Posts by nimblescout50

I didn't even realize he was in Avatar—if I had known, maybe I would’ve actually sat through more than ten minutes of it.

XXX feels like it was tailor-made just for him—like he’s basically playing a version of himself because the script needed that specific energy to drive the plot forward🙂

I don't think there’s much of a connection here, especially when you look at the first movie.
It seems like everyone is in agreement that this was his absolute best performance—and honestly, I have to side with them on that one.
Especially since I spent weeks watching that film on loop while working shifts at the local AMC.😂

Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing about why it wasn't Waterworld—but if my memory serves me right, that movie was just a total wash.
It was one of the biggest productions the industry had ever seen up to that point.
Personally, I thought the film held its own, even if they did blow a massive chunk of the budget on it.
What really trips me out, though, is how poorly A Perfect World performed.
It looks like the votes are just leaning toward dance—probably just because of how the poll was set up.

Dances with Wolves is definitely his best work.
The only thing I can say for sure is that The Postman wasn't really my cup of tea—everything else he's done is solid.

It’s a shame there isn't a multiple choice option here,
you just tossed five movies at me like it was nothing.
Well, whatever—I barely managed to pull myself together after watching The Day After Tomorrow before diving into Independence Day,
and now I'm stuck wondering if Universal Soldier or 2012 actually holds more weight.
Then you go and drop Midway on me too, recently released.
I have to admit, most of his films are exceptionally good—which is a rare feat for anyone, really.

Sony actually has another stellar performance tucked away in "bullet over Broadway," just set in a slightly different neighborhood.

If I’m being honest, my biggest gripe is how overproduced the whole thing felt—it was just way too much—not to mention those ridiculous ticket prices.
I mean, for eighty bucks, you might as well be sitting in a dive bar with a sticky table between you and the screen, just watching a documentary about pizza and burgers. It had all the charm of that old AMC theater downtown.

I put my money on Fight Club Inglorious Basterds, Tibet, Joe Black, and Legends of the Fall.
I honestly don't get the hype surrounding Se7en or Twelve Monkeys—it just doesn't click for me.
At best, they're just middle-of-the-road flicks.

The Abyss is this incredible sci-fi romantic adventure—honestly, I’m not sure if anyone else here actually categorizes it that way
It's got that same vibe as Das Boot, for instance.

So, if you’re actually into those submarine thrillers—the kind where everything feels claustrophobic and tense—then yeah, you’d probably be a natural fit for this.
Having Butler in the mix is just a nice little bonus.

Not a single word about this here.
I had a hard enough time even tracking down this thread—honestly thought it didn't exist.
It’s a pretty solid sub movie in my book, even if it dips its toes into some surface action now and then.
Think of Red October as being the USS Arkansas in this scenario; those skirmishes against the Akula class are actually quite intense, and the fight with the destroyer holds up too.
Still, that sequence where they slip into Murmansk? That's easily one of the best parts.

It immediately gives me those vibes from The Shining.
I’m guessing Jeff Bridges plays some vacuum salesman in this one.
By the way, I haven't actually seen it yet—but man, that poster is just too damn similar.

You just can't get a hold of that number from the credit card department anymore.
Does anyone happen to know what the current allowance is for going over the limit?
It used to be like, twice my paycheck, but nowadays...

Joseph Cox said:Actually, I’d argue the exact opposite. I remember riding it around Horvaćanski right after they finished the reconstruction—it felt seamless. Even over in Seattle, people were incredibly impressed with it. In fact, they ended up deciding to design their own streetcar from scratch, specifically incorporating several solutions borrowed from TMK.

Yeah, up until '86. After that, it was just one massive overhaul. But you have to factor in how much of the track was still sitting on concrete sleepers—streets like El Paso, Ribnjak-Ksaverska, Mihaljevac-Dolje, Držićeva, Jukićeva-Jagićeva, and Zvonimirova.

Even in other cities, these modern streetcars have roughly the same mass as the old TMK models—give or take 5%—so the weight isn't really the deciding factor here. The real issue is that they look significantly better. Or do they? Just take a look at Jurišićev. Thirty-two years ago, when those slabs were first laid down, everything was perfectly aligned, absolutely flawless. Now? They’re just a mess, staggered every other row like nobody bothered to line them up.

