FlushingExpress Posted January 4, 2009 Share #126 Posted January 4, 2009 Don't get me off-topic... This is about R-44 not about me, in fact I answered you in PM, so no more rambling... All pre M7s on the LIRR and Metro-North are also ugly, especially the interiors. the R46s are better than R44s in every way. I am sure the retirement date of the R44s should be from 2011-2013. they will not survive long, especially since they had the lowest MDBF in 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted January 5, 2009 Share #127 Posted January 5, 2009 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSmith Posted January 5, 2009 Share #128 Posted January 5, 2009 Well, the R-44, R-46, M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4, M-6 are all so cute, they are not ugly, they are plain cute and smiling all along, ! Well, the R-44 isn't quiet an troublish train compared to it and a regular car... Needs regualr maintinence and TLC, ! Rode R42s and R44s and R46s and R32s a few stops back to back on the E on Sunday. Took awhile to find an R32 E. Confirms what I thought all along. The R42 is a bit quieter and not as agitated as the R32. It feels like it is moving into modern due to its more open feel accomplished by the larger windows. It's exterior is what the R44/R46/R68/R62 evolved from. The R32 is loudish and agitated, doesn't make the strange break squeal noise upon take off. The R44 is noticeably quieter, the R46 as well. How attractive anyone finds any train is subjective. I don't find the R32 attractive, mostly I don't love corrugated sides. I do think that it is a great idea to corrugate the train witnessed by the durability of the car and that the new trains all have corrugated roofs. I think the R44/R46 interiors as well as the LIRR pre M7 trains have the most attractive interiors of all the commuter and subway trains. I think the color combination, lighting, space elements, all work well together. I like the faux wood paneling, though dated, it works well with the design and isn't overwhelming. I even like the "wallpaper" on these trains. As for R44 vs. R46, there are very subtle differences between the two, even in the rebuild, and most subway riders probably could not distinguish one from the other. Both need TLC though the R46s seem to be in better shape for the most part. R46s seem quieter, but R44s are much quieter and smoother than R42s or R32s. The newer trains are a bit sterile, IMO. I don't love the monkey bars on the R142/143/160 by the doors. The aqua seats totally remind me of the 1960s original cars and in this way they seem like updated R40M/R42s to me. I kinda like the M7s and double deckers on the NJ Transit because of the seats and large windows, the design on the lights, and the double deckers have that blue faux paint treatment on the walls. I think the R142/R143/R160 could have benefitted from the types of seats in the R100A, that would have gave them some color and personality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Sith Posted January 5, 2009 Share #129 Posted January 5, 2009 Rumor has it that a third option order of R160s was in place, fitted with Siemens Propulsion, to replace the R44s is and R46s, not sure if this true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maserati7200 Posted January 5, 2009 Share #130 Posted January 5, 2009 The R42 is... not as agitated as the R32. Not true at all. The R42's are way more rusted then the r32's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSmith Posted January 5, 2009 Share #131 Posted January 5, 2009 Not true at all. The R42's are way more rusted then the r32's. The ride, I'm talking about the ride. The R42s are quite rusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R421969 Posted January 5, 2009 Share #132 Posted January 5, 2009 dam right...and all that scratchitti doesnt help either. tags and whatnot...when they paint the roofs of the R42 they look better...I saw a set that had the silver spray paint rather then the more dominant grey tone and it looked good...made it look fresher...like a shave does to face. they run fast 2...especially from myrtle to macry...i swear they go faster then the R160s inbetween those stops...id say they have a good amount of fight left in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlushingExpress Posted January 5, 2009 Share #133 Posted January 5, 2009 Rumor has it that a third option order of R160s was in place, fitted with Siemens Propulsion, to replace the R44s is and R46s, not sure if this true. just SOME of the R44s if it does happen, the rest of them would be replaced by the R179s and R46s would not retire until at least 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 6, 2009 Share #134 Posted January 6, 2009 Well, the R-44, R-46, M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4, M-6 are all so cute, they are not ugly, they are plain cute and smiling all along, ! Well, the R-44 isn't quiet an troublish train compared to it and a regular car... Needs regualr maintinence and TLC, ! Trains are not about aesthetics... it's about performance... if a nice looking car goes to service yet its performance is horrible, I rather it be placed in a museum for display rather than use. However if a crude looking car has good performance, it is a good car. Performance first, aesthetics optional. So, I don't give a blank about you considering them "plain cute and smiling all long", it is about performance and that is what we should all be concerned about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSmith Posted January 6, 2009 Share #135 Posted January 6, 2009 Trains are not about aesthetics... it's about performance... if a nice looking car goes to service yet its performance is horrible, I rather it be placed in a museum for display rather than use. However if a crude looking car has good performance, it is a good car. Performance first, aesthetics optional. So, I don't give a blank about you considering them "plain cute and smiling all long", it is about performance and that is what we should all be concerned about. Yes. Function, performance, reliability, then aesthetics. When they went aesthetics first they ended up with the R40 slant disaster. But I think it's Flushing Express's dismissal of the R42 and R44 as the former being rusted and horrible (I agree that they are in deplorable condition but they seem to run well) and the latter being tin cans and ugly that inspired some