Jump to content

car designs


Bus Guy

Recommended Posts


Are you expecting the MTA to spend money to totally "trick out" these cars? It's the subway, it's to get you from point A to point B. Who cares what the cars look like?

 

Im not saying trick out, im saying use a proven design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't we already have a thread that bashed R160's which was supposed to be about a R68A <Q>, but it got so off topic it got deleted, and closed?.

 

Anyway the NTT's are nothing to me except just plain subway cars. The only thing I care about with all subway cars is if they have any flaws, problems, or are they falling apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The closest thing to a "modern SMEE" is the R62/68. They are based on the R36s and are so under the skin using 1960s technology with a 1980s body. A comparsion could be like the 2005-on Chrysler 300/300C which is designed to be a modern intrepretion of the classic American rear-drive V8 sedans.

 

But using NTT equipment with a SMEE body is plain comical. A SMEE design would be dated, boxy and unaerodymanic. Try thinking of a 1967 Buick or Lincoln Continential with fuel injection, satellite radio, GPS and digital controls. Probably not.

 

But there are some companies that build "new build" classic streetcars with modern drivetrains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when the SMEEs came in people complained about the standardization of the equipment even back then.

 

some day most of you will be wishing the NTT's were still around and b*tching about whatever new equipment is in its place. That's the way it works.

 

Personally each car has a place in history and is worth saving and learning about. The morons that play favorites about things are just a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called evolution. There's always going to be design changes. The successor to the R160 will probably look very different.

 

I live in MD and the design of Metrorail cars haven't changed much since the system's inception in 1976. Some things have evolved over time, but the average Metrorail rider (non-railfan) probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference if looking from the outside.

 

Metro decided to go with a radically different external design for the 7000s (more like the PA-5s) and some people are actually mad about it. I'm glad they decided to make a change. A big reason why I like the MTA is the diversity in its rolling stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's "exciting" about the R32 or R38? They're both silver red birds. For me, the R40 was exciting in its slanted front and huge letter designation sign as well as larger windows. The R44 was exciting due to its interior's bright colors and wood paneling and curved sides. Some may find the NTTs digital displays exciting or automated announcements, or bright lighting and some may see at least with the R143/R160 an updated R42. One thing I see that the R142/R143/R160 go right over the R62/R68 is that the walls of the train aren't all scratched up and dented looking like they are in those trains. However, they weren't so lucky in grafitti clean-up which looks particularly bad on the B-division NTTs.

 

I don't know what a "classic" SMEE design is to tell you the truth.

 

How come as stuff gets newer and newer cars get duller and duller? Why couln't they have taken the classic SMEE design and just put NTT guts it it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you expecting the MTA to spend money to totally "trick out" these cars? It's the subway, it's to get you from point A to point B. Who cares what the cars look like?

Apparently the MTA cares with those fancy schmancy FINDs, little TVs, and futile efforts to remove grafitti.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember catching my first NTT in Aug 2000 on the 6 and thinking that the design was an updated version of the Post WW2 trains on the IRT given the small train indicator on the top middle and the blue seats. The multiple color seats and different wall panels which started in the early 70's with the R44's and continued into the late 80's with the R68A's had become dated. I really liked the R142A when I first rode it. I was curious just before I rode an R143 for the 1st time whether there would be a return to benchseats on B division cars. I was a bit disappointed with the R143 the first time and the first R160 I rode but that was the test train. I then saw the design change in the non test trains with the metal around the window and at the end of the cars and think that looks very classy. I also prefer the 2 door French type of doors on the R160's vs the single door on the R143's. Obviously all trains look a bit grungy these days after the storm but tonight I rode the 6 from downtown to 51st St and then took the E to Queens. The 6 train looked grungy on the inside and squeaked like hell (7538) while the E (9693) was in great shape. The 10 year old NTT's are starting to look worn. R142's are my favorite NTT's i love the HVAC noise and the interiors. I don't like the inital acceleration of R142A's which has been discussed on another thread. As a regular E rider the R160's are growing on me. I think there would be a revolt by E riders if anything else showed up on the E as it has now been over 2 years since the first R160 was in service on the E and over a year since anything else was in service on the E.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The design of a car is certainly an important thing. Take a look at the 160s and you will see that it was not well thought out from an ergonomic standpoint. The poles in front of the doors result in a lot of crowding. There are those high hand rails in the middle of the train that are useless because many people aren't tall enough to hold on. When you step on a (D) for example, the car just feels roomier based on the way the seats and poles are aligned.

 

Of course the riders are at fault a lot of the time, but when you design something, you need to expect the users to be stupid, not smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

problem with the R44 derived R68 is that people don't move toward the transverse seats to stand and the doors are further apart and there are fewer of them. That's why R46s were removed from the E. The R160 doesn't have offset doors, that surprised me. The R32/R38 had most seats and good pole placement away from their offset doors. R32/R38 most efficient. R42 had poorly placed poles right by the doors.

 

The design of a car is certainly an important thing. Take a look at the 160s and you will see that it was not well thought out from an ergonomic standpoint. The poles in front of the doors result in a lot of crowding. There are those high hand rails in the middle of the train that are useless because many people aren't tall enough to hold on. When you step on a (D) for example, the car just feels roomier based on the way the seats and poles are aligned.

 

Of course the riders are at fault a lot of the time, but when you design something, you need to expect the users to be stupid, not smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The closest I can find to a "classic" SMEE design are these.

 

 

How are the R10/12/14s "classic SMEE" cars? It was a design that didn't last that long. The real classic SMEE design is any car from the R15 all the way to the R38, a 51' or 60' box with wheels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.