|
|
| Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) (381329) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 6 |
||
|
| (383855) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Fri Feb 9 10:57:40 2007, in response to 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. ACF is definitely long gone. |
|
|
| (383859) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Fri Feb 9 11:01:44 2007, in response to 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. I've forgotten about that, I've keep thinking that the only post-war BMT/IND cars ACF made were the R-16's. |
|
|
| (383881) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Fri Feb 9 11:39:11 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. Well at the R46's builders are still around. Pullman produced good equipemnt through the years. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (383888) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Fri Feb 9 11:48:24 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Fri Feb 9 11:39:11 2007. Huh? Pullman went out of business shortly after the R-46 truck fiasco started. |
|
|
| (384048) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by PATHman on Fri Feb 9 15:09:25 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. With a few exceptions I prefer the newer cars. I like cars with sleek designs, door chimes, smooth rides, automated announcements, strip maps, and aesthetically pleasing interiors. Cars like the R160 are superior to older predecessors like the R42. The R46 is a better car than the R32 since it has a smoother ride and better design. The R142 has a smoother ride than the R62. There are a few sentimental favorites (R40, Redbird, BMT D-Type Triplex) but newer is always better. |
|
|
| (384065) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 9 15:41:36 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by PATHman on Fri Feb 9 15:09:25 2007. Agreed. I like the R46's and 62s and 68s and the new tech cars. The "slants' represent a unique style and are important in the history of subway transit (as are the R32s) so I hope a married pair are retained by the Transit Museum (and at least one R32 should be retained as well). |
|
|
| (384066) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Feb 9 15:44:44 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by PATHman on Fri Feb 9 15:09:25 2007. but newer is always betterYou have committed the Appeal to Novelty fallacy, courtesy of the Nizkor Project: This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the novelty or newness of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something older. This is made quite obvious by the following example: Joe has proposed that 1+1 should now be equal to 3. When asked why people should accept this, he says that he just came up with the idea. Since it is newer than the idea that 1+1=2, it must be better. |
|
|
| (384124) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Feb 9 17:44:17 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by PATHman on Fri Feb 9 15:09:25 2007. "but newer is always better."Because, of course... The R40s are better than the R32... |
|
|
| (384191) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Fri Feb 9 19:47:20 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Fri Feb 9 11:48:24 2007. Geez, what's with these domestic railcar companies folding? You'd think that at least one is still around. |
|
|
| (384271) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Fri Feb 9 22:39:28 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Fri Feb 9 19:47:20 2007. Times change, situations and circumstances arise that cause change. Railcar production is no longer a domestic domain. |
|
|
| (384280) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Feb 9 22:52:50 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. That is funny..The R10 were damn good..like the 12/14..and 15's.. St Louis did a great job on the 17's..and ACF did a helofa good job on the 26/28.. So what happen to the 16's? They were too heavy.."boaty" with jacked suspension causing the car to ROCK SIDE TO SIDE like it was on the HIGH SEAS! I didn't like those things one bit..and am GLAD they are DEAD. |
|
|
| (384282) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Feb 9 22:55:14 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Fri Feb 9 22:39:28 2007. Who sez?Kawasaki have several plants here in the USA..in Younkers And in the Midwest. Both are able to produce FULL railcar models to owner specs. Where do you think the 160b cars are coming from? Japan? |
|
|
| (384310) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Fri Feb 9 23:35:24 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Fri Feb 9 19:47:20 2007. So I guess you can't write to ACF, Pullman or any of the old time domestic railcar producers. Railcar manufacturing is now an international marketplace as far as producing NYCT subway cars goes. You won't find many domestic builders left. Most production comes from companies abroad, some which have opened plants here in the US for producing locally. Sorta like Kawasaki has done (producing your new tech cars) in the last two decades or so. I think Budd might still be around. |
|
|
| (384326) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Fri Feb 9 23:52:00 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Edwards! on Fri Feb 9 22:55:14 2007. You misunderstood what my point, but perhaps I wasn't entirely clear. When I said that Railcar production was no longer a domestic production, I was referring to American founded railcar companies like Pullman, ACF, St. Louis Car, etc., not international companies like Kawasaki that opened local production plants here in the States, which I was already aware of anyway. |