How can you even suggest there aren't any signs left? They probably cleared them all out at the major intersections because the old-school masters and engineers—the ones who actually knew how to build things properly—have all retired. Now? The current crew couldn't even put together a kid's toy train set without making a mess of it.
You don't just grease the flanges. That’s not how it works. There are specific materials for that, plus a specialized groove treatment designed so the wheel "grinds" exactly the way it should. Engineers like Košak and Mandl understood that better than anyone sixty years ago. Even with the limited tech they had back then in the old MTA workshop, they turned out much better work than the sloppy, rushed jobs we see today. Honestly, though, why am I even surprised? Getting a job at an agency like the MTA is probably harder than getting a seat in Congress unless you have the right family connections.

If memory serves, the Finc crowd wasn't exactly thrilled.
In reality, there was hardly any public feedback coming out of it at all.

Joseph Cox said:Actually, I’d argue the exact opposite. I remember riding it around Horvaćanski right after they finished the reconstruction—it felt seamless. Even over in Seattle, people were incredibly impressed with it. In fact, they ended up deciding to design their own streetcar from scratch, specifically incorporating several solutions borrowed from TMK.

Yeah, up until '86. After that, it was just one massive overhaul. But you have to factor in how much of the track was still sitting on concrete sleepers—streets like El Paso, Ribnjak-Ksaverska, Mihaljevac-Dolje, Držićeva, Jukićeva-Jagićeva, and Zvonimirova.

Even in other cities, these modern streetcars have roughly the same mass as the old TMK models—give or take 5%—so the weight isn't really the deciding factor here. The real issue is that they look significantly better. Or do they? Just take a look at Jurišićev. Thirty-two years ago, when those slabs were first laid down, everything was perfectly aligned, absolutely flawless. Now? They’re just a mess, staggered every other row like nobody bothered to line them up.

How can you even suggest there aren't any signs left? They probably cleared them all out at the major intersections because the old-school masters and engineers—the ones who actually knew how to build things properly—have all retired. Now? The current crew couldn't even put together a kid's toy train set without making a mess of it.
You don't just grease the flanges. That’s not how it works. There are specific materials for that, plus a specialized groove treatment designed so the wheel "grinds" exactly the way it should. Engineers like Košak and Mandl understood that better than anyone sixty years ago. Even with the limited tech they had back then in the old MTA workshop, they turned out much better work than the sloppy, rushed jobs we see today. Honestly, though, why am I even surprised? Getting a job at an agency like the MTA is probably harder than getting a seat in Congress unless you have the right family connections.

As far as I know, there were very few concrete sleepers, if any,
and honestly, most rail companies don't even bother with them today.

Joseph Cox said:Actually, I’d argue the exact opposite. I remember riding it around Horvaćanski right after they finished the reconstruction—it felt seamless. Even over in Seattle, people were incredibly impressed with it. In fact, they ended up deciding to design their own streetcar from scratch, specifically incorporating several solutions borrowed from TMK.

Yeah, up until '86. After that, it was just one massive overhaul. But you have to factor in how much of the track was still sitting on concrete sleepers—streets like El Paso, Ribnjak-Ksaverska, Mihaljevac-Dolje, Držićeva, Jukićeva-Jagićeva, and Zvonimirova.

Even in other cities, these modern streetcars have roughly the same mass as the old TMK models—give or take 5%—so the weight isn't really the deciding factor here. The real issue is that they look significantly better. Or do they? Just take a look at Jurišićev. Thirty-two years ago, when those slabs were first laid down, everything was perfectly aligned, absolutely flawless. Now? They’re just a mess, staggered every other row like nobody bothered to line them up.

How can you even suggest there aren't any signs left? They probably cleared them all out at the major intersections because the old-school masters and engineers—the ones who actually knew how to build things properly—have all retired. Now? The current crew couldn't even put together a kid's toy train set without making a mess of it.
You don't just grease the flanges. That’s not how it works. There are specific materials for that, plus a specialized groove treatment designed so the wheel "grinds" exactly the way it should. Engineers like Košak and Mandl understood that better than anyone sixty years ago. Even with the limited tech they had back then in the old MTA workshop, they turned out much better work than the sloppy, rushed jobs we see today. Honestly, though, why am I even surprised? Getting a job at an agency like the MTA is probably harder than getting a seat in Congress unless you have the right family connections.

Just look at the traffic volume Indianapolis handles.
Indianapolis has one of the busiest tracks in Europe, if not the whole continent.
The only place close to it is Lodz, and everyone else on the list is miles behind.

