Interesting aspect of human nature: new vs. old

[BSmith 11]

For some, if it is newer it is better. Perhaps that's true for a good portion of those that use public transportation. However, I'm finding, for some, older is perceived or judged as much better. For some, a more than reverence, but there is an almost idolizing of trains of earlier eras that the praisers never experienced when they were new. The R32 and the redbirds are a great example of this. I was around when the R32 was new but not some of the redbirds. I never cared for the redbirds. To me they were bumpy cars that I associated with the A division and didn't really have anything of character. I do remember the R1-R9 trains as having character, but certainly didn't think that the B or A division redbirds that came later weren't as good. The R1-R9s were bumpy, smelled smoky, and fairly noisy, and weren't that pleasant to ride aboard. As nostalgia/museum trains they are fine but I wouldn't want to ride aboard them now. The R32s to me weren't exceptional at all. They were never particularly smooth or quiet, they seemed fast because of that, they seemed similar in quality to the redbirds, and I'm no fan of corrugated trains. They were in design like stainless steel redbirds with blue doors. The R40 slants came out just a few years later and made the R32s seem dated and by the time the R44s were introduced in service, just 7 years later, the R32s seemed obsolete. The R32s can be revered for durability, but in all honesty, without the GOHs, the R32s would have most likely been out of service years ago. I frankly don't understand the fascination with them. I can understand a certain reverence and a certain vintage look about them. But, IMO, they are the most unpleasant cars of the current fleet to ride aboard, followed closely by the R42s. I guess it is the RFW, but there's something else, R32 is a cult car.

 

I read on various LIRR boards about how terrible the M7s are, noisier, swaying ride, flat wheels, noisy door motors, how so many love the M1s. I did enjoy the M1s when they were new however when new the M1s burned. Literally. The M1s were very problematic. Their time has been served and it was time for them to be retired. The M7 has teething problems and maybe isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but comments about how they aren't going to last more than 15 years is just very interesting.

 

It's like some just don't want to accept newer equipment. R32s are better than everything that's come since, whatever "better" means. Redbirds were preferable to today's NTTs. It's interesting, a sense of not really thinking anything modern is halfway decent and that most of the older trains were way better. That somehow train built today don't come close to the standards of trains yesterday. It would take someone of great engineering knowledge and very objective data to make a case either way. And I do think progress has slowed in terms of upgrades from say the 1950s to 1960s trains vs. 1980s to todays newer trains being introduced. But there is more comfort. And I welcome the new equipment and accept the retirement of old equipment. At this point, I'd love to see the newer equipment have the design changes that the older equipment had for variety. However, I don't look at all of the older trains, the ones that I knew as new at one time, as being better than what's introduced now. And I know for sure many of them had far more serious problems for far longer than most of the NTT stuff has today.

 

I don't think newer is necessarily better, but I do see a need to modernize fleets and advantages to it. I have criticisms of every car of every era. I have my preferences, but I'm not interested in trashing the NTTs and idolizing cars that I did not find that enjoyable to ride in even when they were relatively young in service.

[RokuSix 3]

An interesting philosophy. I think many people are resistant to change. I'm sure that when the R32's made their grand debut, people didn't like the new trains, either. Humans, especially in a city with the pace of New York, like to be set into a routine.

[Joe 780]

Humans, especially in a city with the pace of New York, like to be set into a routine.

 

No, they like to ***** and whine about things. They put up some smoke & mirrors to make it seem as if their whining is legitimate criticism, but don't fall for it. Tell me, if the R-whatevers are so great...why are they replacing them?

 

If the R40s were so good, then why were they retired? Because some NYCT brass woke up one morning, scratched his ass and said "oh gee, I think we'll reef the '40s"? Give me a break.

 

(note: i'm not asking you those questions, Amelia; just putting those out there for people to think about :cool:)

[metsfan 2]

I think well designed things, proper form & solid function, executed with style and a level of pride and brashness can produce the best "personalities".

 

Old: GG1 = triplex

 

New: ALP-46 = PA5

 

Medium: Arrow 3 = R32/R40

 

Newish: M7 = HBLR LRV

 

The R142/143/160 have no soul, no personality.

