|
|
| Re: Slant R42... (642116) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
|
| (643192) | |
Re: Slant R42... |
|
|
Posted by Ken S. on Wed Jul 2 10:03:33 2008, in response to Re: Slant R42..., posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Wed Jul 2 10:00:23 2008. Now I remember, it was on The Simpsons. Maggie shot Mr. Burns after he tried to take her lollipop. |
|
|
| (643193) | |
Re: Sorry about the double post |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Wed Jul 2 10:04:59 2008, in response to Sorry about the double post, posted by Ken S. on Wed Jul 2 09:56:40 2008. Don't worry, I have that problem too. |
|
|
| (643206) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Jul 2 10:28:50 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by MJF on Wed Jul 2 05:22:53 2008. It's his 3rd favorite word after banana and behind. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (643208) | |
Re: ANOTHER PHILDO THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...) |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Jul 2 10:31:23 2008, in response to ANOTHER PHILDO THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...), posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Jul 2 08:17:01 2008. ooops good |
|
|
| (643209) | |
Re: ANOTHER THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...) |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Wed Jul 2 10:34:10 2008, in response to ANOTHER PHILDO THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...), posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Jul 2 08:31:51 2008. 'Is that why I've been seeing missing builders plates on trains?'if you see missing builders' plates on the trains, take them before others do...... |
|
|
| (643211) | |
Re: Slant R42... |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Wed Jul 2 10:39:16 2008, in response to Re: Slant R42..., posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Wed Jul 2 09:39:34 2008. another night w/o sex, David? |
|
|
| (643212) | |
Re: Slant R42... |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Wed Jul 2 10:40:48 2008, in response to Re: Slant R42..., posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Wed Jul 2 09:42:59 2008. 'Trevor does not steal property.'in order to know this, you must be with him 24/7! your fiance must be jealous! |
|
|
| (643213) | |
Re: Slant R42... |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Wed Jul 2 10:41:22 2008, in response to Re: Slant R42..., posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Wed Jul 2 09:45:52 2008. what outfit do you use? |
|
|
| (643214) | |
Re: Slant R42... |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Wed Jul 2 10:42:30 2008, in response to Re: Slant R42..., posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Wed Jul 2 09:47:29 2008. sounds like you are jealousperhaps your fiance can get a set of her own.... |
|
|
| (643218) | |
Re: ANOTHER THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...) |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Jul 2 10:43:19 2008, in response to Re: ANOTHER THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...), posted by monorail on Wed Jul 2 10:34:10 2008. you lost me |
|
|
| (643219) | |
Re: Sorry about the double post |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Wed Jul 2 10:46:06 2008, in response to Re: Sorry about the double post, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Wed Jul 2 10:04:59 2008. I think we're all had that problem lately. |
|
|
| (643220) | |
Re: ANOTHER THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...) |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Wed Jul 2 10:46:50 2008, in response to Re: ANOTHER THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...), posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Jul 2 10:43:19 2008. don't think I had you to lose |
|
|
| (643221) | |
Re: ANOTHER THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...) |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Wed Jul 2 10:48:17 2008, in response to Re: ANOTHER THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...), posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Jul 2 10:43:19 2008. you posted that you saw 'the missing plates' on the trains!when you see 'the missing plates', you should take them, before someone else does..... |
|
|
| (643228) | |
Re: ANOTHER THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...) |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Jul 2 10:57:09 2008, in response to Re: ANOTHER THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...), posted by monorail on Wed Jul 2 10:48:17 2008. OK, I get it now. I apoligize for the brian fart, sorry |
|
|
| (643230) | |
Re: ANOTHER THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...) |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Jul 2 11:00:02 2008, in response to Re: ANOTHER THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...), posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Jul 2 10:57:09 2008. ooops, brain fart |
|
|
| (643231) | |
Re: ANOTHER PHILDO THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...) |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jul 2 11:00:55 2008, in response to ANOTHER PHILDO THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...), posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Jul 2 08:34:45 2008. You sure as heck can, and we have done it!ROAR |
|
|
| (643241) | |
