>>I think it is you who doesn't pay attention to what is posted - even if it was you who posted it. What you actually said was, "They match up better against any other B division equipment and most A division equipment. R-68/A's are alow peices of crap, and the R-46/44's are not the best MDBF performers."<<
>>You implied that the R-32 outperforms the the R-68 and the R-46 which is simply not supported by the operating statistics.<<
You're right. I stated the point poorly.
R-32's were the best built cars. They're still in good condition. As for your miles/mtce. point you pointed out, it is quite valid, but nonetheless R-32's need more work because they have been runnning much longer than any other peice of B division equipment. Yet, they will be running with the rest of the 75'ers after the R-160's will arrive. As long as they've been in service, you must admit that they are the best built cars. It's cheaper to run a car for 30-40 years than just purchase new ones and replace the older ones when a car reaches it's 20th year of life. That was what I should have said. Based on this R-32's are the best peice of equipment in service.
Your right, R-68's are the best performers. (I hate them. I think they're ugly and slow.) R-46's are my favorite. They look nice, they were speed tested at high speeds on Sea Beach, and they can still go fast (faster than R-68's).
D types were the best. Look at this:
10 car 60' train: 20 trucks
9 car 67' train: 18 trucks
8 car 75' train: 16 trucks
4 unit 150' articulated train (3 50 foot segments per unit): 16 trucks
Train dude: Wouldn't it be cheaper to run a train of articulated trains? (less maintenence due to shared parts, much like R-44/46.)
And Train Dude, Could you get the MDBF for an R-32's when they were about 13-14? It would be cool to see them matched up against today's R-68's.