R32 in California scrapyard?

[R36 Preservation]

This photo I found is interesting. It was shot in a scrapyard in Mojave, California of a 1964 Chverolet Impala.

 

But look at the far left and there's an scrapped R32. You can even make out the former location of the "EXP" indicator on the bulkhead. I do not believe any R32s were sent to California. Unless, this could be a movie set prop, but the trademark Budd fluting seems absent or not clearly visible.

[INDman]

This photo I found is interesting. It was shot in a scrapyard in Mojave, California of a 1964 Chverolet Impala.

 

But look at the far left and there's an scrapped R32. You can even make out the former location of the "EXP" indicator on the bulkhead. I do not believe any R32s were sent to California. Unless, this could be a movie set prop, but the trademark Budd fluting seems absent or not clearly visible.

 

Don't be fooled, it's only a movie prop.

[SoSpectacular]

Most definitely a movie prop. Doesn't look much like the real thing.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Those "R32s" are props. No R32 had both marker lights and the front "cyclops" digital display.

[INDman]

Those "R32s" are props. No R32 had both marker lights and the front "cyclops" digital display.

 

The GE rebuilds did but, they were covered over from the inside.

[R36 Preservation]

Those "R32s" are props. No R32 had both marker lights and the front "cyclops" digital display.

Unless you count the rebuilt GEs, which had the marker light positions in place, but filled over.

[Bill from Maspeth]

This photo I found is interesting. It was shot in a scrapyard in Mojave, California of a 1964 Chverolet Impala.

 

But look at the far left and there's an scrapped R32. You can even make out the former location of the "EXP" indicator on the bulkhead. I do not believe any R32s were sent to California. Unless, this could be a movie set prop, but the trademark Budd fluting seems absent or not clearly visible.

Absolutely a movie prop.

 

Unless my eyes are deceiving me, check out the marker light lenses. They don't look the same and the lens over the cab comes out like a point.

[Joel Up Front]

That's not even anywhere near a subway car. Bad prop is bad.

[East New York]

Looks like another car prop to the right of it.

[mtattrain]

The GE rebuilds did but, they were covered over from the inside.

 

8/10 GEs were reefed, and 2 are not on MTA property or in California. Just saying...

[INDman]

8/10 GEs were reefed, and 2 are not on MTA property or in California. Just saying...

 

Maybe your missing something. Someone had said none of the R32s had marker lights after GOH and I pointed out that the R32 GE rebuilds did but they were covered over. Read the whole thread next time...

[King Of RedBirds]

This photo I found is interesting. It was shot in a scrapyard in Mojave, California of a 1964 Chverolet Impala.

 

But look at the far left and there's an scrapped R32. You can even make out the former location of the "EXP" indicator on the bulkhead. I do not believe any R32s were sent to California. Unless, this could be a movie set prop, but the trademark Budd fluting seems absent or not clearly visible.[/quote

 

Naw cause no Real R32 has been used in a movie since the 90's

All of the trains now that are IND Or BMT are mockup cars. EG, in Pelham 123 they used real R62A/R142A/R160A Cars. But older movies such as Hellboy used a Modified Mockup of an R32/38.

[error46146]

kinda looks like the Money Train from the movie with the same name lol

[INDman]

kinda looks like the Money Train from the movie with the same name lol

 

i was on that car the other day, for a car that has sat outside for so long, it's holding up well.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Maybe your missing something. Someone had said none of the R32s had marker lights after GOH and I pointed out that the R32 GE rebuilds did but they were covered over. Read the whole thread next time...

They left the housings for the marker lights but they removed the actual lights and the wiring that lit them before covering them up. So the GE rebuilds didn't actually have marker lights.

[INDman]

They left the housings for the marker lights but they removed the actual lights and the wiring that lit them before covering them up. So the GE rebuilds didn't actually have marker lights.

 

I'm well aware of that fact, but I was talking about the marker light housing. Putting the actual lights back would have been easy to do.

[pelhamlocal]

I think i can spread some light. I believe it's the full sized prop for final destination 3 and all theres no corraugation so it's definatley not real. they also used a model i blieve aswell.BTW i would buy both the full size prop and the model.