Joseph Cox said:Actually, I’d argue the exact opposite. I remember riding it around Horvaćanski right after they finished the reconstruction—it felt seamless. Even over in Seattle, people were incredibly impressed with it. In fact, they ended up deciding to design their own streetcar from scratch, specifically incorporating several solutions borrowed from TMK.

Yeah, up until '86. After that, it was just one massive overhaul. But you have to factor in how much of the track was still sitting on concrete sleepers—streets like El Paso, Ribnjak-Ksaverska, Mihaljevac-Dolje, Držićeva, Jukićeva-Jagićeva, and Zvonimirova.

Even in other cities, these modern streetcars have roughly the same mass as the old TMK models—give or take 5%—so the weight isn't really the deciding factor here. The real issue is that they look significantly better. Or do they? Just take a look at Jurišićev. Thirty-two years ago, when those slabs were first laid down, everything was perfectly aligned, absolutely flawless. Now? They’re just a mess, staggered every other row like nobody bothered to line them up.

How can you even suggest there aren't any signs left? They probably cleared them all out at the major intersections because the old-school masters and engineers—the ones who actually knew how to build things properly—have all retired. Now? The current crew couldn't even put together a kid's toy train set without making a mess of it.
You don't just grease the flanges. That’s not how it works. There are specific materials for that, plus a specialized groove treatment designed so the wheel "grinds" exactly the way it should. Engineers like Košak and Mandl understood that better than anyone sixty years ago. Even with the limited tech they had back then in the old MTA workshop, they turned out much better work than the sloppy, rushed jobs we see today. Honestly, though, why am I even surprised? Getting a job at an agency like the MTA is probably harder than getting a seat in Congress unless you have the right family connections.

So, you can see those slabs slowly disappearing from the tracks—it’s basically just a slow return to asphalt.
And we all know how that goes: asphalt lasts a few years, and then you're left dealing with potholes lining the rails.
Mandl and Košak were heavily involved in tramway development, among other things.
"Special grinding of the grooves where the flange 'grinds' against it..."
Honestly, that sounds like standard maintenance to me—I don't think anything revolutionary is happening here compared to how things used to be done.
They don't bother lubricating the rails anymore, though it wasn't always that way.
That lack of lubrication is one of the main reasons they wear out so fast, too.
Specifically, I'm talking about those tight-radius curves.

Joseph Cox said:Yeah, I’m currently in Milwaukee. Let's just say it's performing better than the Amtrak models—and I’m talking strictly about handling and ride quality here, not the passenger amenities. Though, honestly, it’s a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison when you're testing on track that's three classes superior to what we usually deal with. It definitely beats out the Zurich option by a mile, though. Price-wise, we're looking at somewhere between 1.8 and 2.1 million USD, compared to the 1.3 million the Amtrak units would run you.
Austin is great too, honestly, but you can't even make that comparison—the gauge difference makes the whole thing a non-starter.

It covers everything—from the actual fill and drainage of the soakaway systems to the whole shock absorption setup.

It was quite the journey—starting through New Chicago, then dealing with that massive reconstruction back in '86/'87 for the Universiade.

Honestly, the craftsmanship has gone downhill. The current tracks running through, say, Jurišićev are just worse than what they built thirty years ago. It’s like we’ve actually regressed.

I’m convinced they’ve taken a massive step backward with these concrete slabs. Instead of using actual modern composites, they’re opting for some bizarre, cheap mixture that’s turned out to be a total disaster. The new slabs are just unnervingly smooth—it’s honestly dangerous how slick they get the second even a little bit of rain hits them.
When it comes to the tracks, it isn't even about whether they have a groove or not; it’s all about the steel quality. It's pretty obvious that the MTA is buying absolute junk—you can see it most clearly on the curves where the outer wheels just chew right through the rail.

You can really see just how much noise the TMK is making here.

Joseph Cox said:Yeah, I’m currently in Milwaukee. Let's just say it's performing better than the Amtrak models—and I’m talking strictly about handling and ride quality here, not the passenger amenities. Though, honestly, it’s a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison when you're testing on track that's three classes superior to what we usually deal with. It definitely beats out the Zurich option by a mile, though. Price-wise, we're looking at somewhere between 1.8 and 2.1 million USD, compared to the 1.3 million the Amtrak units would run you.
Austin is great too, honestly, but you can't even make that comparison—the gauge difference makes the whole thing a non-starter.

