|
|
| Re: R-160 Option III Order (841532) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Oct 7 15:06:36 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by murray1575 on Wed Oct 7 12:36:07 2009. Actually by the mid 1930s, a car of IND dimensions but similar in construction, design and mechanical amenities to the BMT Multis could have been built at probably the same cost as the Later R-1/9 series of rolling stock. The Budd company even offered a design and proposal for a stainless steel R-9 but the B of T opted for more cars of the existing design. I believe that an artist's rendering of the stainless steel R-9 exists somewhere but I have yet to see it. In 1949, the Budd Co again attempted to enter the competition for NYCTS equipment with the R-11s which were supposed to be prototypes for a car order of another 400 cars. The problem was that the R-11s had a few unproven amenities that caused the B of T to reject the whole concept of the total car design rather than apply the existing technology of the R-10s to a stainless steel car body. Certain aspects of the R-11's design such as the porthole side door windows and porthole end door window which had been retrofitted to the R-11's original design were applied to the R-15s but with a conventional LAHT steel carbody rather than stainless steel. I have heard that when the R-32s were delivered, certain new car engineers remarked that it was too bad that the R-27s and 30s weren't also stainless steel. If the members of the B of T's and later NYCTA's engineering department didn't have their collective heads up their you know whats, the NYCTS could have had stainless steel cars by 1940 or at very least by the 1950s. |
|
|
|