Head-end View wrote:I recently read somewhere that the R-40/Slant was an attempt by the NYCTA to imitate the then new PA-1 PATH cars. The TA had apparently caught on to the Port Authority's idea of designing a visually attractive train to help promote ridership. The idea was right, and the train was aesthetically pleasing, but for well known reasons, not very practical in the New York Subway.Everyone: Interesting thoughts about the R40 "slant" cars...They were designed by Raymond Loewy (of PRR GG1 design fame) and I always found
It's also been suggested that had the R-40/Slants been designed with the same A-B-B-A configuration of the later R-44/46's, (instead of married-pairs) the slant design might have been more successful, as most of the cars would have had standard ends to simplify passing between cars, which was permitted in those days.
And Frank, you're right about those R-40 seats. The backs were too short, unlike the previous seats used on other cars of the 1960's.
interesting how the MTA changed their front-end design and that there were two groups of R40 cars...and-Yes the PA1 PATH cars had a good mid
1960s design inside and out for that matter - it may have made more sense designing a IRT car in this manner noting the similar size instead
of the BMT/IND size R40 "slants"...
EXPRESS TRAIN TO NEW YORK PENN STATION-NO JAMAICA ON THIS TRAIN-PLEASE STAND CLEAR OF THE CLOSING TRAIN DOORS