|
|
| Re: R179 Specs (662102) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||
|
| (662314) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by R68A - 5200 on Wed Aug 6 16:59:00 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 14:18:51 2008. or R142 style... |
|
|
| (662315) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 16:59:21 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 16:15:33 2008. If a pass-through were desired they could always go the route of the Flexliner DMUs and EMUs out of Denmark. Their cabs are integrated into the door between cars: The other possibility would be to put a door to either side of the operator's console, as on Berlin's H and HK stock. Yes, this would be problematic if an operator is passing from trainset to trainset coupled together, but if they were to go with a fully articulated set there'd be considerably less a problem. The BVG's H stock (the door is on the driver's left, the panel with the number on it): 
|
|
|
| (662319) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 17:06:59 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 16:59:21 2008. Flexliner I rember when they were tested here, but i could have sworn they were from Israel. For that matter, their feature was at-speed coupling/uncoupling. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (662320) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 17:07:07 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 16:59:21 2008. That isn't a good design. Plus those flexliners are U-G-L-Y. And i have a feeling those cars wouldnt last long in America. We need robust railcars. |
|
|
| (662327) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 17:20:17 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 17:07:07 2008. Yep. Horrible design, real ugly, over 200 three-car sets in service in Europe and Israel. FRA compliant, and tested on several lines in the US and Canada.Wait...that can't be right...it's too U-G-L-Y to haul passengers, and it isn't robust! |
|
|
| (662329) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 17:23:28 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 17:06:59 2008. The cars we tested were on their way to Israel, but they were originally designed and built by ABB for the Danish National Railways as a highly flexible MU platform to accomodate electric and diesel propulsion. They also operate with RENFE in Spain, SJ in Sweden, and Israel's national railways. At speed coupling and uncoupling is far from their only feature, and I'm not even sure if anyone utilizes it. Every Flexliner train I rode stopped at a station to couple and uncouple sets. However, it does offer the capability to operate combined IC3 and IC2 DMUs with IR4 EMUs. That capability potentially provides the ability to achieve the same results as a dual mode locomotive with none of the technical difficulty or risk. It also is one of the few MUs in Europe to offer a walk-through design which is flexible in train length. |
|
|
| (662334) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 17:35:34 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 17:20:17 2008. They are not FRA compliant. That black rubber padding is good if they collide with ANOTHER flexliner train, but if they collide with an Arrow III...or a BUDD M3...they will be split open. And just because they work in Israel and Europe doesn't mean they will work well here too. |
|
|
| (662335) | |
Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 17:37:41 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 17:07:07 2008. Check out the door, it says "Amtrak" on it. We tested the Flexliner in 1997 and the crews loved them. The DSB Flexliners go through far more stress than any US railcar ever does. Every day at least four are loaded onto ferries and subjected to salt spray and the flexing of the ferry deck below their wheels. At least 20 SJ and DSB cars roll across the Oresund Bridge every day, sometimes in weather that might cause some US transit systems to shut down, and you can bet there's salt spray there. The Danish branch lines into the northern and western part of the country aren't exactly a walk in the park either, they're the sort of lines we'd have abandoned decades ago.And who the hell cares if you consider it ugly? What exactly is intrinsically beautiful or aesthetically pleasing about the Arrow III, the R32, or the PATH K-car? In the end it's a box with wheels that moves people from point A to point B. The Flexliner just happens to have a unique feature which enables two trainsets to be joined seamlessly without sacrificing any operational capability. But hey, if you despise them so, you might as well stay away from Copenhagen, between the DSB EC trains and the Oresund trains there's always at least one Flexliner somewhere around the main train station:  
|
|
|
| (662337) | |
Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 17:44:38 2008, in response to Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 17:37:41 2008. What don't the crews love? Ther reason the crews loved them is probably because they were basically regular railcars that were newer, and maybe had a different design on the inside. That doesn't mean that they don't love the amcans though.And you could say all of that about a BUDD RDC. They too were pushed to their limits, and even went thrpugh heavy service in the desserts of austrailia, and were exported to many other countries, and many are still in active service. You won't be able to say that about the flexliners i bet. In ten years, they might be junkers. Are the bodies aluminum, or stainless steel? BUDD RDCs were made of very durable stainless steel. |
|
|
| (662338) | |
Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 17:46:01 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 17:35:34 2008. You're dead wrong, when they toured the US in 1997 they were fully FRA compliant. The only waivers required were for different braking systems and some other minor system differences. The rubber does not serve any crashworthiness role, it is there to substitute for a diaphragm between coupled trainsets. Behind the rubber diaphragm is a full collision post arrangement the equal of any contemporary EMU design. Were it not for Amtrak's funding problems in the late 1990s it is likely we'd have Flexliners running the Inland, the Hiawatha, and maybe even the Cascades now. Hell, back in '97 it would have made more sense for NJT to buy Flexliners than more ALP44s and push pull cars. We could have had direct trains to Bay Head and Hackettstown from NYC before 2000 by combining diesel and electric trainsets.Before the ABB/Daimler Transportation merger there had been an IC5 design on the drawing board to comply with more stringent European requirements and with an eye toward the US market's increasing crashworthiness requirements. It sounds like it was supposed to be a universal design capable of accomodating diesel or electric traction equipment equally well. Unfortunately it was dropped due to increasing weight, lack of flexibility, and the eventual merger with Bombardier. |
|
|
| (662339) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 17:49:28 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 17:35:34 2008. No the fact that they work in Europe and Israel doesn't automatically mean they will work in North America. But they are indeed FRA compliant, and the padding has nothing to do with it. |
|
|
| (662340) | |
Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by Ken S. on Wed Aug 6 17:49:45 2008, in response to Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 17:44:38 2008. Do shut up already. You're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong. Did I say you're wrong? You're wrong. |
|
|
| (662341) | |
Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 17:49:54 2008, in response to Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 17:44:38 2008. You won't be able to say that about the flexliners i bet. In ten years, they might be junkers.The IC3 entered service in 1991, most of them have been in service for much more than a decade and are in excellent shape. Your attempts at comparing apples and oranges has failed miserably. |
|
|
| (662342) | |
Correction Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 17:51:19 2008, in response to Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 17:46:01 2008. The IC5 was a development before the IC3, back in 1985. I got it confused with the ADTranz development of the IC3/IR4 which became the ET Oresund Trains and was considered for the US market. |
|
|
| (662344) | |
Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 18:00:08 2008, in response to Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 17:49:54 2008. I read about them...but they couldn't last here in America. We need robust railcars, which can stand the abuse and poor maintanenece that many cars get here. They aren't robust enough. And you can get seamless passage between cars with NJT stock too. |
|
|
| (662345) | |
Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Aug 6 18:01:59 2008, in response to Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 17:46:01 2008. Yes, but were they ROBUST? :) |
|
|
| (662346) | |
Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 18:03:19 2008, in response to Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 17:46:01 2008. Then we should have industries in America to compete with that. We are currently lame ducks in terms of passenger railcar manufacturing. We need to build something with the quality of the BUDD RDCs, and give them the ability to couple to MU sets, then we can sell them to europe, as they would buy OUR more ROBUST railcars. |
|
|
| (662347) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 18:05:39 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 17:49:28 2008. They are not FRA compliant, that is why they need modifications to be FRA compliant. DutchFRAnut can explain.The thing is that here in America, our tracks are a lot more bumpy, from what i've read. That is what gives so much stress to our railcars, and those euro trains wouldn't be able to handle it. |
|
|
| (662356) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 18:24:38 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 18:05:39 2008. The only potential problem with the IC3 was its use of Jacobs bogies, and the use of them is not specifically outlawed anywhere in the FRA's passenger railcar regulations. In any event plenty of freight cars use Jacobs bogies, and the Flexliner could have easily been modifed to use two bogies per car rather than sharing them.The rest of your post is speculative bullshit. Go ride some of their branch lines and tell me how smooth they are. Deferred maitenance is not an excuse for running subpar, passenger unfriendly equipment like US railroads do. |
|
|
| (662360) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by 156n3rd on Wed Aug 6 18:27:53 2008, in response to R179 Specs, posted by North-Easten T/O on Wed Aug 6 08:29:45 2008. All I am interested in is the exterior design. I just wonder if it will be altered in any way. |
|
|
| (662361) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 18:30:46 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 18:24:38 2008. ARROW IIIs are not subpar, nor are they passenger unfriendly. The newer railcars are, however, unfriendly, especially the NYCTA NTTs.American made stuff tends to be the best. |
|
|
| (662364) | |
Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Aug 6 18:33:32 2008, in response to Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 18:03:19 2008. Dude..Will just PROVED that you were incorrect..You did NOT ACKNOWLEDGE that... Furthermore,you spoke as if you had FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE directly from the FRA...while you didn't have a clue. That,my friend is called MISINFORMATION...And just plain LIES. . I can see that you are still a kid..and even if you weren't,I'd say the very same thing.."Sit back..shut your mouth..and maybe..just MAYBE..you Might LEARN SOMETHING..." Get a clue.. |
|
|
| (662366) | |
Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 18:34:39 2008, in response to Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 18:00:08 2008. I read about them...but they couldn't last here in America. We need robust railcars, which can stand the abuse and poor maintanenece that many cars get here.Again you are speculating and making excuses. American railcars are no more robust than their European counterparts, and if anything maitenance attention is lavished upon them. Most new American rail lines have track structures similar to what the Europeans would use for express services. We're simply far more cautious when it comes to operating the trains. And you can get seamless passage between cars with NJT stock too No you cannot. You have to pass through a door from the passenger cabin into a non-climate controlled vestibule which is open to the elements and all rail noise. When you pass between the two cars you are completely exposed on both sides and could potentially slip and fall between the cars. Any passenger sitting near the door gets blasted with hot or cold air depending on the season and they're deafened by the whine of the flange and railhead. On a Flexliner there is a simple automatic door to dampen whatever rail noise enters the cabin which slides aside and you can walk right from one trainset to another without breaking stride. |
|
|
| (662367) | |
Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Aug 6 18:37:47 2008, in response to Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 18:00:08 2008. SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| (662368) | |
Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 18:38:48 2008, in response to Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by Edwards! on Wed Aug 6 18:33:32 2008. No, the units here in america probably had FRA waivers(like he said), but the units in europe ARE NOT FRA COMPLIANT.I agree with you though. I was wrong about the rubber padding, and i admit to it...that was one thing those cars had going, the rubber padding would have helped durig crashes, but since they are essentially inflated diaphragms, they won't help. And the fact that the front door is located in the center, and is so wide means that the collision posts are not very close to the center like on american stock. |
|
|
| (662369) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by R33/R36 mainline on Wed Aug 6 18:39:18 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 18:30:46 2008. The arrow III's ARE passenger unfriendly, with crappy seats which hurt your neck and back. I have a question for you, would you sit in an arrow III seat from NYP to washinton Union station? Btw Amtrak borrows arrow III's from NJ transit for extra service on the day before thanksgiving. And the passengers COMPAIN about riding on those cars for such a long distance. Hell i hate riding them from NY to trenton! The comet V seats are much better than III's seats.I agree with you about NYCT NTT. |
|
|
| (662377) | |
Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 18:46:17 2008, in response to Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 18:03:19 2008. . We are currently lame ducks in terms of passenger railcar manufacturing.Because there's no market for railcar builders to survive in. Our passenger railcar market is so small it can only exist as a branch of some other industry. Gunderson, Trinity, and other domestic freight car builders could enter the passenger railcar market, but for now the European and Asian companies have the know how and the means to build passenger cars for our market. One only has to look at the utter failure that is Colorado Railcar to see why we can't support a domestic passenger railcar builder. We need to build something with the quality of the BUDD RDCs, and give them the ability to couple to MU sets, Now you're grasping at other people's straws. then we can sell them to europe, as they would buy OUR more ROBUST railcars. SNCF licensed Budd's stainless steel construction techniques for their Z5100 EMUs back in the 1950s. However, today they're not about to let our obsolete, overweight, and passenger unfriendly cars anywhere near their tracks. |
|
|
| (662378) | |
Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 18:47:07 2008, in response to Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 18:34:39 2008. The way you describe the flexliner passage is kind of how I SEE the NJT passages. Except that there is no rubber at the Arrow III Cab ends, there is rubber on the B ends of married pairs. I don't even like the comet 5 cars, but do you see the rubber diaphragm there? NJT cars have doors that slide to the side too, or, like the Arrows, they have doors which you have to (gasp) pull open. |
|
|
| (662380) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Forest Glen on Wed Aug 6 18:48:50 2008, in response to R179 Specs, posted by North-Easten T/O on Wed Aug 6 08:29:45 2008. So the R179 is a real subway car and not just a hypothetical design? |
|
|
| (662384) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 18:54:38 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by R33/R36 mainline on Wed Aug 6 18:39:18 2008. Guy, maybe you don't like the seats, but i have no problem with them. I HAVE sat in them from Newark to Trenton...and BACK... i had no pains anywhere. The sad thing is that so many americans are spoiled these days, and will find anything to complain about :(, but that isn't the point here. They might be complaining because those cars are restricted to lower speeds since the rebuilds, and amtrak trains tend to do 125 MPH, the arrows don't really hit anywhere much higher than 90 MPH.I don't find the Comet 5 seats any more comfortable than Arrow III seats. The only complaints i would have is about the Arrow III seat which didn't go all the way back, but i didn't mind much, and the seats on older Comets with uneven springs, but that is to be expected wit age. |
|
|
| (662387) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Aug 6 19:00:10 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 13:47:21 2008. Inflected plural, no.How about "tachi"? I'm only half-Japanese. That's too far for me! :-) Don't worry. My son is full-blooded Japanese but he's more comfortable with English. :( |
|
|
| (662389) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by subfan on Wed Aug 6 19:09:37 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by WillD on Wed Aug 6 17:23:28 2008. I've ridden them in Israel many times, and the foldaway console is so well hidden that unless you're a railfan, you likely wouldn't even notice when you walk between to coupled sets.subfan |
|
|