defense for the aesthetics of the R44. I do think that in the end, if a train is designed to have passengers enjoy its environment, and the performance and reliability is complemented by a train that at least tries to be aesthetically pleasing, that's a nicer solution than a train that is just functional and performs well. The R32 was functional and performed well for years on the E, yet most of the E riders preferred the R46. And I think it is because of not only its relative quietness and smoothness, but also its R44-like aesthetics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 6, 2009 Share #136 Posted January 6, 2009 Rumor has it that a third option order of R160s was in place, fitted with Siemens Propulsion, to replace the R44s is and R46s, not sure if this true. I really do not know where you got your intel from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted January 6, 2009 Share #137 Posted January 6, 2009 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted January 6, 2009 Share #138 Posted January 6, 2009 I agree, but you know what the R-44 possibly have some shared traits from the L.I.R.R./M.N.R. cars. Well, the R44, R46, M1, and M3 were all designed by the same company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlushingExpress Posted January 6, 2009 Share #139 Posted January 6, 2009 Well, the R44, R46, M1, and M3 were all designed by the same company. who designed them? they were not built by the same company. the R44s were built by St Louis, which went out of business afterwards due to the crappiness of those cars while the R46s were built by pullman. idk who built the M1s and M3s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted January 6, 2009 Share #140 Posted January 6, 2009 who designed them? they were not built by the same company. the R44s were built by St Louis, which went out of business afterwards due to the crappiness of those cars while the R46s were built by pullman. idk who built the M1s and M3s. Sundberg-Ferar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordhamkid7721 Posted January 6, 2009 Share #141 Posted January 6, 2009 Weren't the M1/3s designed and built by Budd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSmith Posted January 6, 2009 Share #142 Posted January 6, 2009 Sundberg-Ferar designed lots of subway and commuter trains. They also designed the R40, I think at the time the mayor wanted to have a more dramatic appearance to the subway cars. Budd likes corrugated stainless steel trains. So, if it is corrugated, Budd had a lot of pull in the design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSmith Posted January 6, 2009 Share #143 Posted January 6, 2009 Sundberg-Ferar designed lots of subway and commuter trains. They also designed the R40, I think at the time the mayor wanted to have a more dramatic appearance to the subway cars. Budd likes corrugated stainless steel trains. So, if it is corrugated, Budd had a lot of pull in the design. AGHH. Scratch that. I got it wrong. Sundberg-Ferar did the R40Ms. Fixed the design. THe R40 was done by Raymond Lowery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 7, 2009 Share #144 Posted January 7, 2009 I agree, but you know what the R-44 possibly have some shared traits from the L.I.R.R./M.N.R. cars. And I'd have to agree with you about the R-142/R-143/R-160 getting seats configs like the R-110A/B's would be quiet useful and more attractive... Huh?!? Where did you get that info from, please give me the link, thank you! I know but they are pretty reliable to me and my ride... The R-38, R-40M, R-42 isn't what I like. The only ones I like is R-32, R-40S, R-44, R-46 and R-68. I feel that the R-44 on the is having problems mainly because of their log runs and overall covering Jamaica Bay which has suspicious waters... I prefer R-32, R-44 and R-46 since I'd always get better rides. I am a rider... I prefer R-32 too, proof is in this one! I do not believe that Jamaica Bay water affects R44 performance. Take a good look at the SMEEs it ran all along, the R32s and the R38s. They have been here long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R421969 Posted January 7, 2009 Share #145 Posted January 7, 2009 I do not believe that Jamaica Bay water affects R44 performance. Take a good look at the SMEEs it ran all along, the R32s and the R38s. They have been here long. very good point.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlushingExpress Posted January 7, 2009 Share #146 Posted January 7, 2009 stainless steel lasts longer than carbon steel. that is why the water did not have much impact on the R32s, but damaged the R38s and R44s a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 7, 2009 Share #147 Posted January 7, 2009 stainless steel lasts longer than carbon steel. that is why the water did not have much impact on the R32s, but damaged the R38s and R44s a lot. Unless studies are specifically done, nobody can be 100% sure that the Jamaica Bay water affects the structure of NYCT cars. And car damage may not be specifically due to salinity levels of Jamaica Bay. Remember, the R38s and R44s appeared during the Age of Graffiti. Graffiti is known to damage car bodies as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catfish 44 Posted January 10, 2009 Share #148 Posted January 10, 2009 Those things aren't going anywhere anytime soon. (NYCT) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlmerPark B6 Posted January 10, 2009 Share #149 Posted January 10, 2009 Unless studies are specifically done, nobody can be 100% sure that the Jamaica Bay water affects the structure of NYCT cars. And car damage may not be specifically due to salinity levels of Jamaica Bay. Remember, the R38s and R44s appeared during the Age of Graffiti. Graffiti is known to damage car bodies as well. I really do not believe Jamaica Bay has anything to do with it. But it is possible since there are salt marshes in the area. The R44 are dying down because they are getting older and older, vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 11, 2009 Share #150 Posted January 11, 2009 I really do not believe Jamaica Bay has anything to do with it. But it is possible since there are salt marshes in the area. The R44 are dying down because they are getting older and older, vice versa. Thank you, there is no proven relationship between Jamaica Bay water and subway car performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.