>>To start with, obviously you don't know about the R-143 or R-160 yet. The R-143 is yet to be delivered and the R-160 has not yet been designed - much less built. Neither has any performance data to be compared with the R-32.<<
Could've swore I said that. Re-read the peice of my message you copied. It says: I don't know about R-143/160's yet, . Another person on this site who doesn't pay attention.
>>Second, the R-32 is far from the best performer as measured by MDBF<<
Never said it was.
>>It is an excellent car but its MDBF is less than 1/2 of the R-68.<<
The R-68 is also how old? 12-16 years old. I never said that the R-32 was a better MDBF performer than the R-68. But it's faster. And is better looking (R-68's look nasty with their storm door 'sunk in' the front of the train. R-32's look nice like that.)
>>It is also not as cost-efficient in terms of miles/Mtce. man hr. as some of the younger cars. If you want to say it's the best because it's your favorite car of because it's so bright and shiney, that's okay but please don't start making qualitative comparisons that just don't add up.<<
For it's age, the R-32 is the best. Look at it: It will be in service longer than any other 60fter. It's fast. It rides nice. In 10 years, will you want to compare R-68's to the newest equipment? No, cuz R-68s by that time will be suffering from more frequent breakdowns and less eficient service. It adds up fine. For their age R-32's are the best in service. Let's not compare cars to one another according to their age.