81-717
Active Member
I'm merely repeating the same sarcastic question someone else asked me a few pages back.Are you really that daft?
And it sure seems like the Hawkers are consistently the only subway equipment to not be picked.Another school of thought is to be pickier with what is and isn't saved, and focus on what is deemed "important" and put as many resources as possible into it.
Well, I can't count the number of times over the years whenever anyone brought up the idea of saving them, it would be met with dismissive comments that they're not worthy of it, or how the existing 2 saved cars are "good enough". In any case, if there's an inability to save a Hawker I'm calling shenanigans on the ability to save another subway, and vice versa.Except that you are contending that the historical community doesn't want to save the Hawkers. That's simply not true, and never has been.
You seem to be conflating the inability to do something with a hatred of it. It's a false equivalency.
Yes and that's exactly where the conspiracy lies. Don't think for a second I was unaware of this till you mentioned it, I myself mentioned it to you several times before.Gee, I wonder if that may have something to do with the fact that the Hawkers are the only generation of subway cars to have been retired since 1999???????? Seriously, at what point in those years did you expect the opportunity to say no to Gloucesters or T1s?
btw I do still expect the opportunity to say no to T1s (and TRs) to come up in the coming years. The preservation of any subway car that came after the Hawkers aught to be contingent on first saving a Hawker, the same way that preserving a Hawker has always been contingent on first saving a G & M. If there were no opportunity to save the Gs & Ms, and those weren't saved, and then in the 2010s the opportunity to save a subway car suddenly appeared, I bet dollars to donuts no one would do it anyway, because some people would be spectacularly offended by the idea of saving a Hawker without saving a G & M.
Last edited: