Over the past weeks, there have been postings and follow-ups (I've contributed) on the plusses and minuses of having express and local trains. I found comments relating to waiting for expresses and letting locals go by quite interesting. Another facet of the subject, which did get some attention, is the presence or absence of expresses (even rush-hour peak expresses) on some feeder lines. There was clear indication that on some lines, they simply would not be feasible, mainly, it seems, because they would not be acceptable. This got me thinking: why are they acceptable on other lines?
For example, the IND Queens line, before connection to the BMT (now served by the R), had only the E and F expresses go Manhattan. All local stops were served by the G (then GG), so their passengers had to transfer to the E or F to reach Manhattan. And apparently did so without complaints. In the past, the BMT Brighton line had the equivalent: Brighton Express trains to Manhattan went over the Manhattan Bridge and onto the Broadway line from the Canal St. Station. Brighton local trains branched off into the Montague St. tunnel to lower Manhattan and reconnected with the express line north of its separate Canal St. Station. Presumably, since this was a longer (distance and time) route, Brighton line passengers boarding at its local stops heading for mid-town Manhattan transferred to the express at the first express stop on the line that they came to. With no complaints, apparently. Even with the current D/Q routings, there would be changes of trains: passengers bound for lower Manhattan would now
need to change trains, whereas before, they could just wait for the local and get there without a change.
Besides the lines with all-day express service (E/F/G/R Queens, A/C upper Manhattan and Brooklyn, and D/Q Brooklyn lines, a number of lines have rush hour peak-direction express or skip-stop service (D/B, 1/9, 2/5, 6, 7, J/Z). I'm puzzled by the responses to postings about adding rush hour peak-direction express service on the West End (B/M) and Culver lines. Postings on adding these services (including mine) generally get responses saying it isn't acceptable to the MTA, for some reason, and won't be done. Even though both lines have track and station arrangements ideally suited to it. Can anyone explain the reason(s), with regard to the fact that the MTA finds such service acceptable on other lines? Might the reluctance here be related to the possible "draw" of passengers from the nearby N/Sea Beach line, which (looking at a map) appears to be the most redundant of the numerous south Brooklyn lines, thereby putting it in danger of being shut down? One contributor to this forum noted that there is one
more south Brooklyn line than is needed. They are close enough that the additional time to get to nearby 4th Ave., West End, and Culver lines would be minimal. And with the free bus-to-train transfers coming soon, it would be even more feasible? Even without the Sea Beach, the area would be well-served by transit lines, better than parts of the Bronx, Queens and even other parts of Brookly are. The existing area lines would become more efficient, with lower expenses per passenger. They would get peak express service. Money saved could help fund other needed (and ignored) projects, such a new tunnel to replace the failing Manhattan Bridge connection between Brooklyn and Queens.
What are your thoughts on this subject?
The ability to provide express service, to me, depends on the local headways. If you're going to have 20 trains an hour, as on the Brighton, both the express and local can come every six minutes. On the West End, however, there are just 7 Bs and 6 Ms. If the B's were express, those on the local stops would have to wait 10 minutes, not six minutes, at rush hour. Unless everyone can have a wait of six minutes or less, express service will create more losers than winners. That's always been the objection to the F express.
Passengers bypassing the local to wait for the express only occurs when both services serve the entire line, as on the Flusing and Brighton Lines. To me, the better solution is when the local service handles an "inner" area, and the express provides faster service to an "outer" area, as on the Queens Blvd line and the 8th Avenue IND north of 125th.
Therefore, an idealized 4th Avenue scearnio could be 10 Bs local to 36th and then express, 10 Ns local to 59th and then express, 10 R's local to 36th and then express, and 10 Ms local from 9th Avenue (lower level) to Pacific. No one would have any incentive to change until Pacific, and then only to get closer to their Manhattan destination. Everyone would have a six minute headway. And everyone would operate express for part of the route, except for those north of 36th St, who have the shortest ride.
UNfortunately, such a scenario requires adding 8 trains per hour, and there is no room for any more trains as a result of the lost tracks on the Manhattan Bridge, and the lack of connections between the BMT lines and the Culver and Cranberry tunnels. By 2003 (the optimistic date), this restriction would have persisted for nearly 20 years.
The debate about local and express subway operations is intriqueing. However, local and express operations are very
efficient on all routes. The 4th Ave. situation of inadequete
capacity can be dealt with by adding express tracks and centre platforms to the route, and strengthening structural work along
the right-of-way.
