|
|
| Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) (381329) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 6 |
||
|
| (384759) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Sun Feb 11 00:15:27 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by subway nutz on Sat Feb 10 23:58:58 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?They were all colorful, at least to me. |
|
|
| (384777) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Sun Feb 11 00:54:10 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Sun Feb 11 00:15:27 2007. While laht may have provided a canvas for all things colorful, it was a cheap car body alloy for a subway car. It is weak, not at all durable, and much more prone to rust and corrosion. A stainless steel car body is proven to be much more durable and less prone to corrosion. |
|
|
| (384784) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Sun Feb 11 01:00:00 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by subway nutz on Sun Feb 11 00:54:10 2007. Well 50 years ago or so, laht was all the rage. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (384790) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Sun Feb 11 01:10:10 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Sun Feb 11 01:00:00 2007. "Well 50 years ago or so, laht was all the rage."Yeah, well the TA/MTA couldn't do any better at the time. Xtrain did pointed out earlier that that particular alloy is cheaper, and allowed more mass production of such cars to be made over 10 different contracts, which I personally think they overdid, but I guess they weren't yet ready to invest in the more expensive stainless steel or the lighter aluminum. The boxcar R32's were an improvement over the choices of outer-body metal for NYCT subway cars, but that design they sported left a lot to be desired. |
|
|
| (384801) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by #3 West End Jeff on Sun Feb 11 01:40:11 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 did like the railfan windows on the "Redbirds" for example. Before the R-62As got the full width cabs, they had railfan windows. The best railfan windows were on the Slant R-40s. Now you have "Smear-o-Vision" railfan windows on the newer cars if you can even get a railfan window. The NYCTA should us ethe SEPTA design idea and have sit down railfan windows.#3 West End Jeff |
|
|
| (386110) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Mon Feb 12 20:06:04 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by subway nutz on Sun Feb 11 01:10:10 2007. Most R-Series laht cars were for the IRT, the BMT/IND didn't make much use of them, as far as rolling stock contracts went. |
|
|
| (386123) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Feb 12 20:41:02 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by subway nutz on Sun Feb 11 01:10:10 2007. I wish Aluminum had become the material of choice.I'm waiting for advances in the production of carbon fibers to make them practical for use in subway cars. |
|
|
| (386149) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 12 21:31:15 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by subway nutz on Sun Feb 11 01:10:10 2007. LAHT = Low Alloy High Tensile SteelKinki-Sharyo cars use it. as do Metra cars St. Louis Car also used this material in the 1950s. Chromium and molybdenum, if I recall correctly, are often included in the steel. Bicycle frames are made of this (correct me if I am wrong). |
|
|
| (386152) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Feb 12 21:37:58 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 12 21:31:15 2007. modern metra cars are stainless.Except for CRC, i think everyone uses stainless or aluminum in north america for heavy rail. |
|
|
| (386154) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 12 21:39:07 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by R30A on Mon Feb 12 21:37:58 2007. Noted. |
|
|
| (386167) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Mon Feb 12 22:05:49 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Mon Feb 12 20:06:04 2007. The B Division had the R-16's, the R-27's, the R-30's, the R-10's and what else? |
|
|
| (386168) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Feb 12 22:08:25 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Mon Feb 12 22:05:49 2007. The entire IND ORGINAL R1/9 series. |
|
|
| (386170) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 12 22:12:04 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Edwards! on Mon Feb 12 22:08:25 2007. The R1 was LAHT? |
|
|
| (386171) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Mon Feb 12 22:12:19 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Mon Feb 12 22:05:49 2007. The R-1/R-9's. |
|
|
| (386172) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Mon Feb 12 22:14:35 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Edwards! on Mon Feb 12 22:08:25 2007. Oh yeah, I forgot about them. Thanks, Edwards. |
|
|
| (386174) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Mon Feb 12 22:16:47 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Edwards! on Mon Feb 12 22:08:25 2007. Okay, so we have the original IND fleet, the R-16's, R-10's, R-27's, and R-30's as laht based R-Series fleets. That isn't much compared to the IRT. |
|
|
