|
|
| 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… (786609) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (786615) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Mon May 18 15:17:17 2009, in response to 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 15:06:43 2009. 
|
|
|
| (786618) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 18 15:38:20 2009, in response to 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 15:06:43 2009. But it didn't run in revenue service. So how is it the record holder? And why was this surprising? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (786627) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 16:14:59 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 18 15:38:20 2009. Ah, but it WILL run in passenger service! At least it is intended to run in passenger service. Ant the fact that this car exists with the intent to place it in service is enough for me.Incidentally, while waiting for the 4:00 from Yonkers, I saw 9811 (and quite possibly 9812, though I'm not sure. There was a PA5 blocking my view). |
|
|
| (786628) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 16:16:33 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 18 15:38:20 2009. And it's more informative than surprising. |
|
|
| (786634) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 18 16:27:08 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Mon May 18 15:17:17 2009. Beats tax increase! |
|
|
| (786681) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon May 18 18:28:12 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by Avid Reader on Mon May 18 16:27:08 2009. I hope B. O. realizes that. |
|
|
| (786682) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon May 18 18:28:40 2009, in response to 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 15:06:43 2009. What about 9770?:) |
|
|
| (786688) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon May 18 18:33:49 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon May 18 18:28:12 2009. He does. Remember, Obama's plan does call for a massive tax cut. |
|
|
| (786721) | |
PHOTOS: [Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…] |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 19:45:34 2009, in response to 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 15:06:43 2009. 9810 9811, 9812(?), and a PA-5  PA-5 5110  |
|
|
| (786723) | |
Re: PHOTOS: [Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…] |
|
|
Posted by RAILFAN_7_40ST on Mon May 18 19:47:14 2009, in response to PHOTOS: [Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…], posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 19:45:34 2009. nice catch |
|
|
| (786726) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Neil Feldman on Mon May 18 20:03:59 2009, in response to 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 15:06:43 2009. Yep, that is probably the first of the Option II cars there! |
|
|
| (786779) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon May 18 23:00:27 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by Nilet on Mon May 18 18:33:49 2009. "He does. Remember, Obama's plan does call for a massive tax cut."To be paid for by more massive tax increases in other areas. |
|
|
| (786782) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Mon May 18 23:07:23 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by Train Dude on Mon May 18 23:00:27 2009. On the supposed rich 1%. I do hope it includes the Hollywood crowd since they were so adimant against the tax cuts. They shouldn't whine about having to pay up more now. |
|
|
| (786787) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon May 18 23:11:24 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by Grand Concourse on Mon May 18 23:07:23 2009. Nope - the crosshairs are on the very vulnerable middle class. Originally stating it would impact people earning over $250K - I think the actual number was either $83K or $87K. |
|
|
| (786790) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Mon May 18 23:17:28 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by Train Dude on Mon May 18 23:11:24 2009. Oh man, that's just horrible. And where do these politicos think they get the idea of a person making $250k is 'rich'? Sounds like fuzzy math. |
|
|
| (786797) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 23:25:39 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by Grand Concourse on Mon May 18 23:17:28 2009. An annual income of $250K may not be considered "rich," those making at least that much are in the wealthiest 1% (okay, maybe 2%) of the population. |
|
|
| (786798) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 23:26:34 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by Grand Concourse on Mon May 18 23:17:28 2009. An annual income of $250K may not be considered "rich," but those making at least that much are in the wealthiest 1% (okay, maybe 2%) of the population. |
|
|
| (786801) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 23:28:48 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 23:26:34 2009. Oh, and thank you Bee Flexible #823 for diverting my nice little thread onto this nasty ol' tangent. </sarcasm> |
|
|
| (786806) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 18 23:42:29 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by Grand Concourse on Mon May 18 23:07:23 2009. No problem ... Wesley Snipes just opened an H&R Block. :) |
|
|
| (786807) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Mon May 18 23:52:57 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 18 23:42:29 2009. lmao! Is he out of jail? :) |
|
|
| (786811) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue May 19 00:04:18 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by Grand Concourse on Mon May 18 23:52:57 2009. Last I heard his three year sentence was under appeal and he left the country for five months during the appeal to work on a film ... haven't heard much else ... |
|
|
| (786815) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue May 19 00:39:59 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue May 19 00:04:18 2009. oh ok. |
|
|
| (786817) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 19 00:59:06 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by Train Dude on Mon May 18 23:00:27 2009. Yeah, just like the Bush tax cuts raised state and local taxes by slashing federal social program funding and shunting the burden onto the states. Unlike the Bush tax cuts the other 90% of us will actually get more than a pittance from the Obama tax cuts. |
|
|
| (786819) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Tue May 19 01:07:06 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 23:28:48 2009. OOPS! My bad! |
|
|
| (786848) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Tue May 19 05:35:16 2009, in response to 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 15:06:43 2009. Needless to say, this does complicate speculation about Option Order II car numbers more than it simplifies it... |
|
|
| (786872) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by rr4567 on Tue May 19 07:31:35 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Mon May 18 15:17:17 2009. Mister Dubya, explain yourself
|
|
|
| (786882) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue May 19 08:00:57 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by Grand Concourse on Mon May 18 23:17:28 2009. B. O. is starting to stink badly. |
|
|
| (786886) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Tue May 19 08:05:43 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by R160 8818 on Tue May 19 05:35:16 2009. How? |
|
|
| (786889) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue May 19 08:19:44 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by R160 8818 on Tue May 19 05:35:16 2009. Isn't that supposed to be the Option II order that stops at 9827?But isn't it supposed to START at 9593? |
|
|
| (786897) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Tue May 19 09:23:40 2009, in response to 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 15:06:43 2009. Thanks for the info. |
|
|
| (787075) | |
Re: PHOTOS: [Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…] |
|
|
Posted by Suheidy Bronx Express on Tue May 19 18:32:59 2009, in response to PHOTOS: [Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…], posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 19:45:34 2009. Nice pictures |
|
|
| (789007) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun May 24 19:44:10 2009, in response to 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by R36 #9346 on Mon May 18 15:06:43 2009. Question not sure if it has been asked - were you able to tell whether these were 4-car or 5-car units? - or - which was a motor-cab car and which was a motor-trailer?=w= |
|
|
| (789013) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Sun May 24 20:18:23 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun May 24 19:44:10 2009. This is the Kawasaki plant, so they are 5-car units. |
|
|
| (789014) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by R160 8818 on Sun May 24 20:20:39 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by North-Easten T/O on Tue May 19 08:05:43 2009. Well we knew that the car numbers would continue on to 9593 (up to 9974 since 9592+382=9974). But now we know that the numbering isn't consecutive. In other words, the R160A doesn't go from 9593 onwards 242 cars, and then the R160B is the rest. |
|
|
| (789017) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Sun May 24 20:39:16 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by R160 8818 on Sun May 24 20:20:39 2009. If necessary, I could see them using 2950 to 3330. |
|
|
| (789025) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun May 24 21:47:47 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by R160 8818 on Sun May 24 20:18:23 2009. Thanks! that simplifies things on this end-w- |
|
|
| (789028) | |
Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder… |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun May 24 21:52:09 2009, in response to Re: 9769 Is No Longer the Record Holder…, posted by R160 8818 on Sun May 24 20:20:39 2009. If these numbers are already set, then they can't be all 5-car sets. I.e. this would be 350 + 32 for the East (70 @ 5-car, 8 @ 4-car).wayne |
|
|