 

I think what i personally look for in public transportation is attitude, good lines, good ride quality, longevity. Impressive tech specs which turn out to be reliable & packaged in a sexy or interesting form factor wins me over.

 

Arrow 3 and R32 to me have/had classy/classic lines, totally rugged design, not over-reaching, and delivering on the promise of getting the job done right.

 

That's just my take on old and new.

 

- A

[BSmith 11]

I think well designed things, proper form & solid function, executed with style and a level of pride and brashness can produce the best "personalities".

 

Old: GG1 = triplex

 

New: ALP-46 = PA5

 

Medium: Arrow 3 = R32/R40

 

Newish: M7 = HBLR LRV

 

The R142/143/160 have no soul, no personality.

 

I think what i personally look for in public transportation is attitude, good lines, good ride quality, longevity. Impressive tech specs which turn out to be reliable & packaged in a sexy or interesting form factor wins me over.

 

Arrow 3 and R32 to me have/had classy/classic lines, totally rugged design, not over-reaching, and delivering on the promise of getting the job done right.

 

That's just my take on old and new.

 

- A

 

Thanks. Good points. I agree, the R142-R160 seem rather sterile. Though, at this point, they are getting the job done with very few serious problems. It's yet to be seen about their durability or long-term reliability.

[KTrainExp 16]

An interesting philosophy. I think many people are resistant to change. I'm sure that when the R32's made their grand debut, people didn't like the new trains, either. Humans, especially in a city with the pace of New York, like to be set into a routine.

 

I fail to agree with this statement. It seems to me that the average New Yorker as well as tourists seem to like the NTTs and the 44s/46s and the 68s better. Since we are all people who like trains better than the average daily worker, we all have our biased opinions.

 

However, think about it like this. If you ask any businessman New Yorker or a tourist, they will hands down prefer any train other than the R42s or lower. The reason is because the NTTs have impressive technology and brighter lights and have a modern feel to it. The R44/46 and the R68s are also preferred because of the formation of the train and the hand-rests as well as units that look much better than its predecessors.

 

It seems to me that the NTTs define in a new way, the same as the Redbirds defined the Flushing Line. Whenever somebody talks about the subway, an image of an NTT comes up. This is a brand new soul and its something we all need to adapt to.

 

And here's something else to think about. The R40s are undoubtedly revolutionary cars, but what do the R32s classify? Besides their loud screeching brakes, there's really nothing that they define.

[Urbanfortitude 123]

well i actually agree with her statement because its not just with trains you can apply it to...but we won't go into specifics. Most people in fact ARE resistant to change in many aspects of life.

 

to Joe: the R40s were great trains to have lasted as long as they have been. That goes for R38s, 32s and whatever other fleets that have mainstreamed the lines that they have been. If they WEREN'T great to the fact there were and significant defects they most likely would have been scrapped during the early days. They're being retired because their shelf-life is at the limit. That's something for you to think about.

[Joe 780]

to Joe: the R40s were great trains to have lasted as long as they have been. That goes for R38s, 32s and whatever other fleets that have mainstreamed the lines that they have been. If they WEREN'T great to the fact there were and significant defects they most likely would have been scrapped during the early days. They're being retired because their shelf-life is at the limit. That's something for you to think about.

 

Emphasis mine.

 

You just stated yourself that they were great; what happened? Did they...dare I say...get old?

[7LineFan 254]

And here's something else to think about. The R40s are undoubtedly revolutionary cars, but what do the R32s classify? Besides their loud screeching brakes, there's really nothing that they define.

 

Actually, yes, they do define something.

 

The beginning of the stainless-steel era in the subway. Which continues today with the NTTs.

[Urbanfortitude 123]

Emphasis mine.

 

You just stated yourself that they were great; what happened? Did they...dare I say...get old?

 

yeah it happens...it just sounds like you were calling them bad products during their time.

 

"If the R40s were so good, then why were they retired?"

 

With that statement one is left to look back at said R40s and their track record. The R40s were in service for quite a bit of time before they were thrown out. 30+ years would be a long time for a bad product to stay active. I'm just checking your statement really.

[Joe 780]

Yet again you have an argumentative tone without a contradictory position. Spinning your wheels, really. For the purposes of this exercise i'll repeat my statement: "If the R40s were so good, then why were they retired?"