A politicians solution for local and express operation is,
however, much less bright. A polition would discontinue many
local stops and would operate a through train stoping only at
"high-usage" stations. The right way to go is to utilize express
and local tracks in an efficient manner. An example of this
is the World Trade Center, which utilizes local and express elavator zones, and is so far quite efficient in those regards.
It appears that senior citizens will be getting a half-fare monthly Metrocard for only $31.50 and a half-fare weekly Metrocard for $8.50. This is a continuation of the existing policy of allowing senior citizens and the handicapped to ride for half price.
As I understand it, in exchange for getting this break, the seniors are not supposed to ride during rush hours. So will the half-fare metrocard be coded to prohibit access during rush hours? If not, how will the MTA keep from being scammed by those who have a senior buy the card for them? If so, how about offering half fare unlimited ride off-peak only metrocards to everyone?
Moreover, seniors are supposed to get this break, not workers or children. But Pataki has announced that parents can give their full-fare monthly pass to their kids for use on the weekends. Does this apply to the half fare card as well?
Hi. I think the rule that the senior half-fare discount didn't apply in rush hours was eliminated some years ago, except on the express busses. There, it still applies. And I don't think that there is going to be a $60 senior version of the $120 express-bus monthly pass. If there is one, it will not be valid for rush-hour travel. But half fare for seniors on subways and local busses is valid 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
(Senior half fare discount no longer requires off peak travel).
This does not strike me as particularly fair. Nothing wrong with giving a break to city seniors, especially since 16.5 percent of them were poor in 1990 (compared with 30 percent of those under age 18 and 16.0 percent of those age 18 to 65). Many private companies give price breaks to attract seniors to fill capacity that would otherwise go unused. For example, restaurants tend to have early dinner specials to attract the retired. Off peak, every additional rider is additional revenue without much additional cost. As I've said before, I favor a half fare for everyone off peak.
But peak hour travel is not unused capacity. Perhaps that's why the half fare does not apply on express buses -- those folks expect to get seats. So what is the justification for a rush hour discount based on age?
If the seniors are working, they have as much income as anyone else, maybe more. If they are not working, is it too much ask for people to avoid traveling during the 20 (out of 168) hours per week when the system is most crowded in exchange for paying half as much True, as one said, I've never been 60, but what exactly is the rationale? Greater need? No. More deserving? How?
Moreover, I checked the MTA website to answer my own question (I couldn't), and found that a Medicare card is valid ID for a half fare Metrocard, but an elderly Medicaid card isn't. If you or a spouse worked enough hours to qualify for Social Sercurity, you get Medicare. If not, you get Medicaid (and SSI) when you hit 65. Thus, those who did not work and collected welfare during their working lifetimes, a poor group, presumably have difficulty getting the half fare! So clearly this has nothing to do with income, or need.
It seems very unfair.
Most of the time seniors self select and do not ride of peak. Once in a while they have to get home from a late appointment or something like that. Senoirs are only about 13 to 16% of ridership most places. Does anyone know what the number is in NY?
the seniors or disabled pay $60 for the express ubs version of the 30 day pass.(official decision.)
Larry, et. al.,
I think you'r wrong there. The $120 doesn't have a RFM (Sr/Disal) version. So they use the $63 Unlim card & pay a "Step-Up" fare to board a Express "Rush Hours" (as said befor the Sr/Disabl version of the $63 Unlim card can ALSO hold $$$$, if there are no $$$ on the card the Fare Box on the bus asks for coins/tokens).
Back to Larry's orig post .... You must incl Disabled in your RFM comments, the same program applies to both groups, this may be why the system doesn't prevent use rush hours, except Express buses. The one thing that discourges missuse is the customers PHOTO on the card. Same applies to a TA card. Cubic system maint. employees also have a unique card that allows "testing" but discourges missuse due to its appearance.
P.S. I agree with a previous post that "Seniors" probally avoid rush hour if they can, so the impact on the system may be smaller then you think.
Disclaimer - I don't work for the TA or any of its divisions.
Mr t__:^)
per AFC Bulletin AFC6-98:
During off peak hours, reduced fare metrocard customers pay $1.50 for express bus.