Re: ANOTHER PHILDO THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...) |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Jul 2 11:15:07 2008, in response to Re: ANOTHER PHILDO THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...), posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jul 2 11:00:55 2008. Sorry, let's agree to disagree, |
|
|
| (643243) | |
Question about the pictures |
|
|
Posted by Hart Bus on Wed Jul 2 11:18:41 2008, in response to Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jul 1 11:24:22 2008. Were any of the cars shown in the first 4 pictures (R32 & higher) involved in the 74th ST / Roosevelt Ave wreck or the Mahattan Bridge collision? |
|
|
| (643245) | |
Re: Question about the pictures |
|
|
Posted by Ken S. on Wed Jul 2 11:21:29 2008, in response to Question about the pictures, posted by Hart Bus on Wed Jul 2 11:18:41 2008. There was a Manny B wreck or do you mean the Willy B wreck. If the latter, that would be the R40 and R42. |
|
|
| (643286) | |
Re: ANOTHER THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...) |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Wed Jul 2 13:27:25 2008, in response to Re: ANOTHER THREAD (WAS: Slant R42...), posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Jul 2 11:00:02 2008. either brain or brian, fart. I gotcha! |
|
|
| (643310) | |
Re: Slant R42... |
|
|
Posted by R33/R36 mainline on Wed Jul 2 14:08:02 2008, in response to Re: Slant R42..., posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Jul 2 07:21:55 2008. LMAO!! |
|
|
| (643718) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Thu Jul 3 10:14:48 2008, in response to Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jul 1 11:24:22 2008. You left out this one. Bill "Newkirk" |
|
|
| (643734) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Thu Jul 3 11:02:47 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jul 1 12:44:03 2008. Naturally...so why did you stop replying to the manhattan bridge thread? |
|
|
| (643737) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Thu Jul 3 11:09:58 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jul 1 22:21:13 2008. SO, you know...BULLSHIT. At least you've admitted it. |
|
|
| (643739) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Thu Jul 3 11:14:58 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by Mitch45 on Tue Jul 1 12:28:51 2008. I believe the cars in Malbone were wooden or composite construction; there are a number of photos, and an excellent book on the accident. |
|
|
| (643740) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Thu Jul 3 11:17:14 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by Newkirk Images on Thu Jul 3 10:14:48 2008. Franklin shuttle split the switch entering Prospect Park? |
|
|
| (645540) | |
Re: Question about the pictures |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Jul 7 15:31:16 2008, in response to Question about the pictures, posted by Hart Bus on Wed Jul 2 11:18:41 2008. I never knew there was a Manhattan bridge collision. Do you have any details? How fast were the cars going? How fast were the cars at the 74th st wreck going? |
|
|
| (645541) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Jul 7 15:32:40 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by Newkirk Images on Thu Jul 3 10:14:48 2008. Oops, but if you look, the car body wasn't penetrated by the pillat, the robust side sills and fish plates kept the car together, and i don't even thing the frame was bent there, it was an optical illusion, because the roof folded up a but at the point where the pillar hit. |
|
|
| (645556) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jul 7 15:42:08 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Jul 7 15:32:40 2008. The point of crash-worthiness isn't to see how well the vehicle survives the collision, it's to give the HUMANS inside the best possible chance of survival. As the auto industry has learned by killing several million people, the best way to protect the occupants in a crash is to build in 'crush zones' designed to break, absorb and spread out the impact as much as possible. A vehicle with an overly stiff frame doesn't do this. |
|
|
| (645561) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Jul 7 15:46:46 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jul 7 15:42:08 2008. hmm... so you want to build a railcar with some energy absorbtion points...i agree, this is good, but that doesn't mean you can't use a frame. Also, you don't have to make the railcar like a foil can either. |
|
|
| (645579) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jul 7 16:09:32 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Jul 7 15:46:46 2008. It means you need an engineer who knows how to design them to do so. Just because you want something built a certain way doesn't mean it's practical to do so. 'Folding like a tin can' is EXACTLY how it's supposed to work. |
|
|
| (645587) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Jul 7 16:14:38 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jul 7 16:09:32 2008. I will design, and build a railcar with frames, and it will be robust, and have crash energy absorbtion too. Not now, but when i grow older...soon. I will prove to all of you my designs can work.but it will take time. I know this post sounds a bit crazy, but i don't mean now, but rather, eventually. I will do it. |
|
|
