ttcsubwayfan Posted October 2, 2012 Share #26 Posted October 2, 2012 There is no such thing as a 'best' or 'worst' subway car. All cars, past, present and future have their upsides and their down sides. Some might be terrific for passengers or railfans, but complete jalopies for the men who work on them every day. Other cars might not be great to passengers, but are excellent performers in terms of MDBF (i.e. the R68/A). That said, there certainly can be a 'favorite' and 'least favorite' car list, so here is mine. Mine is influenced by my personal opinions, which in turn are influenced by how long they managed to last, ride quality, how much of them were built, and bias (i.e. I like cars like the R32s because their design reminds of Toronto's cars.) And please remember that facts and figures trump any passenger's/railfan's/foamer's opinions. Good (in order): -R62/A -R32 -R68 -R142A -R40 Slant Bad: -R160 No opinion: -R42 -R46 -R143 -R142 Favorite (non-MTA): Hawker-Siddeley H5 Redbirds on top of this list? Are you kidding me? It's called an "opinion". Saying, "This is going to end up in a flame war" is not realistic. What makes you think since you were not here that people became less hostile towards each other and tried to encourage instead of encouraging hate? I sure see no way how this could end up in a flame war. Starting with a bad attitude to begin with is what causes these so called "Flame wars", which is exactly what you are doing. Lets try to have a productive discussion instead of encouraging a Civil War. It's not a "bad attitude", it's called being realistic. In every preferential discussion, there are always a select few individuals who cannot handle other people's opinions. An NTT fan may respond angrily to SMEE fans because of their own opinion (i.e. dirt, age, ride quality, etc. on them sucks) or a SMEE fan may get mad at NTT fans for whatever reasons. In an ideal world, people would accept that people have differing opinions, but that is not how things work. I'm alright with people hating XYZ trains as long as they have a valid reason (and age alone is NOT a valid reason). I myself despise the R160s, because there is so much of them and they have invaded basically every corridor of the subway (save for the Crosstown). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted October 2, 2012 Share #27 Posted October 2, 2012 It's not a "bad attitude", it's called being realistic. In every preferential discussion, there are always a select few individuals who cannot handle other people's opinions. An NTT fan may respond angrily to SMEE fans because of their own opinion (i.e. dirt, age, ride quality, etc. on them sucks) or a SMEE fan may get mad at NTT fans for whatever reasons. In an ideal world, people would accept that people have differing opinions, but that is not how things work. I'm alright with people hating XYZ trains as long as they have a valid reason (and age alone is NOT a valid reason). I myself despise the R160s, because there is so much of them and they have invaded basically every corridor of the subway (save for the Crosstown). Well I guess you missed my entire point completely. What has happened to the Forums. It seems like no one can understand anything anymore. No one reads carefully anymore either. You try to reason, doesn't work. You try to explain, doesn't work. I have nothing else to say. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share #28 Posted October 2, 2012 Brighton Express, what Threxx and ttcsubwayfan said was 100% true. They did understand what you have said but however, its a fact that not everyone can handle others' views. I understand how you feel but you should also try to pay more attention to what others are also trying to say as well. EDIT: They were basically correcting your points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted October 2, 2012 Share #29 Posted October 2, 2012 Exactly. I'm not going to post my preferences for that exact reason. I know that some NTT lover is going to come in here and bash everyone who even shows a shred of respect for SMEE cars. It's just a fact of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted October 2, 2012 Share #30 Posted October 2, 2012 Well I guess you missed my entire point completely. What has happened to the Forums. It seems like no one can understand anything anymore. No one reads carefully anymore either. You try to reason, doesn't work. You try to explain, doesn't work. I have nothing else to say. Carry on. How did I miss your point? You were claiming that Threxx shouldn't have a negative attitude towards the possibility of a flame war occurring. That has very little relevance to the subject; his negative attitude won't change a thing. The first post mentioned that people should respect other's opinions but certain individuals are incapable of doing so and will hate whoever shows a shred of respect for either generation of trains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilbluefoxie Posted October 2, 2012 Share #31 Posted October 2, 2012 I don't see a huge difference between R44 SI's and subway R44's. Nice how you put NTT's up top, I do like the R143. And I wouldn't put R36's under worst. IMO! , We all have our likes and dislikes. The Staten Island ones are built stronger to be FRA compliant and ride a lot better than the NYCT R44s. Those painted cars are old relics of the past, they have that same horrible R32 interior that I cant stand. I think the R142s improved the and tremendously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted October 3, 2012 Share #32 Posted October 3, 2012 Those painted cars are old relics of the past Hence, they haven't been in service since 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