The senior metrocard has a photo of the proper user. When you enter it into a bus reader, the photo side is facing the bus driver. He can glance at it as it is entered / returned. Some buses have a sign facing the bus seats that light up according to fare category. These include full fare, transfer, student, special(senior) and pass. Everyone on board can see the fare status of entrants (if they were interested).
The turnstiles also display a colored light on both sides of the turnstile when a discount card is used. NYPD can observe and enforce fare collection rules I assume.
It would be good to see it. They can upgrade the cars end the strike and the MTA can make a transtate line from NYC to Philadelphia and to Trenton and a special line to Six Flags. This can give the MTA a big advatage. To rebuild the Phil. lines and Upgrade the bus lines and remodel the Trolley lines. Would this be a good thing or a bad thing.
I think the people in southeastern Pennsylvania like the idea of a locally run transit system. Philadelphia is 90 miles from New York and having a tri-state (NY, NJ, PA) authority over such a long distance would be quite strange. They are two completely separate areas. Even Baltimore and Washington have almost coordination between their systems and they are only 40 miles apart. Culturally and politically they are quite separate.
Besides, who says the NY MTA could run things any better? Basically SEPTA is just following the PA government's mandate. They may or may not be competent at it, but all that will be resolved through elections and appointments in the future. A government organization from another state couldn't even get close to knowing what the people of Phildadelphia want.
How about starting over again from scratch with a new transit authority, with a board selected in a different manner than the present one -- elections would be nice.
It's my understanding that the transit authority in Boston before the MBTA was doing such a lousy job that they just abolished it outright and created the MBTA as a fresh start. Having been to Boston, I can tell you that MBTA is doing a fine job, not only preserving existing service but even expanding rail service. Maybe it's time for the Metropolitan Philadelphia Transit Authority?
On the issue of an elected board, my experience in Chicago and Denver says that is not the best idea.
In Chicago you vote for everyone - sewer commisioner, park commisioner, etc, etc. Hardly anyone has any idea who to vote for for these semi-technical offices, and very few people even wade that far into the ballot. Which means that the board members are people who are in favor with party leaders. On the other hand, if they are appointed as are MTA and Septa board members, they are a little more answerable to executives, such as mayor and governor. People call their state rep, or the mayor, etc., when something goes wrong, and they tend to end up getting more response. Both systems have their advantages, but I think that when the matters are technical and specific, like how to make mass transit run well, its better to have appointed boards.
In Denver, RTA is a political mess. It appears that several of the members are viewing being on the board as a stepping stone for future office. A recent tax to pay for light rail was defeated at the polls after vigorous campaigning against it by board members. I think part of the reason the tax lost was the disgust of many for the board and its politics.
Umm, how about just convince the good people of Pennsylvania (I'm a native but don't live there now) to fund Septa like they fund MTA in NY? Not that I have any idea how to do this.
I'm sure that Septa has some management problems, but I am not at all sure that they are any worse than they are on MTA. On the other hand, any good analysis will show that Septa is underfunded relative to MTA, Metra, MBTA, etc., or so I think.
This is really the story of Philadelphia (and sometimes even the burbs) getting screwed by anti-Philly state politicians over and over, much more so than happens in NY. But that's another topic.
One good thing about Septa: Rail fares are pretty cheap! Compare Trenton -> Philly via Septa to Trenton -> NYC on NJT. It is possible, though, that this is part of the problem, due to the heavy suburban weight on the septa board.
My father told me that he remembered that you could take just one train from Bensonhurst to Quenns Plaza. From what I see on today's map it would be the F line but that runs on McDonald BLvd. Where in Bensonhurst he said was 28th Ave, the train station there is two stops away from Bay Pkwy and Coney Island on the B Line. Was it possible back then I think in the 50's or 60's that you could do such thing, ride one train from Bensonhurst to Queens Plaza without switching or getting off the train?
The station he is probably referring to is the Bay 50th Street station of the 'B' line (BMT West End line). I don't think any service went directly to Queens Plaza from the West End line.
In 1961, the #3 or "T" Broadway-WestEnd service was extended to Astoria weekdays and Saturday, replacing the Q which only went to 57th after that. It operaed like this again 1986-88 when the Manhattan Bridge was closed to 6th Av. (Then, middays it terminated at the plaza)
Correct. The BMT West End line terminated at Astoria from 1961 until 1967, when the Chyrstie Street changeover rerouted West End trains onto 6th Ave. From 1967 till 1987, the RR (later R) was the only regular service to and from the Astoria elevated.