| (662390) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by R33/R36 mainline on Wed Aug 6 19:12:26 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 18:54:38 2008. They were compaining about the seats, i read somewere about an guy that rode an arrow III from NY to washinton and he said that the seats did a number on his back. And that he was sore the next day. Arrow III's seats suck comet V seats are much better, and if you get one that doesn't have flats they will ride REALLY smooth. |
|
|
| (662391) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 19:15:01 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by subfan on Wed Aug 6 19:09:37 2008. And i bet things are swell in Israel, except for the occasional suicide bombings...life is good for them, as long as we keep sending BILLIONS of dollars to them. We don't get a penny back, the way to go, huh? I don't even want to go into the all the BS caused by that country. Nor do i want to go into the matter of who controls the $$$, even in america, and who sets up the useless watchdog groups, but i think you got the hint. Though i have nothing against jewish people, i have something against bastards. |
|
|
| (662392) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 19:16:03 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by R33/R36 mainline on Wed Aug 6 19:12:26 2008. Maybe he doesn't know how to sit or something, i never had any issues with those seats, and i find them to be rather comfortable. |
|
|
| (662393) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 19:16:15 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Aug 6 19:00:10 2008. Strictly speaking, isn't "tachi" more of a compound suffix? The actual pronoun itself isn't inflected. Kind of like saying you-both in English?Disclaimer: You've just exhausted all of my knowledge of the Japanese plural, so I'll defer the floor to someone who actually knows the language. Someday I need to complete my Japanese half by learning the language... |
|
|
| (662395) | |
Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 19:18:01 2008, in response to Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 18:47:07 2008. The diaphragm design is very different on the IC3. |
|
|
| (662396) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Aug 6 19:18:10 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 12:30:52 2008. yawn |
|
|
| (662397) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by subfan on Wed Aug 6 19:19:24 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 19:15:01 2008. And this has eactly what to do with my post, or are you just trying to show your ignorance and bigotry in an inapropriate forum?subfan |
|
|
| (662398) | |
Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 19:21:16 2008, in response to Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 18:38:48 2008. They needed waivers only for their braking systems, not for impact attenuation or passenger safety concerns. And the only reason the brakes needed waivers is because they had never been tested by the FRA.Are you sure those diaphragms are inflated? You just got finished ranting about how ugly they were. |
|
|
| (662400) | |
Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 19:24:12 2008, in response to Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 18:03:19 2008. Europe doesn't want our overweight passenger cars, and I don't blame them. Most of their passenger services run on dedicated lines, without interference from freight trains, which is the reasoning behind the crashworthiness standards the FRA enforces. |
|
|
| (662401) | |
Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by Ken S. on Wed Aug 6 19:27:18 2008, in response to Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by Edwards! on Wed Aug 6 18:37:47 2008. We need a killfile here. |
|
|
| (662402) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 19:27:36 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 19:16:03 2008. That's because you're child-sized. If you were adult-sized, you would be uncomfortable. The seats are too straight-backed and flat, the seatback ends too low below the colorbone, and the leg room is just slightly too short for the average adult male. |
|
|
| (662403) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 19:29:27 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 19:15:01 2008.  In before the lock... Seriously, though: please make mine the last reply to the parent post. No one here wants the firestorm resulting from comments like this to ruin a really interesting thread, à la Chicago SRO. |
|
|
| (662404) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Ken S. on Wed Aug 6 19:29:27 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 19:27:36 2008. LOL! Good one. |
|
|
| (662405) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by R33/R36 mainline on Wed Aug 6 19:32:26 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 19:29:27 2008. LMAO @ the GIF!! |
|
|
| (662408) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by 156n3rd on Wed Aug 6 19:35:23 2008, in response to R179 Specs, posted by North-Easten T/O on Wed Aug 6 08:29:45 2008. Well, that will surely make seating arrangements change with 5 openings per side. My imagination is running away with all the possibilites. 75 feet long, do I hear Staten Island? |
|
|
| (662410) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by R33/R36 mainline on Wed Aug 6 19:36:44 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by 156n3rd on Wed Aug 6 19:35:23 2008. Yes, SIR will get 179's, but in 2015. |
|
|
| (662413) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 19:39:15 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 19:15:01 2008. Your ignorance is so astoundingly huge, it preceedes you into a room by an hour. |
|
|
| (662416) | |
Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs) |
|
|
Posted by 156n3rd on Wed Aug 6 19:41:11 2008, in response to Re: Flexliner (was:Re: R179 Specs), posted by Ken S. on Wed Aug 6 19:27:18 2008. And yes, forgive me, I have not read every one of the posted responses. I'm getting in on the tail end, but my enthusiasm makes me curious. There are so many exciting designs worldwide that I hope something will influence the new design of any NY rolling stock. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||
