The end of an era - slant R-40 cars

[grammatim]

On Jun 12, 1:02*pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jun 12, 12:19*pm, "Joseph D. Korman" <joe...@**************> wrote:
>
> > It's official, the slant R-40 cars, ordered in 1967-8 are officially out
> > of service. *
>
> These cars were ordered by the pre-MTA NYCTA, that is, before Ronan
> took over and the NYCTA was made an agency of the MTA?
>
> Ironically, the cars were designed by Raymond Lowery's outfit which

Loewy. I have corrected you before on this. His is the leading
American industrial designer of the 20th century -- if you're going to
mention him, you could at least get his name right.

[grammatim]

On Jun 12, 4:10*pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2:26*pm, grammatim <gramma...@************> wrote:
>
> > Loewy. I have corrected you before on this.
>
> Spelling his name correctly isn't a priority.

_Knowing_ his name is a priority. There are lots of ways you could
misspell the name without suggesting you had no idea what his name
actually is.

"Lowery" is not one of them. It's, for instance, a way of misspelling
the seasoned salt people.

[Vince]

J.R.Guthrie wrote:
>> Good riddance to the R40 slants. They were the worst subway cars ever
>> built. The seats were uncomfortable, and before they were rebuilt in the
>
> Oh I dunno. The bench seats in the R16x0s are far more uncomfortable thatn
> the R40s. I would happily ride a slant nose over one of the new cars. But
> all the bench seating is awful, no matter what the model or age.
>
> Cheers,
> Jim Guthrie
>
>
>
>
I agree they very bad more so on a long ride

[grammatim]

On Jun 14, 11:09*pm, Vince <vpilu...@**************> wrote:
> Miles Bader wrote:
> > hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> >> *(The automated public address systems of the M-7
> >> cars are quite irritating, especially on a local with frequent stops.)
>
> > How come?
>
> > [I'm not in NYC, but I generally prefer human conductors making
> > announcements, simply because it feels a bit more human (and there's
> > more interesting variety) ... but there are certainly many pleasant and
> > functional automated announcement systems too...]
>
> > -Miles
>
> Oh yeah we had a real winner on the D last week, a female:
> "Please watch out for the C L O S I N G DOORS"
> That was from 42nd St to Bay 50th St HELP!

BTW I noticed that your messages are now quoting properly.

[Jimmy]

hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Clark F Morris <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > >(The automated public address systems of the M-7
> > >cars are quite irritating, especially on a local with frequent stops.)
> > Required by disability legislation for stop announcement and any other
> > information needed by the visually impaired.
>
> Does the law require stops announcements be _automated_?

No, the ADA just requires stop announcements. It's up to the transit
agency to choose between automated and live-human announcements.

On buses, they don't even have to announce every stop -- just major
stops. Pittsburgh's bus system has an automated announcement system
that silently displays most stops on electronic screens, and only
announces the major ones.

Fortunately, NYCT has decided against automated announcements on
buses, at least for now. But they do have a weird bus PA system,
where the driver makes an announcement into a microphone, and
immediately afterwards a recording of that announcement is played back
with a lot of background noise mixed in.

Jimmy

[Bolwerk]

Jimmy wrote:
> Fortunately, NYCT has decided against automated announcements on
> buses, at least for now. But they do have a weird bus PA system,
> where the driver makes an announcement into a microphone, and
> immediately afterwards a recording of that announcement is played back
> with a lot of background noise mixed in.

I would guess that's to avoid feedback.

But their sound systems seem very prone to failure. Either that, or a
lot of drivers mumble or don't speak into the microphone.

[Phil Kane]

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:56:50 +0900, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:

>I'm not in NYC, but I generally prefer human conductors making
>announcements,

"Me too" (on both counts) but I have to draw the line at human
announcements where the speaker's dialect/accent is so strong as to be
unintelligible. I have found this in many cities across the country,
but who am I to talk with my "Noo Yawk" perfect speech in the Pacific
Northwest? :-)
--

"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"

Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District

[grammatim]

On Jun 15, 12:41*pm, Jimmy <JimmyGeldb...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > Clark F Morris <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > > >(The automated public address systems of the M-7
> > > >cars are quite irritating, especially on a local with frequent stops..)
> > > Required by disability legislation for stop announcement and any other
> > > information needed by the visually impaired.
>
> > Does the law require stops announcements be _automated_?
>
> No, the ADA just requires stop announcements. *It's up to the transit
> agency to choose between automated and live-human announcements.
>
> On buses, they don't even have to announce every stop -- just major
> stops. *Pittsburgh's bus system has an automated announcement system
> that silently displays most stops on electronic screens, and only
> announces the major ones.
>
> Fortunately, NYCT has decided against automated announcements on
> buses, at least for now. *

The every-street announcements on the Chicago buses are very helpful.

[Michael Wares]

> I would strongly urge you to compare the detailed design of "Old Rivets"
> with the rest of the GG1 fleet. It's more than paint and even more than
> welding vs riveting. But it is subtle.

There's an article in the summer 2009 issue of _Classic Trains_ about
Donald Dohner and the design of the GG1. Dohner's models, done before
Loewy was involved, were much smoother than "Old Rivits". It seems
that the engineering of the prototype GG1 (and the rival R1) went
ahead before the syling was complete.

Michael Wares

[Michael Wares]

> What puzzles me is how the stupid slant design got through the TA.
> The design (1) eliminated needed space in the car interior, and (2)
> provided a hazard at the cars' end.

IIRC, the original concept was for five-car sets, so that there would
only be slants and the ends and between the two sets in a ten-car
train.

Michael Wares