You can still go from Bensonhurst to Queens[boro] Plaza by taking the N train from anywhere south of the New Utrecht Avenue station to just before Coney Island. The 4th Avenue local, as far as I remember went from 95 St.-Fort Hamilton (Bay Ridge) to Continental Avenue in the late 50s and up to 1967. I think when the BMT 60 St-IND connection was first made, Sea Beach trains ran to Continental (71st) Avenue for awhile. This might be what your father means.
Does he realize that we picky subway people see a big difference between the elevated Queensboro Plaza station and the underground Queens Plaza station? Most regular folks (other than those who use these stations all the time) don't realize the difference, since they both go to the same place.
When the 60th Street Tunnel/Queens Boulevard connection was first opened, it was Brighton Locals that ran through.
I was on the first eastbound revenue train, which was very, very early in the morning. I had forgotten to tell my folks I would be going out of our house in Brooklyn in the middle of the night and in the morning they thought I had run away from home.
I have no idea what the car numbers were, but the occasion was also the first time that BMT Standards carried revenue passengers on the IND Division.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
New Yorks Subway's have long had diversity, but never such as with the R110A&B. The R110A&B prototypes are for a new generation of cars,
the R142 and R143 respectively. The R110A is a marvel of new innovation, completely breaking with the 94 year old traditions of the
Subway. The R110B is a traditional car, with old seats and old looks mixed with a new sense of innovation.
The R110A is a Japanenese-style metro car, articulated into 5-car
sets. It has few windows, but 3 massive doors. Not even the fattest
wheelchair-using New Yorker would need. It is a simple thing, a pure, plain and simple car built to crunch as many in as possible in the morning, and to take a similar amount home in the evening.
The R110B(a product of Bombardier) is an overly-complex attempt at taking a car such as an R65 and dressing it up so as to make it look
modern. It is an update, and is more complex than it should be. Its sole purpose is to speed New Yorkers in and out of Manhattan in a rapid manner, whilst satisfying thethr\irst for new , innovationless rolling stock.
The Kawasaki R110A has newer, and more comftorble seats, while the R110B uses glorified tradiional seats. The R110A has a simple, easy to operate high-tech control system, while the R110B uses a control-laden panel about 2 feet across, with one CRT
and an old-fashioned dial. Clearly these are diverse machines, but
none-the-less the production R142&R143 will hopefully do their jobs well and efficiently, whilst simultaneaously puting a smile on the faces of many a New Yorker.
What is an R-65?
It's the average of an R-62 and an R-68. It can only run on BMT/IND trackage, but passengers have to watch out for the small gap while boarding. The cars each have 3.5 doors on each side. For reasons of safety, the storm doors between cars are locked in one direction only, into the car. The R-65 runs primarily on on the 1/Z line (skip-stop service along Broadway, of course). Watch out for the reroutes in effect due to a small stream running under the Williamsburg Bridge.
Ok ok, here's the real deal:
R-65 is THREE PUMP CARS.
So sez the Joe Korner's compleat R-type index, from 1 to 143.
Obviously, this may have been a typographical error, folks.
Hey - I'd better watch my pen and tongue - I have had the
habit of referring to R68A's as "R70" (to differentiate them).
wAYNE
R-65s are actually pump cars. From the outside, they look very similar to an R-62 without doors and windows. Identified as PC01 through PC03, they were built in 1985 by New York Railway for $556,000 each. They are 53' 3 1/2" long X 8' 9" wide X 11' 10 5/8" high. Main pump capacity is 480 GPM and the horizontal pump has a 350 GPM capacity.
Come on, am I the only one here with a sense of humor?
David -- I enjoyed your R-65 description. You are not the only one with a sense of humor. :)
I liked your reference to the East River as a "small stream".
I was watching The Learning Channel and they were talking about bridges and one of the worst bridges comes out to be the Willamsburg Bridge there are pot holes, cracks in the stone, wood instead of steel under the roadway. The steel is rusting. This bridge is in worse condition than the Manhattan Bridge. I have designed a new bridge. I can carry both the weight of the trains and cars easily. It will be a very nice looking bridge and this bridge will last longer that the other 6 big bridges of New York City if you want to see the design just say so and I will send you one. See ya and Happy birthday to me YEAH.
