 8 11:33:42 2007. I don't think ACF anticipated any problems with their products at the time, Nutz. It's not like they set out to produce subpar performing rail cars. |
|
|
| (383665) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Feb 9 00:37:32 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by tracksionmotor on Thu Feb 8 20:53:18 2007. A computer cannot pinpoint broken parts....takes a Car Inspector over Quality Assurance Inspectors to look into and get really dirty.Yeah. Skilled technicians such as yourself will always be in demand for that reason. |
|
|
| (383757) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Feb 9 08:51:52 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Thu Feb 8 19:57:56 2007. ACF also built the R-10s. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 6 |
||
