Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
well we had cushions on seats in ny at one time...i don't know why they stopped using them but my guess is that they got knifed up and or worn out/were too costly to replace.
also remember from the 70's until 1989 the subway system was covered inside and out with graffiti. trash (as in paper trash) on the trains was everywhere and some smelled like urine. in the 90's we went through acid etching and scratching on the windows...there's no way cushioned seats would have survived past like 1975.
the train you used for nyc is getting phased out in two years or less, iirc.
they're going to look just like the trains that run on most of the lines now.
i wish we could at least keep human announcers or colored rollsigns on the trains.
Man that sucks, because the 7 train is like the perfect example of what I think trains should look like IMO.
what about the dc metro appeals to ppl, aesthetically?? just curious because its winning the thread...
What I'm curious about is why DC's winning the poll while SF's coming 4th and people are talking about how ugly the BART is. They're the freakin same thing lol! Or at least they seemed practically identical to me a few years back. When I first rode the Metro it felt completely familiar and IIRC they were both built by the same maker. Unless there has been a drastic upgrade in the Metro's interior, I don't remember a whole lot of difference in the trains. NYC's are very different, but BART and the Metro are too similar IMO for BART to be the ugly duckling here and the Metro to be winning the poll lol.
Location: Far Northeast, D.C. and Montgomery County, MD
220 posts, read 703,907 times
Reputation: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman650
What I'm curious about is why DC's winning the poll while SF's coming 4th and people are talking about how ugly the BART is. They're the freakin same thing lol! Or at least they seemed practically identical to me a few years back. When I first rode the Metro it felt completely familiar and IIRC they were both built by the same maker. Unless there has been a drastic upgrade in the Metro's interior, I don't remember a whole lot of difference in the trains. NYC's are very different, but BART and the Metro are too similar IMO for BART to be the ugly duckling here and the Metro to be winning the poll lol.
BART has the worst looking trains in the universe!!! They look like something off Star Trek!!!
Rofl, man San Francisco is such a beautiful city for having the worst looking trains wow. I think someone else said before though that BART trains are really comfortable on the inside, and thats what really matters, but still they look pretty horrible from the street.
IMO nyc has the best looking cars when you compare them to dc, sf and some of the other cities. the only ones noteworthy IMHO are from philly, boston and chicago.
nyc wins over them because of certain things IMHO. here is some of the stock from nyc...
r46 (these run on the A (occasionally i think), F, G, R, V) :
r68 (runs mostly on the B, D...you might see them on the N still but not sure cuz its been awhile since i've been on the N train...used to be on the Q as well) :
r32 (these run on various lines. i've seen them on the B, C, E, F, Q, V, W, etc)...i forgot which lines use them now because they keep moving them around. they're the oldest model in our system) :
r42 (these run/ran on the j, m and z lines...and a few other lines but they're getting retired soon and have been replaced on most lines that ran them with the newer trains) :
and thats not even the newer trains. our trains in the u.s. are still plain overall but if we're going to say who has the best looking trains in the u.s. then i don't see how nyc, chicago, boston or philly doesn't win this thread.
show me something from dc that beats nyc. we have better looking trains inside and out, better looking entrances, etc.
IMO our system is the best because not only do we have the classic subway look that seemingly everybody borrows but our subways' grittiness adds to the character of nyc.
the new trains look extra sterile, ALL look the same, lost the color of the rollsigns on the sides and front of the train, lost the human announcer, etc. etc.
we're all going to be riding the same trains within a few years. there's no difference between say...the F train and the A-Z trains once they get done with the transition. IMO thats lame.
for example, i liked riding the F train into manhattan and catching a glimpse of a B train on the other side of the platform that was slanted. i didn't really get a chance to see them in jamaica queens like that so seeing them once i got into manhattan was cool to me.
while i didn't like riding the E and preferred the F, seeing the E lose its r32's was kinda sad, knowing this is the end for the trains we grew up with. now the F is mostly r160's...now you don't hear a human announcer. that charm is lost. no orange roll sign. thats lost too. etc. etc.
i agree to disagree about the embarrassment. to me its just another way of making nyc cookie cutter.
and they run on the m, r and w lines. you don't think that thats lame? in comparison to what we had? there's no variety in these whatsoever and there's no color. its like riding a computer. and that violin sound they make when they start and stop is extra loud and annoying.
Last edited by JMT; 08-24-2012 at 05:20 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.