C. James Rivera
13 years old
The Williamsburg Bridge is scheduled to close to train service for several months, to accommodate urgently needed repairs. It doesn't appear to be in as bad condition as the Manhattan Bridge, and hopefully some lessons have been learned from the ongoing fiasco with the latter bridge.
Isn't it true that one of the main cables is rusted completely through? That was one of the reasons the Williamsburg Bridge was shut down for a time in the 80s, if I recall.
You have designed a new bridge to replace the Williamsburg Bridge? Grand. Now, have you floated the bonds to pay for it?
I would like to see it.
Though it sounds good, the fact is that the city can't afford it. The Manhattan Bridge is vital to the transportation network along with ALL the other bridges and tunnels that cross water. Everything that crosses the river is needed and right now the Manhatten bridge needs the most attention. But if it is figured out the the bridge is unrepairable and a new bride is planned to be built, submit your design to city engeeners. Who knows?
Several years back, there was lengthy discussion on the Transit discussion group about the problems associated with trying to bring Long Island trains into Grand Central Terminal because of the grades, curves, narrowness of streets, effect on the Park Avenue access tracks coming from uptown, and the like. In particular, integrating curves from 63rd Street into the start of the GCT track fan and split into upper/lower level at 59th Street or so was cited as a problem that might not be solvable without totally messing up Metro-North train
service.
Have the engineering (no pun intended) problems been figured out?
Of course, if the East River tunnel had been built at 76th Street the way the City originally wanted to do it, there might have been a bit more room to have two LIRR tracks swing south in a new deep tunnel under Park Avenue connecting at least into the lower level at GCT. The only limitation on that would have been the necessity to keep the lower level in the Terminal open all the time.
(Come to think of it, 79th Street would have made even more sense for a tunnel from Queens. Does anyone know why the City originally wanted 76th rather than 79th? One would also wonder why not 57th instead of 60th once the decision was made not to have BRT/BMT trains on the Q'boro Bridge.)
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Has anyone thought about the fact the MetroNorth (GCT) trains use underrunning third rail and LIRR (Penn Sta) use overrunning third rail?
Is there a simple solution the shoe situation?
Solutions to the dual-shoe problem could be worked out; some sort of flip-over might be developed (based on the same principle as those switches on the Newark Airport transit). If Amtrak puts in through service from Upstate NY to Long Island, they're going to have to deal with the problem unless they want to change locomotives in NY. In fact, to get to Sunnyside yards, don't present Amtrak locomotives need shoes or adapters to run on both third-rail systems?
Though some people don't like history, we shouldn't forget that BRT elevated trains running to Rockaway on the LIRR used to do a shoe-change at Cypresss Hills. And for decades, on the IRT and BMT, cars with subway and elevated shoes ran in mixed service on many routes.
For GCT, if my original question (about curves and grades and whether it's geometrically or engineeringly even possible for the LIRR to get into GCT from 63rd Street) is answered affirmatively, some tracks might have to be assigned permanently to one system or the other, which would take away a lot of flexibility.
Middleton's book that's been mentioned several times, in case anyone is looking for it, is called "Grand Central: The World's Greatest Railway Terminal," and has a 1977 copyright date; Golden West Books was the publisher. E-mail me if you want ISBN or other data. Another interesting book on this topic is John A. Droege's "Passenger Terminals and Trains," which I have in a 1969 reprint by Kalmbach of the 1916 first edition. Droege loves GCT and is cooler towards Pennsylvania Station.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
I have a historical post on the subject
(over/under running third rails) from a month ago.
i was in the 96th street station on the 1 line this am. happening to have a digital camera with me, i took a picture of the 96th street tile sign next to the token booth. a policeman came up to me, asked if i had a press pass, and when i said no he informed me it is illegal to take pictures in the subway without a permit! he said hed let me go without a ticket as long as i stopped.
i was so shocked i didnt say anything to him, but in retrospect, i wanted to ask if this is true that it is illegal to take pictures on the subway without a permit? If so, havent these morons heard of something called constitutional rights?
Morons is the correct term! Photography in the subway is perfectly legal, although the use of flash, tripods etc. is prohibited without a permit. There should be something in this site's FAQ.
You mean the never finished and poorly publicized FAQ? Yup there is a section about photography in it. And that cop was wrong. Unfortunately, even if you were to point out that fact to him it would only make your situation worse...
