|
|
| Re: Slant R38... (642116) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 5 |
||
|
| (646055) | |
Re: Slant R38... |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Tue Jul 8 18:54:16 2008, in response to Re: Slant R38..., posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 30 17:24:17 2008. 10/10 |
|
|
| (646104) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by metropod on Tue Jul 8 21:16:51 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. your assuming again and "when you assume, you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me" (from The Odd Couple TV seires)the imapact to that car is very bad, you just can't see it from the angle the pic was taken from. the tail end has jackknifed to the left. that car was removed from service, and it's mate (3668) given it's(3669) number and convetered to a odd car to be mated with 3628. |
|
|
| (646105) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Tue Jul 8 21:23:09 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jul 7 22:36:54 2008. Then what? Mid to late 20's? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (646131) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Tue Jul 8 22:14:50 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. that makes 2 of us! |
|
|
| (646137) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject..Question For JournalSquare |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jul 8 23:09:45 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. I am over 15 for the fourth time.ROAR |
|
|
| (646553) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Jul 9 18:32:15 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 Tue Jul 8 01:00:26 2008. Wrong, bendable frames don't help.Locking couplers do help, that absorb the force, and reenforced collision posts, thatare designed to slide back a BIT in a collision. The BMT did all of this without chitbox railcars with flimsy frames. Their articulated cars, the BMT BLUEBIRDS, had locking anticlimbers, rather large ones, that would mushroom on impact to absorb energy. Nope, no bending flimsy frames to protect passengers. If you want railcars with flimsy frames, buy Alstom, Rotem, or KAWACHITTI. Bombardier might also make chit railcars. |
|
|
| (646555) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Jul 9 18:35:59 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 Tue Jul 8 18:47:39 2008. I think what he is talking about is incorrect.The railcars didn't really have crumple zones, but rather, collision posts mounted to a frame that slid back a BIT to absorb impact, and couplers that also absorbed energy. A similar test was done with MTA LIRR M-1s, by adding really big buffers(in the form of a movable box frame at the end), essentially. Those devices were actually designed to prevent jacknifing, but they help keep the car together too. Note that these tests were done on ROBUST cars WITH FRAMES. |
|
|
| (646565) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by 156n3rd on Wed Jul 9 18:47:58 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 Wed Jul 9 18:32:15 2008. I was just browsing by and saw that you posted these responses and wonder what it will take for you to spell shit correctly. And why do you think your opinon is valid on any subject here when time after time people have asked you for your credentials, what kind of work you do and where, and your age. If you can't be straightforward why do you act like you know? Just come out and tell everyone what they what to know, if not, try to learn from what's being said. You just don't seem to get it. |
|
|
| (646576) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Wed Jul 9 19:10:18 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by 156n3rd on Wed Jul 9 18:47:58 2008. He can't spell "naughty words" because he's underage. His parents will probably take his "internets" away from him. He said he was over 15. I'm saying 15 1/2. But how he got all those others negatives at such an early age I'll never know. |
|
|
| (649370) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon Jul 14 17:08:08 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 19:13:23 2008. The answer is a definite YES!!!He know if he gives his age, it's another way to pull his chain. |
|
|
| (649374) | |
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jul 14 17:15:04 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon Jul 14 17:08:08 2008. Incorrect, Dan Lawrence. He already effectively gave his age in a recent post. |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 5 |
||