|
|
| (384337) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Sat Feb 10 00:08:32 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Fri Feb 9 23:35:24 2007. I think Budd might still be around.The last I heard, they changed their name to Transit America and then built that joint fleet of metro cars for the Baltimore and Miami Systems. What happened with them after that, I don't know. |
|
|
| (384339) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Feb 10 00:18:10 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Sat Feb 10 00:08:32 2007. Closed down..still making Auto parts[stamping plant] for various companies. |
|
|
| (384341) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 00:38:45 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Sat Feb 10 00:08:32 2007. Oh, yeah, Budd. I forgot about them. The ones that built those "Boxcars." |
|
|
| (384342) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (rolling stock decisions and issues) |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Feb 10 00:40:10 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (rolling stock decisions and issues), posted by randyo on Thu Feb 8 01:32:36 2007. Too cheap yes, but how many other system have more cars than ours? This case quality has to be sacrificed for quantity. |
|
|
| (384434) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Sat Feb 10 13:58:28 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 00:38:45 2007. The ones that built those "Boxcars."LOL, your coined terms and nicknames for various aspects of transit never ceases to amaze me. You already coined expressaholics, R-40 modihorrors, R-16 blitz, and now boxcars for the R-32's. Now what did that fleet did to you to deserve to be called Boxcars? |
|
|
| (384437) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Sat Feb 10 14:09:50 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Fri Feb 9 11:01:44 2007. American Car & Foundry Co., Inc. built the 400 R-10 cars (1948-49) and the 200 R-16 cars (1954-55) for the IND-BMT Division, plus the company rebuilt R-7A #1575 (originally in 1938 by Pullman-Standard) as the R-10 prototype in 1947. For the IRT Division, it was the 250 R-12/14 cars (1948-49), the 100 R-15 cars (1950) and the 210 R-26/28 cars (1959-61).After the R-28 contract, ACF stopped making passenger rail cars of any type, and started to focus on building freight rail equipment, where they make a profit from. The company is still in business as ACF Industries, Inc., and their website is at http://www.acfindustries.com. -William A. Padron ["BRIARWOOD"] |
|
|
| (384438) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Sat Feb 10 14:12:31 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Fri Feb 9 10:57:40 2007. ACF is still in business, but they concentrate on building freight rail equipment instead, where they make their real money from. Their website is at http://www.acfindustries.com.-William A. Padron ["a.c.f."] |
|
|
| (384440) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Sat Feb 10 14:32:30 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by William A. Padron on Sat Feb 10 14:12:31 2007. And on their website comes from their history section, which states ACF as it is today..."By 1954, the corporation's interests had become so diversified that the name was changed from American Car and Foundry to ACF Industries Inc. ACF produced its last passenger car in 1959. ACF Industries LLC became a successor to ACF Industries Inc. in May, 2003." ACF Industries LLC has their headquarters in St. Charles, Missouri, with plants also in Milton, Pennsylvania and Huntington, West Virginia. Back around 1999, a 100th Anniversary commerative book was issued about the company's history and most of their output, but very little to say concerning them building subway cars for New York City. -William A. Padron ["Berwick, PA"] |
|
|
| (384449) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Sat Feb 10 14:46:48 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Wed Feb 7 16:41:13 2007. Ah, well as much I loved the R-10's as my all-time favorite subway cars (originally 400 built), I personally could not ever forsee something of a 1000-car order in that design. Besides, I am sure there would have been a new order of subway cars that could have moved into the lines of a IND-BMT version from the R-15 model (as a probable example), if the BOT were to still be in existence then.Hands down, I too will take the R-10's, plus the R-1/9's and R-12/14/15's, anytime for my own pleasure and benefit. I am not really all that crazy and excited about anything else that is currently running on the system these days. -William A. Padron ["Wash.Hts.-8th Av.Exp."] |
|
|
| (384457) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 15:41:00 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Sat Feb 10 13:58:28 2007. "Now what did that fleet did to you to deserve to be called Boxcars?"Because that's what they remind me of, boxcars. |
|
|
| (384460) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Sat Feb 10 15:50:27 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by William A. Padron on Sat Feb 10 14:46:48 2007. I like the R-10's too for their old style design that stood out from the successive R-series cars of the 50's and 60's; but then I like the laht fleets in general regardless of which contract they were.Ah, well as much I loved the R-10's as my all-time favorite subway cars (originally 400 built), I personally could not ever forsee something of a 1000-car order in that design. Besides, I am sure there would have been a new order of subway cars that could have moved into the lines of a IND-BMT version from the R-15 model (as a probable example), if the BOT were to still be in existence then. Now that would've been cool to have if it came to pass, an IND/BNT version of the R-15's! I can't imagine an 1,000 car order of any R-Series type during the 50's and 60's, since there was still so many of the older cars still around at the time. Of course if the IND Second System existed at that time, or at the very least was being built, then it increases the likelihood that there would've been larger car orders. |