I had an situation once where I took a photograph of a cop writing a citation to a woman and her young daughter who had the "nerve" to sell M&M's on the Union Square 4/5/6 platforms.
He ended up chasing me down the platform and then screamed at me-- saying that as an officer he was and always is, when writing a citation, in a great deal of danger and that "unexpected" noises such as camera shutters (yeah right) could lead to an escalation of the situation.
The real issue here, I think, was that this bastard, although albeit, was just doing his job, was also doing a shitty thing by fining a woman who was attempting through "honest" means to make a living for herself and her daughter. And he was embarrassed to have it documented.
You should have got the cops badge # @ 96th Street.
youre right, i should have gotten his badge number, but i was so shocked i didnt think of it. On second thought, i wish he'd arrested me--it would have made a great false arrest lawsuit!!!
The question regarding photo's on the system will
probably never end. So to repeat (and expand upon a
bit) what has been printed and constantly questioned.
A while back I obtained a pamphlet (at the 370 Jay St
Information office in the lobby) which gives quite a bit
of information.
Please note that "the Authority" as indicated below can
mean either the NYCTA or MaBstoa or both.
I intend to carry one of these pamphlets with me
anytime I go to take pictures in the system.
These are excerpts from the pamphlet:
Rules of Conduct
Rules governing the conduct and safety of the public in
the use of the facilities of the New York City Transit
Authority and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit
Operating Authority.
NYCRR Chapter XXI
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Subchapter C -
Conduct and Safety of the Public
Part 1050
Section 1050.2
Definitions
(b) "Facilities" includes all property and equipment,
including without limitation, rights of way and related
trackage, rails, signal, power, fuel, communication and
ventilation systems, power plants, stations, signage,
storage yards, depots, repair and maintenance shops,
yards, offices and other real estate or personalty used
or held for or incidental to the operation,
rehabilitation or improvement of any rapid transit
railroad or omnibus line of the Authority.
(e) "Conveyance" includes any subway or rapid transit
car or train, locomotive, omnibus or other vehicle
previously used or held for use by the Authority as a
means of transportation of passengers.
Section 1050.9
Restricted areas and activities
(a) No person, except as specifically authorized by
the Authority, shall enter or attempt to enter into any
area not open to the public, including but not limited
to train operator's cabs, conductor's cabs, bus
operator's seat location, token booths, closed-off
areas, mechanical or equipment rooms, concession
stands, storage areas, interior rooms, tracks,
roadbeds, tunnels, plants, shops, barns, train yards,
garages, depots or any area marked with a sign
restricting access or indicating a dangerous
environment.
(c) Photography, filming or video recording in any
facility or conveyance is permitted except that
ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or
tripods may not be used. Members of the press holding
valid identification issued by the New York City Police
Department are hereby authorized to use necessary
ancillary equipment. All photographic activity must be
conducted in accordance with these Rules.
Pls mind yr Billingsgate!
The same thing happened to me on March 21, 1998 at Franklin Avenue
IRT station in Brooklyn. I had just finished taking two pictures of
the wall and was checking off R62A numbers from a passing #3 train
when two policemen asked me what I was doing and if I had a "permit"
to take pictures. I was quite surprised, gave them my ID and informed
them of my intentions to continue taking pictures further down the
Nostrand Avenue line. One became somewhat agitated, telling me that
I was liable for arrest, but his partner calmed him down. I was then
told that a passenger had complained to them, saying that they
objected (for whatever reason) to my taking pictures.
I continued my shoot without incident at Beverly Road, Sterling St.
and President St.
This will not prevent me from taking pictures in the future.
Wayne
Because of the merger the cops probably don't know the rules, which is no excuse. Common sense should prevail, I don't think anybody by taking pictures is involved in espionage! All I would ask as a motorman is don't take a flash picture in my face, I don't want to see spots!
Thanks for the positive feedback, Bill.
I am in total agreement with you regarding the use of flash.
As a rule (and a courtesy), I NEVER shoot the front of a moving
train with a flash while it is in motion. I wait until the train
is stopped and then aim the flash at the destination sign, so the
flashbulb does not go off in the operator's face. If I am shooting
an approaching train, I usually go for outdoor shots where flash
is not otherwise required.
One fine point regarding Allan's 7/02/98 post: when they say "lights"
I am assuming that they mean the auxiliary lights on stands that
many photographers use, NOT a flashbulb which is, of course, part
of the camera.