105th St KK QJ JJ J Posted October 3, 2012 Share #33 Posted October 3, 2012 Looks wise: Best: R-1 to R-38 Worst: The NTT's... i.e The New Toaster Trains Performance wise: Reverse it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted October 3, 2012 Share #34 Posted October 3, 2012 Alright this is the "Favorite/Least Fave Subway Cars Thread" not the "Let's bash Threxx thread" ........ Okay. I wasn't bashing Threxx, though. I was just saying that he has too much of the attitude that his opinion = the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlushingExpress Posted October 3, 2012 Share #35 Posted October 3, 2012 Best cars: R160A/160Bs: Contrary to what morons I know often say, they are the great, reliable cars, low breakdown rates, lots of cool features (automated announcements, LED displays inside and out, and FIND), and good looking inside and out. They have greatly upgraded the and trains and make riders and train crew feel so happy. R143s: another great, reliable car type with lots of cool features. Only difference between them and the R160s are the interior side signs and strip maps. R142/142As: same as above, a much-needed boast for the "A" Division. R32s: oldest cars in the system, but their solid car bodies have allowed them to last well past the average life expectancy of a NYC Subway car and outlive five car classes built after them. They are the only "B" Divisions with the old fashion side signs, box shape car design, high bench seating, and clean rail fan window. Unfortunately, they do break down a lot, so unlike other R32 foamers, I know they have to retire ASAP. All Redbirds: I am a fan of the color red and I enjoyed the flickering lights and unique interiors, but they had to retire. R62/62As: I like their symmetrical appearance and they run pretty well, but their seats are too small for most people Worst cars: R68/68As: used to be great, but now suck. So fat that they can't go very fast and are breaking down more often than ever, especially the air-conditionining R46s: fat, slow, dark, dull, dirty, and breaking down way too often. R44s: biggest failures in New York City Transit history with so many mechanical and technical problems that led to their early retirement and me to avoid them at all costs. R42s: structurally and cosmetically horrible inside and out. I have not rode on them in over 3 1/2 years because I will go insane when I see their rusted car bodies, horrible graffitti and scrachitti, ugly interiors, and uncomfortable seats. R40/40Ms: though fast with good air-conditioning and interiors, their car bodies were rusting badly, seats were uncomfortable, and ride was very bumpy. the slanted fronts looked hideous too. R38s: rotting exteriors and disgusting interiors. I have been to public restrooms that were cleaner than them. So... people who dislike the R160 are morons? Seriously though, just because someone doesn't like a car doesn't make them morons. They are morons not because they hate the R160s, but because they completely exagerrate about them (i.e. one little failure and they would say something like "scrap the R160s" or "those cars will retire in less than 10 years"), say that their favorite junkie cars can run forever, and make up stuff about them breaking down and whatnot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astoria Line Posted October 3, 2012 Share #36 Posted October 3, 2012 Best cars: R160A/160Bs: Contrary to what morons I know often say, they are the great, reliable cars, low breakdown rates, lots of cool features (automated announcements, LED displays inside and out, and FIND), and good looking inside and out. They have greatly upgraded the and trains and make riders and train crew feel so happy. R143s: another great, reliable car type with lots of cool features. Only difference between them and the R160s are the interior side signs and strip maps. R142/142As: same as above, a much-needed boast for the "A" Division. R32s: oldest cars in the system, but their solid car bodies have allowed them to last well past the average life expectancy of a NYC Subway car and outlive five car classes built after them. They are the only "B" Divisions with the old fashion side signs, box shape car design, high bench seating, and clean rail fan window. Unfortunately, they do break down a lot, so unlike other R32 foamers, I know they have to retire ASAP. All Redbirds: I am a fan of the color red and I enjoyed the flickering lights and unique interiors, but they had to retire. R62/62As: I like their symmetrical appearance and they run pretty well, but their seats are too small for most people Worst cars: R68/68As: used to be great, but now suck. So fat that they can't go very fast and are breaking down more often than ever, especially the air-conditionining R46s: fat, slow, dark, dull, dirty, and breaking down way too often. R44s: biggest failures in New York City Transit history with so many mechanical and technical problems that led to their early retirement and me to avoid them at all