|
|
| (384488) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Westinghouse XCB248S on Sat Feb 10 16:49:17 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. Definately my favorite old rolling stock is the R68, R68A, R32, R46, R62, R62A, and the Redbirds. I like the R68 and R68A because of their reliablity, smooth ride, sleek design, and cool and reliable Westinghouse Cam Propulsion Version XCB248S Propulsion System (hence the handle). That would be the last Propulsion system that the 1886 Westinghouse Electric Corporation would supply to the NYC Subway. I like the R32, and the Redbirds because of their retro design. I love the R46 because of its reliabilty, sleek design, smooth ride, and cool and reliable General Electric SCM V Propulsion. I love the R62 because of its speed, reliablity, and cool General Electric SCM I Propulsion System. I love the R62A because of it's reliablity and cool Westinghouse Cam Propulsion Version XCB248R Propulsion System.I love all of the new cars. The R160A and R160B are one of my favorites because of their cool Alstom Onix Propulsion and sleek design. I am absolutely going to like the Siemens Propulsion R160B. I love the R142 for its sleek design, smooth ride, reliablity, and Alstom Onix Propulsion. I love the R142A and R143 because of its reliablity, sleek design, smooth ride and Adtranz Propulsion. |
|
|
| (384568) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Feb 10 18:30:23 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Feb 9 15:44:44 2007. I agree. |
|
|
| (384587) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (rolling stock decisions and issues) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 10 18:49:14 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (rolling stock decisions and issues), posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Feb 10 00:40:10 2007. A major transit system such as ours which used to be the leader in world rapid transit systems shouldn't have to sacrifice anything. Shame on the "cesspool of incompetence" which masquerades as upper MTA management for their inability to do what needs to be done. |
|
|
| (384590) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (rolling stock decisions and issues) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 10 18:50:40 2007, in response to 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. Then explain to me why NYCT is the only major transit system in the world that does not display the destinations on the front of its trains. |
|
|
| (384642) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (rolling stock decisions and issues) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Sat Feb 10 20:33:09 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (rolling stock decisions and issues), posted by randyo on Sat Feb 10 18:50:40 2007. I would put it like this: NYCT is the only major transit system in the world taht no longer displays the destinations on the front of its trains. |
|
|
| (384643) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Sat Feb 10 20:39:55 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Sat Feb 10 13:58:28 2007. I think he's referring to the full-body corrugations, on the R-32's, that give a passing reminder to the appearance of the boxcar. |
|
|
| (384651) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Sat Feb 10 21:11:54 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Sat Feb 10 20:39:55 2007. Well, they aren't boxy enough. They need corrugated ridges on the roofs, roofs that are squared, not rounded at the sides. The corrugations on the R-32's are opposite of the style on freight boxcars, which usually have them as vertical ridges--the R-32's have horizontal ridges. And Boxcars don't have windows. So I don't see how Nutz's analogy about the R-32's imitating boxcars is accurate, they don't come close. |
|
|
| (384665) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 21:38:29 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Sat Feb 10 21:11:54 2007. " So I don't see how Nutz's analogy about the R-32's imitating boxcars is accurate, they don't come close."Stop trying to correct me! As far as I'm concerned, their resemblence to boxcars is close enough. |
|
|
| (384674) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Sat Feb 10 22:05:46 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 21:38:29 2007. And you don't care much for them. |
|
|
| (384682) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 22:18:52 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Sat Feb 10 22:05:46 2007. They're antiquated. The boxcar style is over. Corrugations are not a good look for a subway car, particulary those that cover the entirely outer body--partial corrugation on a rapid transit rail car is an minor aesthetic improvement. With this poor imitation of boxcars, those R32's are almost as ugly as those Slants. |
|
|
| (384688) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sat Feb 10 22:28:59 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 22:18:52 2007. The train cars are primarily a product of the times.The R32 was most likely considered "state-of-the-art" at that time (1964). The 1970s brought about the state of the art R44s which of course were a product of their times, with the orange and yellow bucket seats, wallpaper, faux cherry wood paneling and fuzzy carpeting. And the R32s don't even look too bad in the system after over 40 years in service but they are aging at quite a fast rate. |