FYI - all my shots from 9-14-97 and on were taken with a Canon SureShot WP-1 using Kodak 400 Gold film.
Wayne
I believe that photography as such is permitted; however, flash photography in the subway is not.
The "flash in the face" come mostly from tourists. The rail fan knows about this courtesy.
Not being a native new yorker but one who likes to take videos when I visit, I'd hate to be accosted by the police for doing this. Is there some group/organization there who can inform the police of the correct legalities regarding photography/videos in the subways?
I'm sure there is, but uh.. why should the police need to be informed of the law? I'd rather have a confrontation and prove 'em wrong in the end :-)
-Dave
Talks have broken off. Brookens and company chased away the Democratic Convention review committee on 6/30 with a march on Independence Hall. Both Mayor Rendell and powerful State Sen. Fumo are extremely displeased with the TWU and Fumo vows that he doesn't care if they're out all summer. And life goes on...
The scary part is that folks are beginning to adjust to life without transit. The elderly and transit-dependent poor are the most hurt and they were at a recent SEPTA Board meeting urging an end to the strike.
It will be interesting to see if the upcoming Fourth weekend and its various Center City ceremonies and fireworks, many of which have relied heavily on transit to move crowds in the past, will either succeed or fail without SEPTA around. If they succeed, the argument for SEPTA's value to this region gets highly diluted once again.
SEPTA - we're NOT getting there!!
Does anyone know any good web sights(besides amtrak.com)with some good amtrak photos?
Check here for some Amtrak photos.
Fascinating pics! I'm curious though - in a couple of pics I saw a SEPTA coach apparently coupled to an Amtrak train. Is this common practice to supplement a train with somebody else's coaches? Or was I mistaken about the picture?
I know I posted the link, but I can't find it right now! It's not uncommon for an Amtrak engine to be seen coupled to MBTA equipment around the South Station yard in Boston, but that's because Amtrak operates the MBTA commuter rail. In fact, for awhile, the MBTA was short on engines and was leasing an Amtrak F40, which would often be run on the Franklin line. Does anyone know if Amtrak operates any other city's commuter rail system in this fashion?
I don't know if they actually run it, but I've seen MARC (Baltimore, MD) rolling stock on Amtrak - and I actually rode in it one Thanksgiving while coming home from school. (This was back in '92) I would assume that Amtrak was short on coaches and since MARC doesn't run on the weekends, it's not like they would miss the cars.
Does anyone have any idea if the parts of Brooklyn served by the Broadway El are experiencing any sort of growth that might eventually result in the renewal of through service to the 6th Avenue IND?
I suspect that the golden years for area served by the Broadway El are long in the past. A couple of months ago I rode at the front window of a J train all the way out to Jamaica. It was before the time change and was quite dark out. While the train was going through Brooklyn, I noticed how little light was coming up from the street below, but couldn't figure out why. But once we got to Woodhaven Boulevard, actually a little before, there was in contrast a blaze of light from below, clearly illuminating the tracks. It then dawned on my why there was such a difference. What I was seeing in Woodhaven were lights from storefronts. In Bushwick and the other Brooklyn areas, I wasn't seeing the light from storefronts because a high percentage of them were abandoned (something later confirmed on a daytime trip).
Moral of the story - the area served by the Broadway El in Brooklyn is a dead loss.
I'm said to say that I agree with Peter.
The recent Nostalgia Train traveled the route of the "J" to Broadway Junction. When I was a kid, right after WWII, this was a main shopping area. I went to Junior High School, 2 blocks from the Halsey St Station. It was heartbreaking to see. I must admit, however, that there did seem to be a remodeled home or two up some of the sidestreets between Myrtle and Chauncey, but they were few and far between.
I always see alot of people transferring from the N/R or F to the J, and the L on weekends and days like today is filled with people coming from those lines. So the Eastern Div. DOES need direct midtown service. Every other line (except for the G, which has no track connection) has it. Outside of weekdays, that is needed more than Chambers St, which really is a dead area at those times. Just because the areas are a little run down doesn't mean that there are no people riding (or that the people are nobodies, deserving no service.) Like I said before, the streets are packed with cars. It leaves me often wondering if the service cuts (Myrtle el., KK) were punishment to these neighhborhoods for the rioting decades ago. (i.e--you act like less than people, and gut the neighborhood, so now we'll treat you like less than people; you all don't do nothing but hang out on the corners anyway) --code word: "low ridership".