[R10 2952]

Putting the actual lights back would have been easy to do.

Exactly, which is why they should have preserved a set of R-32 GEs as opposed to 3352-3353. The GE rebuilds were much closer to the original thing, and probably could have been more easily restored to the original (pre-GOH) state than the other rebuilds.

[SubwayGuy]

Ah yes the classic "all preserved trains must be restored back to original" argument heard too often in preservation circles. Let's just put it this way, given the storage space issues throughout NYCT it's good enough that one pair of each R32-R42 was saved. The likelihood that a functioning car would be built back to an earlier appearance for poops and giggles is minimal when everything already works fine and other cars desperately need attention.

 

Plus a more or less intact R32GE set still does exist...it's just not on NYCT property

[Vistausss]

Ah yes the classic "all preserved trains must be restored back to original" argument heard too often in preservation circles. Let's just put it this way, given the storage space issues throughout NYCT it's good enough that one pair of each R32-R42 was saved. The likelihood that a functioning car would be built back to an earlier appearance for poops and giggles is minimal when everything already works fine and other cars desperately need attention.

 

Plus a more or less intact R32GE set still does exist...it's just not on NYCT property

 

Now that you mention it... A while ago there was some discussion on where space for the NYCT Subway Museum could be rented. I suggested 9th Ave lower, but it got rejected here. So I was thinking: why not Chambers St? There is unused space there (abandoned platforms et all).

[SubwayGuy]

Now that you mention it... A while ago there was some discussion on where space for the NYCT Subway Museum could be rented. I suggested 9th Ave lower, but it got rejected here. So I was thinking: why not Chambers St? There is unused space there (abandoned platforms et all).

 

For a museum exhibit: It's far away from Court St., can't have one exhibit in two locations, it doesn't work well.

 

For storage: Abandoned platforms, yes, but all tracks are used for service one way or another, depending on whether the is relaying at Chambers or going to Broad. So cars couldn't sit there. Many of the other "non revenue" sections of track in NYCT are off limits because they are vital to work equipment and other non-revenue moves despite not being in service.

 

I've probably said this 100 times since the place opened, the only possible expansion for NYTM is to the outer platforms of Hoyt-Schermerhorn and even that would take a ton of proper planning and capital funds to get the area fit for exhibits or storage. Even storage is not that simple because train moves need to be possible in and out of the museum, you don't want to bury cars where you can't get them out for nostalgia trains or restorations.

[Eric B]

I think i can spread some light. I believe it's the full sized prop for final destination 3 and all theres no corraugation so it's definatley not real. they also used a model i blieve aswell.BTW i would buy both the full size prop and the model.

Oh, wow! I always imagined an R32 with R30 style windows!

 

Where was this, a studio in California?

[N-Trizzy2609]

Knew it was the subway cars from Final Destination 3. They had two of them and full mock subway to run them in.

[Vistausss]

For a museum exhibit: It's far away from Court St., can't have one exhibit in two locations, it doesn't work well.

 

For storage: Abandoned platforms, yes, but all tracks are used for service one way or another, depending on whether the is relaying at Chambers or going to Broad. So cars couldn't sit there. Many of the other "non revenue" sections of track in NYCT are off limits because they are vital to work equipment and other non-revenue moves despite not being in service.

 

I've probably said this 100 times since the place opened, the only possible expansion for NYTM is to the outer platforms of Hoyt-Schermerhorn and even that would take a ton of proper planning and capital funds to get the area fit for exhibits or storage. Even storage is not that simple because train moves need to be possible in and out of the museum, you don't want to bury cars where you can't get them out for nostalgia trains or restorations.

 

True. But if you restore the other middle platform at Chambers, you can have those relay trains end there and use the remaining outer platforms for the museum. Sure it's far away from Court, but I don't why you would bure them in Chambers? The abandoned platforms/tracks are still connected to the system, so they can easily move in and out.

And hey, better to have 2 seperate locations, then 1 location with space problems. And following my idea, Chambers has enough room for a 2nd location.

[Roadcruiser1]

Simple answer NO.