|
|
| (384691) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Sat Feb 10 22:39:10 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 22:18:52 2007. But they still function, however boxcar-like you think they are. |
|
|
| (384693) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by PATHman on Sat Feb 10 22:41:46 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 22:18:52 2007. Finally someone who isn't afraid to say he hates the R32. |
|
|
| (384695) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Sat Feb 10 22:46:05 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 22:18:52 2007. How could you?!!The R32 and the R40 are the best-looking subway cars ever built! The R32 lines are good so you can get cool pics like this:  Not only does the R40 slant look cool but its efficient too. The slant is good in something about wind resistance therefore making it go faster, and also because of the slant you won't have idiots leaning on the rail fan window with their back facing it since it is not easy to lean on that angle. |
|
|
| (384696) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Sat Feb 10 22:46:20 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 22:18:52 2007. How could you?!!The R32 and the R40 are the best-looking subway cars ever built! The R32 lines are good so you can get cool pics like this: Not only does the R40 slant look cool but its efficient too. The slant is good in something about wind resistance therefore making it go faster, and also because of the slant you won't have idiots leaning on the rail fan window with their back facing it since it is not easy to lean on that angle. |
|
|
| (384697) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 22:46:28 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sat Feb 10 22:28:59 2007. Yeah, I'll admit to the state of the art factor--the fact that the car bodies were stainless steel contributed to that, despite that the way the design was applied was very tacky. |
|
|
| (384699) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 22:49:32 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by PATHman on Sat Feb 10 22:41:46 2007. It is definitely not one of my favorite cars. While they're still holding up, their era is drawing to a close. |
|
|
| (384701) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 22:51:56 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Sat Feb 10 22:39:10 2007. Yes, I admit that they still function--very well for an aging fleet, much better than those Slants and R44's. At least Budd was revolutionary enough and had enough foresight to make subway cars out of stainless steel and not that deteriorating laht that those Redbirds, R16's and other old 50's-60's era IRT and IND/BMT had. |
|
|
| (384702) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Sat Feb 10 22:54:11 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Westinghouse XCB248S on Sat Feb 10 16:49:17 2007. NO NO NO NO STOP SPREADING PROPAGANDA!!! |
|
|
| (384707) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Sat Feb 10 22:56:56 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by error46146 on Sat Feb 10 22:46:05 2007. That's right, R-32's rule! Now that's one fleet I wouldn't mind seeing 1,000 cars running all over the B Division.The Slants may look cool, but at times that slanted design makes them look out of place compared to the other rolling stock. |
|
|
| (384708) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Sat Feb 10 22:57:50 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 22:51:56 2007. Laht is cheaper and is also cool car body shell to work with. For example, you can paint on it. |
|
|
| (384712) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 23:07:38 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by error46146 on Sat Feb 10 22:46:20 2007. How could I what?Those R32's may look good to you, but that corrugated design is tacky. The stainless steel bodies is the only thing going for them, and other than their refurbished look from the GOH, and the shop personnel at Jamaica and Piktin doing their best to take care of the, is the reason why they're still in service; if they were laht like those R27/R30's, R16's and those A Division Redbirds, they would be retired by now. As for the Slants, that design did nothing for NYCT whatsoever, except an attempt to futurize the look of the subway car, a design that later was deemed not practical that the remainder of the order was not given the slant treatment, and thus the R40 mod-ihorrors or what I call aesthetically correct slants, were born. |
|
|
| (384717) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 23:13:40 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Sat Feb 10 22:57:50 2007. I hope you're not suggesting that NYCT revive that look on future car orders. |
|
|
| (384721) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Sat Feb 10 23:21:25 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 23:13:40 2007. Of course not. But when their presence was felt on the rails, it was a colorful experience. |
|
|
| (384751) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 23:58:58 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Sat Feb 10 23:21:25 2007. What colorful experience? Being a Redbird, or a broken down graffited R16, a green antiquated R10 or those worn out R12/14/15/17/21/22's on the A Division that were on their last legs, befor being put out of their misery? |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 6 |
||