 

The most important part of my question is then why were they retired. You're interpreting my question as if the cars were still in service. They aren't. It's been established they are retired. What i'm questioning is the mindset of the nay-sayers who think the cars would still be good for another 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 years.

[INDman 412]

Yet again you have an argumentative tone without a contradictory position. Spinning your wheels, really. For the purposes of this exercise i'll repeat my statement: "If the R40s were so good, then why were they retired?"

 

The most important part of my question is then why were they retired. You're interpreting my question as if the cars were still in service. They aren't. It's been established they are retired. What i'm questioning is the mindset of the nay-sayers who think the cars would still be good for another 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 years.

 

As a fleet, I'm sure it was time for them to go. Are 1 or 2 sets in good condition, yea and the museum has them. If NYCT ran 2 or 4 car trains and still had the parts for the slants, I'm sure they could be run in service.

[Matt91 1]

It just seems like every kind of new car in the subway / on the LIRR has had it's share of problems and complaints from the beginning. My personal POVs:

 

•LIRR: Im not too fond of the M7, between the (annoying and repetitive) automated anouncements , the fact that it feels like there's smaller space than the M1/3, and the shakiness that seems like it's worse than the M1/3 and C3. The DE/DMs/C3s, when they aren't breaking down and the PAs work are great and ride the smoothest. the M3s really don't have any major issues, and they do have a nostalgic (and r44) kinda feel.

•NYC subway: don't really care for one car over another, bit will miss the RFWs an the variety and personality of each Bdiv car once the 160s rule

 

But this doesn't mean that things can't be fixed and opinions (including mine) won't change. But it is good to have both old and new just because there should be some variety in a commute, not just the same thing day in and day out

[lilbluefoxie 820]

If they could bring the comfortable and wide seats from the M3 and the digital screens and announcements of the M7 together, they could make the ultimate LIRR train.

 

I never seem to have enough room on those LIRR seats (if im sitting in a 2 seater) and i'm not a big guy either and neither are my freinds who I go to the city with. They should have designed the seats for bigger people.

 

 

Again I say the same thing for the subway, if they could get a rollsign thats actually readable from the outside, like on the R40-R68 series on the newer trains, it would be great. I never had a problem with the NTTs, they are bright and the AC works great, the digital signs telling the next station are a plus, the average commuter doesnt need them, but they are great for the occasional city visitor.

 

The point is, going forward, i think the best new ideas will be taking what works and adding in new improvements, instead of always trying to reinvent the train car.

[Urbanfortitude 123]

Yet again you have an argumentative tone without a contradictory position. Spinning your wheels, really. For the purposes of this exercise i'll repeat my statement: "If the R40s were so good, then why were they retired?"

 

The most important part of my question is then why were they retired. You're interpreting my question as if the cars were still in service. They aren't. It's been established they are retired. What i'm questioning is the mindset of the nay-sayers who think the cars would still be good for another 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 years.

 

like i said...simply checking your statement. If you used "are" instead, then the open ended interpretation is gone and makes it easier to see that your above statement was where you were going with your argument (assuming you hadn't said it in the same post). If you were indeed calling them bad products then I would have had about 30+ years of service I could point at in opposition.

 

 

I have nothing else to combat here because I agree with the fact it was time for them to go.

[Fresh Pond 5,361]

...The point is, going forward, i think the best new ideas will be taking what works and adding in new improvements, instead of always trying to reinvent the train car.

 

So true

[MAA89 0]

Don't know about others, but any car that doesn't break down too often and gets me to my destination in the usual time is good enough for me.

 

I do not get it when people complain bitterly about how they like or don't like certain paint schemes, bucket vs bench seats (immaterial because most rush hour passengers never get a seat), minor stains on floors and walls, a particular odor associated with a car type, screeching vs squeaking breaks (there are actually fans of a particular variety of braking noise!), small vs large RFW, visibility of the service bullet and rollsign, on-board and in-station maps and announcements, strip maps, FIND displays, how fast or slow the door opens, how they are off-balance when a train is climbing an incline and turning/banking at the same time, locked vs unlocked storm doors, metallic vs plastic handrests, industrial vs natural scenery out the window and so on and so forth, ad nauseam.