| (386178) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Feb 12 22:20:07 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 12 22:12:04 2007. Yup. |
|
|
| (386180) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 12 22:20:50 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Edwards! on Mon Feb 12 22:20:07 2007. Thank you. |
|
|
| (386181) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Feb 12 22:21:08 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 12 22:12:04 2007. Yup.It was "exposed rivets/Panel construction"..but it was LAHT for sure. |
|
|
| (386183) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Mon Feb 12 22:23:30 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Mon Feb 12 22:16:47 2007. The A Division had the R-12's, R-14's, R-15's, R-17's, R-21/R-22's, R-26/R28's, R-29's R-33ML/R-33WF's and R-36ML/R36WF's. About twice as many laht cars than for the B Division. |
|
|
| (386222) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Mon Feb 12 23:27:21 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Mon Feb 12 22:16:47 2007. Wait a minute. The original IND cars were laht-based. |
|
|
| (386225) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Mon Feb 12 23:29:05 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by subway nutz on Mon Feb 12 23:27:21 2007. Yes. |
|
|
| (386228) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Mon Feb 12 23:35:22 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Mon Feb 12 23:29:05 2007. Are you sure? I thought the cars bodies were composed of a stronger steel, with no light alloy material. |
|
|
| (386230) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Mon Feb 12 23:39:21 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by subway nutz on Mon Feb 12 23:35:22 2007. What stronger steel are you referring to? |
|
|
| (386234) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Mon Feb 12 23:45:32 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Mon Feb 12 23:39:21 2007. "What stronger steel are you referring to?"Like the one used on the BMT Standards. |
|
|
| (386242) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Mon Feb 12 23:51:17 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by subway nutz on Mon Feb 12 23:45:32 2007. Like the one used on the BMT Standards.Aren't they laht based as well? I think they are. |
|
|
| (386250) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Tue Feb 13 00:06:24 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Mon Feb 12 23:51:17 2007. Maybe, but I don't think they're comprised entirely of laht. Given that most of those cars ran over 40 years in service, and that the outer-bodies of laht cars aren't designed to last that long, I think that the steel components that went into the construction of the original BMT cars vs. the ones used in the construction of the R10 through R36WF cars are different. I also think that the original IND cars were built more in line with the BMT cars than to the R10-R36 cars. |
|
|
| (386254) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Tue Feb 13 00:19:44 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by subway nutz on Tue Feb 13 00:06:24 2007. Of course the R-1/R-9's wouldn't be built similarly to the R-10's through R-36's, as those fleets came years later. If anything, the opposite would be true. |
|
|
| (386258) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Tue Feb 13 00:24:11 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by subway nutz on Tue Feb 13 00:06:24 2007. I also think that the original IND cars were built more in line with the BMT cars than to the R10-R36 cars.How so? |
|
|
| (386263) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Tue Feb 13 00:34:18 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Tue Feb 13 00:24:11 2007. For one thing, laht makes for a lighter car body. |
|
|
| (386266) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Tue Feb 13 00:38:20 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by subway nutz on Tue Feb 13 00:34:18 2007. Not all Laht fleets were light. Some fleets, like the R-16's, had considerable weight on them. |
|
|
| (386272) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Tue Feb 13 00:50:27 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Tue Feb 13 00:38:20 2007. I said only the car bodies. You're factoring in the totality of the subway car--like the seats, heating/ventilation systems, cab equipment, the trucks; those things brings in the weight. |
|
|
| (386273) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Tue Feb 13 01:05:33 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Tue Feb 13 00:38:20 2007. Most of the weight of a subway cars is in the trucks, not the car-body itself. |
|
|
| (386274) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Tue Feb 13 01:14:28 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Tue Feb 13 01:05:33 2007. Yeah, I'm just speaking of the outer body shell. I'm not talking about the stuff that goes into the interiors--the seats, straphangers, standee poles, the operational equipment in the cabs, door controls, heat/ventilation equipment. Just the bare car body with nothing in it. As I was saying, laht allows for a lighter car body, and the R1-R9's appeared to have a sturdier car body than the R10-R36's. |
|
|