costs. R42s: structurally and cosmetically horrible inside and out. I have not rode on them in over 3 1/2 years because I will go insane when I see their rusted car bodies, horrible graffitti and scrachitti, ugly interiors, and uncomfortable seats. R40/40Ms: though fast with good air-conditioning and interiors, their car bodies were rusting badly, seats were uncomfortable, and ride was very bumpy. the slanted fronts looked hideous too. R38s: rotting exteriors and disgusting interiors. I have been to public restrooms that were cleaner than them. R160s make riders feel happy? I know riders who hate them LMAO Low breakdown rates? The past 2 weeks, I have noticed 3 incidents of trains stalling... all were 160s btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted October 3, 2012 Share #37 Posted October 3, 2012 Best cars: R160A/160Bs: Contrary to what morons I know often say, So... people who dislike the R160 are morons? That's nice. This is exactly what Threxx was talking about; comments like these are what fuel flame wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted October 3, 2012 Share #38 Posted October 3, 2012 R42s: structurally and cosmetically horrible inside and out. I have not rode on them in over 3 1/2 years because I will go insane when I see their rusted car bodies, horrible graffitti and scrachitti, ugly interiors, and uncomfortable seats. Also, can someone please explain to me how one goes insane from seeing subway cars? This is a mind boggling concept, to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilbluefoxie Posted October 3, 2012 Share #39 Posted October 3, 2012 Best cars: R160A/160Bs: Contrary to what morons I know often say, they are the great, reliable cars, low breakdown rates, lots of cool features (automated announcements, LED displays inside and out, and FIND), and good looking inside and out. They have greatly upgraded the and trains and make riders and train crew feel so happy. R143s: another great, reliable car type with lots of cool features. Only difference between them and the R160s are the interior side signs and strip maps. R142/142As: same as above, a much-needed boast for the "A" Division. R32s: oldest cars in the system, but their solid car bodies have allowed them to last well past the average life expectancy of a NYC Subway car and outlive five car classes built after them. They are the only "B" Divisions with the old fashion side signs, box shape car design, high bench seating, and clean rail fan window. Unfortunately, they do break down a lot, so unlike other R32 foamers, I know they have to retire ASAP. All Redbirds: I am a fan of the color red and I enjoyed the flickering lights and unique interiors, but they had to retire. R62/62As: I like their symmetrical appearance and they run pretty well, but their seats are too small for most people Worst cars: R68/68As: used to be great, but now suck. So fat that they can't go very fast and are breaking down more often than ever, especially the air-conditionining R46s: fat, slow, dark, dull, dirty, and breaking down way too often. R44s: biggest failures in New York City Transit history with so many mechanical and technical problems that led to their early retirement and me to avoid them at all costs. R42s: structurally and cosmetically horrible inside and out. I have not rode on them in over 3 1/2 years because I will go insane when I see their rusted car bodies, horrible graffitti and scrachitti, ugly interiors, and uncomfortable seats. R40/40Ms: though fast with good air-conditioning and interiors, their car bodies were rusting badly, seats were uncomfortable, and ride was very bumpy. the slanted fronts looked hideous too. R38s: rotting exteriors and disgusting interiors. I have been to public restrooms that were cleaner than them. I agree except for the 32s, those things are terrible and need to be retired, the interior is basically identical to the 38s. The 46s aren't that bad tho, they still run well on the and the 68s are a bad copy of the 46 design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooklynunderground Posted October 3, 2012 Share #40 Posted October 3, 2012 Best cars: R160A/160Bs: Contrary to what morons I know often say, they are the great, reliable cars, low breakdown rates, lots of cool features (automated announcements, LED displays inside and out, and FIND), and good looking inside and out. They have greatly upgraded the and trains and make riders and train crew feel so happy. R143s: another great, reliable car type with lots of cool features. Only difference between them and the R160s are the interior side signs and strip maps. R142/142As: same as above, a much-needed boast for the "A" Division. R32s: oldest cars in the system, but their solid car bodies have allowed them to last well past the average life expectancy of a NYC Subway car and outlive five car classes built after them. They are the only "B" Divisions with the old fashion side signs, box shape car design, high bench seating, and clean rail fan window. Unfortunately, they do break down a lot, so unlike other R32 foamers, I know they have to retire ASAP. All Redbirds: I am a fan of the color red and I enjoyed the flickering lights and unique interiors, but they had to retire. R62/62As: I like their symmetrical appearance and they run pretty well, but their seats are too small for most people Worst cars: R68/68As: used to be great, but now suck. So fat that they can't go very fast and are breaking down more often than ever, especially the air-conditionining R46s: fat, slow, dark, dull, dirty, and breaking down way too often. R44s: biggest failures in New York City Transit history with so many mechanical and technical problems that led to their early retirement and me to avoid them at all costs. R42s: structurally and cosmetically horrible inside and out. I have not rode on them in over 3 1/2 years because I will go insane when I see their rusted car bodies, horrible graffitti and scrachitti, ugly interiors, and uncomfortable seats. R40/40Ms: though fast with good air-conditioning and interiors, their car bodies were rusting badly, seats were uncomfortable, and ride was very bumpy. the slanted fronts looked hideous too. R38s: rotting exteriors and disgusting interiors. I have been to public restrooms that were cleaner than them. Great post, except everything is based on your opinion, I don't see many facts in here. Just biased exaggerations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted October 3, 2012 Share #41 Posted October 3, 2012 The Staten Island ones are built stronger to be FRA compliant and ride a lot better than the NYCT R44s. Those painted cars are old relics of the past, they have that same horrible R32 interior that I cant stand. I think the R142s improved the and tremendously. The Staten Island R44s also have a different cab, and different seat colors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted October 3, 2012 Share #42 Posted October 3, 2012 That is exactly what I'm talking about. Keep your insults to yourself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted October 3, 2012 Share #43 Posted October 3, 2012 Also, can someone please explain to me how one goes insane from seeing subway cars? This is a mind boggling concept, to be sure. Quite simple actually. 1) They see the car. 2) Then the person goes into a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction. Explained. That is exactly what I'm talking about. Keep your insults to yourself... ? Which side are you on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted October 3, 2012 Share #44 Posted October 3, 2012 Quite simple actually. 1) They see the car. 2) Then the person goes into a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction. Explained. ? Which side are you on? I know what you're trying to imply here... Seriously though, just because someone doesn't like a car doesn't make them morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted October 3, 2012 Share #45 Posted October 3, 2012 Oh yeah, there was a thread about this in the before era. One of the biggest flame wars there was and quite hilarious ...I'll give this thread another day or two...3 the most Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilbluefoxie Posted October 3, 2012 Share #46 Posted October 3, 2012 Great post, except everything is based on your opinion, I don't see many facts in here. Just biased exaggerations. The same could be said for anyones post on this thread. Its all people's opinions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooklynunderground Posted October 3, 2012 Share #47 Posted October 3, 2012 The same could be said for anyones post on this thread. Its all people's opinions I know, but it could be like, "I don't like R38's BECAUSE..." but instead, it's "I hate R38's, they're disgusting and revolting and I go insane each time I see one" (not a direct quote, but just an example) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted October 3, 2012 Share #48 Posted October 3, 2012 They are morons not because they hate the R160s, but because they completely exagerrate about them (i.e. one little failure and they would say something like "scrap the R160s" or "those cars will retire in less than 10 years"), say that their favorite junkie cars can run forever, and make up stuff about them breaking down and whatnot. First off, the 160s are not divine creations. Second, they are prone to breaking down just like any other car in the fleet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q10 Airport Posted October 3, 2012 Share #49 Posted October 3, 2012 Great post, except everything is based on your opinion, I don't see many facts in here. Just biased exaggerations. Isn't everything we all post based on our opinions? A lot of this is based on personal preference. That's how R32 fans are R32 fans (and I'm one of them) even though they break down more than any other train in the system (with the possible exception of the R42). It is a valid issue to raise though because there is no way to be completely objective about "what is your favorite car"? You can quantify other things, like "which is the most reliable car" or "which cars have the fewest bugs" but you can't quantify personal preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q10 Airport Posted October 3, 2012 Share #50 Posted October 3, 2012 Oh yeah, there was a thread about this in the before era. One of the biggest flame wars there was and quite hilarious ...I'll give this thread another day or two...3 the most I wasn't around for it but I'm not surprised . . . I definitely understand why Threxx and some of the other senior/veteran members are so pessimistic about this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.