It covers everything—from the actual fill and drainage of the soakaway systems to the whole shock absorption setup.

It was quite the journey—starting through New Chicago, then dealing with that massive reconstruction back in '86/'87 for the Universiade.

Honestly, the craftsmanship has gone downhill. The current tracks running through, say, Jurišićev are just worse than what they built thirty years ago. It’s like we’ve actually regressed.

I’m convinced they’ve taken a massive step backward with these concrete slabs. Instead of using actual modern composites, they’re opting for some bizarre, cheap mixture that’s turned out to be a total disaster. The new slabs are just unnervingly smooth—it’s honestly dangerous how slick they get the second even a little bit of rain hits them.
When it comes to the tracks, it isn't even about whether they have a groove or not; it’s all about the steel quality. It's pretty obvious that the MTA is buying absolute junk—you can see it most clearly on the curves where the outer wheels just chew right through the rail.

So, what you're actually saying is that basically 90% of the track was laid without any concrete base at all. It’s like building a highway on top of loose sand and just hoping for the best—a total recipe for disaster down the line.

Joseph Cox said:Yeah, I’m currently in Milwaukee. Let's just say it's performing better than the Amtrak models—and I’m talking strictly about handling and ride quality here, not the passenger amenities. Though, honestly, it’s a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison when you're testing on track that's three classes superior to what we usually deal with. It definitely beats out the Zurich option by a mile, though. Price-wise, we're looking at somewhere between 1.8 and 2.1 million USD, compared to the 1.3 million the Amtrak units would run you.
Austin is great too, honestly, but you can't even make that comparison—the gauge difference makes the whole thing a non-starter.

It covers everything—from the actual fill and drainage of the soakaway systems to the whole shock absorption setup.

It was quite the journey—starting through New Chicago, then dealing with that massive reconstruction back in '86/'87 for the Universiade.

Honestly, the craftsmanship has gone downhill. The current tracks running through, say, Jurišićev are just worse than what they built thirty years ago. It’s like we’ve actually regressed.

I’m convinced they’ve taken a massive step backward with these concrete slabs. Instead of using actual modern composites, they’re opting for some bizarre, cheap mixture that’s turned out to be a total disaster. The new slabs are just unnervingly smooth—it’s honestly dangerous how slick they get the second even a little bit of rain hits them.
When it comes to the tracks, it isn't even about whether they have a groove or not; it’s all about the steel quality. It's pretty obvious that the MTA is buying absolute junk—you can see it most clearly on the curves where the outer wheels just chew right through the rail.

I don't know—it looks a bit better than it used to, I guess—but honestly, what does it matter? It’s all just a wash when you consider how things actually turn out.
Traffic is still a mess—just total gridlock—and those MTA trains feel like they’re hauling nothing but lead.

Joseph Cox said:Yeah, I’m currently in Milwaukee. Let's just say it's performing better than the Amtrak models—and I’m talking strictly about handling and ride quality here, not the passenger amenities. Though, honestly, it’s a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison when you're testing on track that's three classes superior to what we usually deal with. It definitely beats out the Zurich option by a mile, though. Price-wise, we're looking at somewhere between 1.8 and 2.1 million USD, compared to the 1.3 million the Amtrak units would run you.
Austin is great too, honestly, but you can't even make that comparison—the gauge difference makes the whole thing a non-starter.

It covers everything—from the actual fill and drainage of the soakaway systems to the whole shock absorption setup.

It was quite the journey—starting through New Chicago, then dealing with that massive reconstruction back in '86/'87 for the Universiade.

Honestly, the craftsmanship has gone downhill. The current tracks running through, say, Jurišićev are just worse than what they built thirty years ago. It’s like we’ve actually regressed.

I’m convinced they’ve taken a massive step backward with these concrete slabs. Instead of using actual modern composites, they’re opting for some bizarre, cheap mixture that’s turned out to be a total disaster. The new slabs are just unnervingly smooth—it’s honestly dangerous how slick they get the second even a little bit of rain hits them.
When it comes to the tracks, it isn't even about whether they have a groove or not; it’s all about the steel quality. It's pretty obvious that the MTA is buying absolute junk—you can see it most clearly on the curves where the outer wheels just chew right through the rail.