| (645594) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Mon Jul 7 16:18:34 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Jul 7 16:14:38 2008. Not now, but when i grow older...soon.How old are you now? |
|
|
| (645602) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by straphanger9 on Mon Jul 7 16:37:30 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by MJF on Wed Jul 2 05:22:53 2008. LOL! |
|
|
| (645612) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jul 7 16:58:03 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Jul 7 16:14:38 2008. Me thinks once you actually start to learn structural engineering, your view will change to fit reality. |
|
|
| (645635) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Mon Jul 7 18:26:53 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jul 7 15:42:08 2008. Automobile crash dynamics and rail car crash dynamics are notnecessarily the same. What kills people in train crashes is telescoping and crushing. In an auto, there is a trunk and a hood area which can act as a crumple zone. There is generally no such wasted space in a coach or MU car. |
|
|
| (645649) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon Jul 7 18:59:50 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Mon Jul 7 16:18:34 2008. Emotionally or chronologically? |
|
|
| (645651) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Mon Jul 7 19:13:23 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by Dave on Mon Jul 7 18:59:50 2008. Greek God Chronos. You think he's avoiding answering?David Harrison |
|
|
| (645666) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Mon Jul 7 20:10:54 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Jul 7 16:14:38 2008. I will design, and build a railcar with frames, and it will be robust, and have crash energy absorbtion too. Not now, but when i grow older...soon. I will prove to all of you my designs can work.Which begs the question...HOW OLD ARE YOU NOW? |
|
|
| (645674) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Jul 7 20:21:48 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare, posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Mon Jul 7 20:10:54 2008. why do you guys want to know?i'll tell you i am over 15. |
|
|
| (645676) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Mon Jul 7 20:22:37 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Jul 7 20:21:48 2008. Then you are 16, MAYBE 17... |
|
|
| (645681) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Mon Jul 7 20:25:39 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Jul 7 20:21:48 2008. Are you registered to drive a motor vehicle? Registered to vote? Old enough to legally drive a subway train? |
|
|
| (645685) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jul 7 20:29:35 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare, posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Mon Jul 7 20:25:39 2008. Drive? Heh. |
|
|
| (645687) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Mon Jul 7 20:30:53 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jul 7 20:29:35 2008. Drive? Heh.Maybe if there's a steering wheel in the cab ! Bill "Newkirk" |
|
|
| (645689) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jul 7 20:31:26 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare, posted by Newkirk Images on Mon Jul 7 20:30:53 2008. Maybe on the outside of older equipment. :) |
|
|
| (645741) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jul 7 22:36:54 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Mon Jul 7 20:22:37 2008. Gotta be older than that. You simply can't get as annoying as he is in just 16 or 17 years. |
|
|
| (645789) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Jul 8 01:00:26 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by Jeff H. on Mon Jul 7 18:26:53 2008. It's the sudden stop that does the damage; but you're right about the telescoping and crushing. But the same energy absorbtion/dissipation factors in. If you can redirect the forces in a collision, you can do a much better job of protecting the occupants, sacrificing the vehicle. Anticlimbers, 'locking' couplers, and frames that bend rather than remain stiff all help. |
|
|
| (645804) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Jul 8 01:47:26 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare, posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Mon Jul 7 20:10:54 2008. I recall a post by him claiming that he failed out of some physics or math college level courses, so I reckon He has to be close to my age. |
|
|
| (645821) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by Mr Mabstoa on Tue Jul 8 03:47:02 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by Jeff H. on Mon Jul 7 18:26:53 2008. I saw on "Crash Science" shows tests done with retired rail cars and crumple zones added to them and there is some improvements concerning the cars crashing into each other.But its a waiting game and I would guess a matter of cost and what transit agencies want to see if it will be added to future equipment. |
|
|
| (646050) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Tue Jul 8 18:47:39 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by Mr Mabstoa on Tue Jul 8 03:47:02 2008. Right, the big difference is nearly 100% of the available floorarea of a commuter or rapid transit car is being used for passenger space. All of the mechanical equipment is overhead or underfloor. So to add "crumple zones" would mean reducing capacity. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