 

Frankly, trains, especially rapid transit ones, are made to get you from point A to point B. Whether you like your standee poles in a straight line or offset from the center is not a reason to shun/hate/pour vitriol on the car type as a whole. Any one car will have its merits and demerits and what one person likes is not necessarily shared by others. Remember the pays nearly $2 million dollars for each car and surely obtains as much as feedback as possible to take into account what is good for the riders, operators, taxpayers and the MTA.

 

Hating old trains because they do not have FIND systems or hating new ones because they "dumb people down" and holding on to old cars for nostalgic reasons is just plain silly. Like all other equipment, trains are built, they get used, they get old and are replaced. There is nothing to whine about when your favorite model is gone or the new models are not as good as you hoped. As long as it takes you from home to work/school on time, as the song goes, "Don't worry, be happy".

 

I am really sick of people nitpicking on small things and losing sight of other more pressing needs (rehabbing stations, ensuring ADA-compliance, expanding service to underserved areas etc), all because of an "old" vs "new" mentality. Bottom line, if you don't like a particular train car, move to a different neighborhood and take the train that runs the model of your choice. If you can never be entirely happy, drive to work, or leave New York altogether. You are not important enough for the world to design subway cars to your specifications. Basically, just put up and shut up.

[Joe 780]

Don't know about others, but any car that doesn't break down too often and gets me to my destination in the usual time is good enough for me.

 

I do not get it when people complain bitterly about how they like or don't like certain paint schemes, bucket vs bench seats (immaterial because most rush hour passengers never get a seat), minor stains on floors and walls, a particular odor associated with a car type, screeching vs squeaking breaks (there are actually fans of a particular variety of braking noise!), small vs large RFW, visibility of the service bullet and rollsign, on-board and in-station maps and announcements, strip maps, FIND displays, how fast or slow the door opens, how they are off-balance when a train is climbing an incline and turning/banking at the same time, locked vs unlocked storm doors, metallic vs plastic handrests, industrial vs natural scenery out the window and so on and so forth, ad nauseam.

 

Frankly, trains, especially rapid transit ones, are made to get you from point A to point B. Whether you like your standee poles in a straight line or offset from the center is not a reason to shun/hate/pour vitriol on the car type as a whole. Any one car will have its merits and demerits and what one person likes is not necessarily shared by others. Remember the pays nearly $2 million dollars for each car and surely obtains as much as feedback as possible to take into account what is good for the riders, operators, taxpayers and the MTA.

 

Hating old trains because they do not have FIND systems or hating new ones because they "dumb people down" and holding on to old cars for nostalgic reasons is just plain silly. Like all other equipment, trains are built, they get used, they get old and are replaced. There is nothing to whine about when your favorite model is gone or the new models are not as good as you hoped. As long as it takes you from home to work/school on time, as the song goes, "Don't worry, be happy".

 

I am really sick of people nitpicking on small things and losing sight of other more pressing needs (rehabbing stations, ensuring ADA-compliance, expanding service to underserved areas etc), all because of an "old" vs "new" mentality. Bottom line, if you don't like a particular train car, move to a different neighborhood and take the train that runs the model of your choice. If you can never be entirely happy, drive to work, or leave New York altogether. You are not important enough for the world to design subway cars to your specifications. Basically, just put up and shut up.

 

BRAVO!

 

[via White Plains Road 192]

Don't know about others, but any car that doesn't break down too often and gets me to my destination in the usual time is good enough for me.

 

I do not get it when people complain bitterly about how they like or don't like certain paint schemes, bucket vs bench seats (immaterial because most rush hour passengers never get a seat), minor stains on floors and walls, a particular odor associated with a car type, screeching vs squeaking breaks (there are actually fans of a particular variety of braking noise!), small vs large RFW, visibility of the service bullet and rollsign, on-board and in-station maps and announcements, strip maps, FIND displays, how fast or slow the door opens, how they are off-balance when a train is climbing an incline and turning/banking at the same time, locked vs unlocked storm doors, metallic vs plastic handrests, industrial vs natural scenery out the window and so on and so forth, ad nauseam.