The concrete slab is gone—no more reinforcement, just raw asphalt now. It’s basically a step backward to when things were lower quality.
The tracks aren't exactly being watched—it’s just the MTA buses and trains tearing through those sharp curves like they've got somewhere better to be.
I honestly can't tell if they ever bother lubricating that specific section where it interfaces with the wheel flange—it feels like it's been neglected for ages. It’s getting to the point where the MTA cars screech much louder whenever they pass by than they used to. Just sounds like metal grinding on metal, you know?

Joseph Cox said:Having had the chance to ride both the CAF models in Mexico City and the Combino tram on meter-gauge tracks in Ulm, Basel, Augsburg, and Freiburg, I can tell you firsthand—the trams themselves aren't inherently superior to TMK. Some details are better, some are worse (and that price gap of several hundred thousand dollars definitely matters). I know for a fact that in Mexico City, the CAF units couldn't run all the lines because they'd swing too wide on certain turns—the "nose" or "tail" sticks out too much since CAF doesn't use pivoting bogies like TMK does. But what really changes the game—and why the ride feels completely different—is the quality of the track itself. And MTA has really let its technical and technological standards slip compared to where they were 30 years ago. Back then, the "Chicago 2" era represented track construction tech that was on par with developed nations. Today’s "Chicago 3" variations are actually inferior to the originals from three decades ago. They're buying lower-quality rails now. I watched them working on the Savska-Vodnikovakićevak intersection last summer—it was a total disaster. It was laid out like something straight out of the 1970s (and I mean that literally). The track quality is a much bigger issue than the trams themselves.

Have you taken a ride on the Cityrunner yet?
When I talk about track construction, I’m talking about how the rails are anchored to the base.
As far as I know, they weren't using concrete bases 30 years ago.
The rail pads have improved, though.
They used to seal the track with concrete slabs.
Now, they're actually moving backward. They're ripping up the slabs and going back to asphalt.
The rails themselves don't even feel like traditional railway steel anymore;
instead, they just buy whatever expensive grooved rails they can find, regardless of whether they actually need them or not.

Elizabeth Lopez2 said:Redeeming qualities compared to what? Most buses out there are low-floor now anyway. I guess you could count lower noise levels or zero emissions as pluses, if we're being generous.

Compared to those high-floor models some manufacturers are still churning out, I guess.

Joseph Cox said:Let’s be realistic here—the initial series (2201-2270) had a terrible seating layout, which they fixed in the second batch (2271-23140 + 2301 + 2302).
The reality is that Banditos pushed for mass production almost immediately after the first prototype hit the tracks back in May 2005. Končarev wanted to roll out three different prototypes with varying interiors just to see which worked best for passengers and to iron out any "growing pains" within a year. The biggest headache was the door management software, which was poorly calibrated.
When you consider that deliveries kicked off in September 2005—just four months after the prototype launch (if my memory serves, that's basically a world record for tram manufacturing)—most of those minor issues you're pointing out were patched up incredibly quickly. We are talking about the most numerous tram type in MTA history (over 140 units), and they run reliably every single day.
As far as design goes, the vehicle is modern and has proven itself more than capable in active service. You didn't see the frame falling apart like it did with those Siemens Combino trams, and maintenance isn't a money pit like it is with CAF (just look at how much Mexico City pays CAF annually for spare parts compared to what MTA spends on Končar—it makes perfect sense why the Federal Reserve handed over 11.5 million EUR to Mexico City for those 20 CAF trams).
Sure, the Končarev tram isn't perfect. It could have used smarter handrail placement, better passenger info monitors, and a few other small tweaks, but that’s ultimately on the client—in this case, MTA.
Compared to the old fleet, it's a massive upgrade. Because of the low floor, getting on and off is easier; there are wider doors, it's airier, it has AC, better suspension, and less vibration. Plus, it uses recuperation to feed power back into the grid during braking. One Končarev tram, weighing 40 tons with 390 kW, actually pulls less power than the old Đuro Đaković or Czech models.

Oh, please. You can start a thread about TMK whenever you want.
I haven't heard anything about when they actually implemented recuperation, and there was never any news suggesting the grid was even
upgraded for it.
The frame is steel, sure, but whether that's actually a meaningful advantage is debatable.
Drivers are still getting blinded by the glare from the shelves and dash displays.
And people are still "surfing" through the first series.
The tram is noisy as hell, period.
It's also pretty stiff—honestly, a supermarket cart probably hits bumps softer.

The tram is pretty much lacking in almost every way.
I mean, its low floor is probably one of the few actual redeeming qualities it has.