| (386277) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Tue Feb 13 01:23:00 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by subway nutz on Tue Feb 13 01:14:28 2007. I'm convinced that the R-1/R-9's are laht based, but the maybe that sturdier composition of the car bodies that you're referring to, has more to do with the way the cars were constructed, than what steel components went in them. |
|
|
| (387533) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by ALP44 on Thu Feb 15 15:48:42 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. Hmmm, that's a toughie. I'm actually fortunate to have rode all the post-war R equipment with exception to the R16 and the R21. In all honesty, I prefer the older equipment from a commuter's point of view for the fact that they were always reliable when properly maintained and always got you to where you had to go. Now don't get me wrong, I do like the R142's and the R143/160's but somehow, if the on-board computer fails, then you're not going anywhere whereas the SMEE's and AMUES just have some stuff moved about and you're on your way. Of course we can't avoid modernization but IMHO, the old equipment is more reliable.ALP 44 |
|
|
| (388729) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Sat Feb 17 21:24:26 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by subway nutz on Tue Feb 13 01:14:28 2007. But how can you tell the difference? They look no more sturdy than the R-10--R-36 cars. |
|
|
| (388734) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 17 21:34:29 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 15:50:27 2007. As I mentioned in another post, the 400 car R-17 order coupled with the 250 car R-21 order and the 400 car R-22 order added up to 950 cars almost the full 1,000. These cars were all basically the same car type with the exception of minor aesthetic differences such as the porthole window of the R-17s and the factory installed seal beam headlights of the R-22s. |
|
|
| (388742) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 17 21:39:44 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 23:52:00 2007. If I recall, Morrison - Knudson has gone into domestic railcar production as well as overhauls. They did CTA's newest equipment. |
|
|
| (388753) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Sat Feb 17 22:23:30 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by randyo on Sat Feb 17 21:39:44 2007. Did Morrison-Knudsen produced a contract of cars for one of the other US subway systems sometime between 1960-1975? I don't recall too clearly, but I could've sworn I saw something about it on the web about it a few years ago. |
|
|
| (388755) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Westinghouse XCB248S on Sat Feb 17 22:27:54 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 17 22:23:30 2007. Well, they did build the M6 Commuter Car fleet for the MNRR. |
|
|
| (389187) | |
Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Feb 18 15:34:43 2007, in response to Re: Modern Subway Cars vs. Older Subway Cars (pros, cons, memories, thoughts)), posted by randyo on Sat Feb 17 21:34:29 2007. Those three car orders replaced the Hi-Vs. |
|
|
| (389993) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Mon Feb 19 16:57:53 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Sat Feb 17 21:24:26 2007. "But how can you tell the difference? They look no more sturdy than the R-10--R-36 cars."They don't look the same as the other laht cars. |
|
|
| (390100) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Mon Feb 19 19:17:13 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by subway nutz on Mon Feb 19 16:57:53 2007. Yeah, but how? What, specifically, is different about them? |
|
|
| (390148) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Mon Feb 19 20:07:21 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Mon Feb 19 19:17:13 2007. They have a glossier livery, for one. |
|
|
| (390150) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by Westinghouse XCB248S on Mon Feb 19 20:09:27 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by subway nutz on Tue Feb 13 01:14:28 2007. But the R11/R34 and the R32 was made out of stainless steel. |
|
|
| (390152) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by Westinghouse XCB248S on Mon Feb 19 20:14:00 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Westinghouse XCB248S on Mon Feb 19 20:09:27 2007. BTW, which is more durable than the Low Alloy High Tensile steel. |
|
|
| (390186) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Feb 19 20:54:07 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Tue Feb 13 01:23:00 2007. They were not "unibody" cars...They were built by "panels construction exposed rivets"...whereas the R10s etc was spotwelded for a smooth surface. |
|
|
| (390192) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Mon Feb 19 21:07:28 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by subway nutz on Mon Feb 19 20:07:21 2007. Is that all? That could've been just a glossy coating of paint. |
|
|
| (391737) | |
Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel |
|
|
Posted by subway nutz on Thu Feb 22 22:47:21 2007, in response to Re: Stainless Steel Makes a Much Better Rapid Transit Car-Body than Laht Steel, posted by Rapid Transit Guy on Mon Feb 19 21:07:28 2007. No, there's something else. |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 6 |
||