 

Frankly, trains, especially rapid transit ones, are made to get you from point A to point B. Whether you like your standee poles in a straight line or offset from the center is not a reason to shun/hate/pour vitriol on the car type as a whole. Any one car will have its merits and demerits and what one person likes is not necessarily shared by others. Remember the pays nearly $2 million dollars for each car and surely obtains as much as feedback as possible to take into account what is good for the riders, operators, taxpayers and the MTA.

 

Hating old trains because they do not have FIND systems or hating new ones because they "dumb people down" and holding on to old cars for nostalgic reasons is just plain silly. Like all other equipment, trains are built, they get used, they get old and are replaced. There is nothing to whine about when your favorite model is gone or the new models are not as good as you hoped. As long as it takes you from home to work/school on time, as the song goes, "Don't worry, be happy".

 

I am really sick of people nitpicking on small things and losing sight of other more pressing needs (rehabbing stations, ensuring ADA-compliance, expanding service to underserved areas etc), all because of an "old" vs "new" mentality. Bottom line, if you don't like a particular train car, move to a different neighborhood and take the train that runs the model of your choice. If you can never be entirely happy, drive to work, or leave New York altogether. You are not important enough for the world to design subway cars to your specifications. Basically, just put up and shut up.

 

Hallelujah.....bless your heart. About time someone preach and shut it down! Thank you!!!!!

[AgedPolaris 0]

I've come to realize that there are advantages and disadvantages to each model, and the only extra props you can throw to the older ones is due to their longevity. I like to per chance stumble upon a M3 on the LIRR just because they're a bit more rare these days. I have no preference between them and the M7. On the NJT, I find the Arrow III cars to be incredibly comfortable, but obviously the newer Bi-levels are a necessity for the amount of passengers they get on the NEC.

 

I think what a lot of people dislike is the fact that the (NYCT) is going to be more uniform than ever, where a slight diversity of rolling stock has always been present. So many car classes have retired in the recent past, soon it will indeed be a more monotonous system.

[MAA89 0]

BRAVO!

 

 

Hallelujah.....bless your heart. About time someone preach and shut it down! Thank you!!!!!

 

Thanks, guys! Been meaning to do that for a while, finally got it off my chest:cool:

[SubwayGuy 2,313]

Don't know about others, but any car that doesn't break down too often and gets me to my destination in the usual time is good enough for me.

 

I do not get it when people complain bitterly about how they like or don't like certain paint schemes, bucket vs bench seats (immaterial because most rush hour passengers never get a seat), minor stains on floors and walls, a particular odor associated with a car type, screeching vs squeaking breaks (there are actually fans of a particular variety of braking noise!), small vs large RFW, visibility of the service bullet and rollsign, on-board and in-station maps and announcements, strip maps, FIND displays, how fast or slow the door opens, how they are off-balance when a train is climbing an incline and turning/banking at the same time, locked vs unlocked storm doors, metallic vs plastic handrests, industrial vs natural scenery out the window and so on and so forth, ad nauseam.

 

Frankly, trains, especially rapid transit ones, are made to get you from point A to point B. Whether you like your standee poles in a straight line or offset from the center is not a reason to shun/hate/pour vitriol on the car type as a whole. Any one car will have its merits and demerits and what one person likes is not necessarily shared by others. Remember the pays nearly $2 million dollars for each car and surely obtains as much as feedback as possible to take into account what is good for the riders, operators, taxpayers and the MTA.

 

Hating old trains because they do not have FIND systems or hating new ones because they "dumb people down" and holding on to old cars for nostalgic reasons is just plain silly. Like all other equipment, trains are built, they get used, they get old and are replaced. There is nothing to whine about when your favorite model is gone or the new models are not as good as you hoped. As long as it takes you from home to work/school on time, as the song goes, "Don't worry, be happy".

 

I am really sick of people nitpicking on small things and losing sight of other more pressing needs (rehabbing stations, ensuring ADA-compliance, expanding service to underserved areas etc), all because of an "old" vs "new" mentality. Bottom line, if you don't like a particular train car, move to a different neighborhood and take the train that runs the model of your choice. If you can never be entirely happy, drive to work, or leave New York altogether. You are not important enough for the world to design subway cars to your specifications. Basically, just put up and shut up.

 

Best.

Post.

Ever.

[MAA89 0]

Best.

Post.

Ever.

 

Thank you!