ttcsubwayfan

Ah, that's fine then.

I don't have much against advertising, but I certainly hope that the same screens that are used to give service information are not also used for digital advertising! Every experience I've had with one of these resulted in me not being able to get the information I need in time - I kept thinking myself, "Can we cut this crap and get to the actual information please?" At least physical advertising papers don't block any other info.

You're comparing the suspension of a 30 year old train and a 15 year old train. You are right that I have never been on the Eastern Parkway line, so the R142s may be more comfortable, but that could easily be from the fact that the R62s are twice as old as the R142s. You see the R32s now and see a bunch of bucking broncos, but they didn't have to be when they first debuted. Maybe the R62s did have shittier suspension, obviously I can't know that for a fact, but in order to get an objective comparison you'd need to compare both cars at their peak. Incidentally, I wasn't much impressed by the suspension of the R160s, they swayed too much for my liking. The entire New York subway seems to have ridiculous suspension systems, I have never been on well maintained track anywhere else that caused cars to sway so much.

I guess you could say that about most digital destination signs. I'm still of the mind that they are nice to haves, rather than essential though. We managed for years and years with rollsigns and strip maps. Again, I'm not knocking digital signs, I think they are very cool, but I'm not so sure I subscribe to the idea that we couldn't get by without them.

I can agree with automated announcements and next stop signs, which are essential due to the fact that transit riders may be deaf or blind, but what does the FIND display offer that a strip map, or a regular subway map didn't? Don't get me wrong, I think technology is cool and the FIND is a neat machine, but I fail to see how it's essential.

I fail to see how the presence of a bunch of flashing signs enhances the passenger experience all that much, but whatever. I don't really care if they went back to SMEE brakes and rollsigns, I'm just saying that even if they wanted to, as R10 2952 implied, they couldn't get away with doing so, because every cry baby on the internet would never let us hear the end of it.

FIND displays and on board computers are nice to have, but the vehicle isn't any less functional because it doesn't have them. Look at how many people b*tch about the R62 and R68 classes even though they provide just as good service as the NTTs do.

But then you'll get the foamers on the site complaining about how the cars are not worthy of being run in the 21st century.

Wouldn't be the first time. Off the top of my head, R62, R62A and R68s also wouldn't make an even amount of trains, and I'm sure there are more.

Yeah, but line service times aren't the only element. The is nearly 19 miles long, while the is only 12.

This is one of the cringiest things I have ever seen. Some of my favorite bits include: What the hell does this even mean? I'm trying to wrap my head around what he's trying to say here and I can't seem to figure it out. Works hard with them... does that mean the R32s are being worked harder than they were on the ? Because that sounds like bullshit, the is shorter. I wish I could find some ridership figures, because it seems to me like the is busier than the as well.

lol no surprise there

But do you have any specific examples of that occurring? I've photoed all but 3 of the currently existing cars and the only aesthetic discrepancies I have seen are the colors of the front panels, which were swapped out after collisions with dumb ass motorists. Correct design: Toronto Transit Commission 4408 - 03 by Andrew P., on Flickr After collision (note the left (open) side of the car): Toronto Transit Commission 4411 - 01 by Andrew P., on Flickr

No. Toronto's cars have body shells made in Mexico, which are then trucked up to Thunder Bay for finishing. The NYC cars' shells are made in La Pocatière, and then trucked to Plattbsurgh for finishing. What aesthetic issues are there in Toronto? You think the MTA is to blame for this? Christ.

Different plants. For comparison, Toronto's tram order is disgustingly delayed, whereas the new cab cars for GO Transit are coming in without any significant delays. They originate from different plants.

As someone who is a fan of Bombardier products such as the Flexity tram, and T1 and R62A subway cars, the suggestion that we should give them another chance because they managed to deliver good quality trains is ludicrous. You know who else makes good trains, and doesn't horribly delay their deliveries? Kawasaki.

Well, I'll be damned...

Why? While I will grant that it would have been nice if Kawasaki had touched up the interior at all, one important thing to keep in mind is that these are 20 year old subway cars running long hours on one of the busiest transit lines in the US. They are not going to look immaculate, especially when you have riders that like to think the subway is their own personal space. Also, the R142As were not the dominant car force on the like they were on the . A historical car assignment chart from Joe Korner's site indicates that in October 2007, there were 400 in use on the and 110 in use on the . This meant that they would have had less of a chance of being beat up compared to their compatriots at Westchestert. Also, 207th has deficient maintenance? Since when?

What a ridiculous post. So you're saying that it's the CTA's fault for not having as high standards as the MTA? Bombardier is a respected multinational company with a generally positive reputation; there is no reason for the CTA to suspect that their trains would have structural problems. To say that this issue is irrelevant is a cop out; if the only thing keeping New York from getting these shitty trains is having higher standards than Chicago, that reflects pretty badly on the manufacturer in question, like they would try to offload their substandard trains onto New York otherwise. It is the transit manufacturer equivalent to the argument "People are only decent to each other because they're afraid of getting in trouble."

That wasn't why they were joined into units. It was so that they could save parts, instead of having to maintain, say, 10 cabs (2 on each car), they only have to maintain two, on the end of each unit. I don't know when this change happened, but I wanna say the early 2000s.

My post was aimed at TheNewYorkElevated, not you.

Ahem... sarcasm

No, it's because they both share the Flatbush Avenue terminal, and it offers more operational flexibility if the dispatcher can send any train from that station out as either a or a .

Did it ever not have the Grand Central shuttle?