[re poor service on Eastern Division being a result of the area's poverty and a "payback" for riots in the past]
What you say is possible, but I don't think so. Other poorer parts of the city have better subway service. In addition, some of the areas along the J/M/Z/L lines are more affluent than the Broadway El areas - as I noted earlier, for example, the area served by the J seemed a good deal nicer around Woodhaven Boulevard than around Bushwick. That isn't to say that the Eastern Division doesn't deserve better service.
Other areas, like Harlem the Bronx, Bed-Stuy, and Brownsville/ENY are simply luck to be on the ends of the North-South trunk lines which all run through both midtown and downtown. This is the way these lines were built, so they could never justify/get away with cutting any of those lines short of midtown. But the Eastern div was built around the the Myrtle el, and the Nassau and 14th St line. The Chrystie connection to 6th Av was a much later afterthought, that was tried briefly and given up on pretty quickly. (And the el was removed as unsightly and in the way of the 2-decades-later-to-be Metrotech project.) So they did over here what they could get away with.
It's certainly true that the amount of service on a particular line can reflect the area's political clout and therefore the relative wealth of the ridership.
But, I don't think that it's really fair to attribute motives to the MTA as exacting and specific as "low service on the J line in retaliation for riots in the 70's" or something like that. A lot of time has passed since then, and it's hard for me to imagine decisionmakers at the MTA thinking: "the extra train service should go somewhere else because 25 years ago the people on the J line rioted."
--mhg
[It's certainly true that the amount of service on a particular line can reflect the area's political clout and therefore the relative wealth of the ridership.]
Only to an extent. Consider the Upper East Side - political clout and wealth galore, yet they've been waiting several decades for the Second Avenue line and jamming themselves onto the Lex in the meantime.
Maybe the upper east side dosen't want to be accessed by the rest of the city. They can walk to catch a bus or train or take a cab.
The Broadway EL may be disconnected to make it inconveniet to get out of the area.
The Broadway El is an old, pre-subway El which goes to Downtown, but not Midtown, and crawls over the creaking Williamsburg Bridge. For many of the more occupied parts of the neighborhoods around it, one has a choice of walking to the Fulton St. Line, the G, or the L, rather than the Broadway line. Of changing to the L or A at Broadway East New York. When I took the J out at rush hour a couple of weeks ago, it didn't seem crowded. And after a few months of Willie B shutdown, with people learning to uses buses to get to the other lines, ridership may drop off further.
And remember, the TA only makes one subway expansion a decade (and only in Queens), and connecting the J/Z along the E to Jamaica center was it for the 1980s.
As for the riots, all the people who were hurt lived there. No one outside has anything to get even about.
There are a couple of other reasons why the 1977 riots or area poverty aren't responsible for the Eastern Division's (J/L/M/Z) service limitations. Two events that adversely affected service on the Division were the abandonment of the Myrtle Avenue El and the cancellation of the post-Chrystie Street direct service (K train?) to Manhattan. Both of these occurred well before the riots. In addition, not all of the neighborhoods served by these lines are as poor as Bushwick. Many of them are more or less working class, such as Ridgewood, Woodhaven, Richmond Hill and Canarsie, and Middle Village is quite nice.
One could argue that the continuation of the Broadway El, rather than its replacement by a subway, and the lack of express service on the 14th St - Eastern Line, is the real problem. But replacement involves huge capital expenditures and a long public approval process and, as we see we see with the Second Avenue subway and the Manhattan Bridge, no amount of influence is enough for that. That would require a shift in priorities from the nation's highest public medical spending to transportation, rather than just a shift of resources within the subway.
[That (Second Avenue subway and Manhattan Bridge replacement) would require a shift in priorities from the nation's highest public medical spending to transportation, rather than just a shift of resources within the subway.]
How true . One would be ill-advised to hold one's breath waiting for any change in priorities ...
In the meantime, there are a couple of things that can be done to improve service on the Eastern Division. Improved ventilation in the L train's East River tunnel would allow more than one train to use the tunnel at a time and consequently would lead to better service. While the L would still lack express service, it has been shown elsewhere that the time savings from eliminating a few local stops is not overwhelming. Nor is the L's lack of direct service to Midtown necessarily a big deal as the train has easy connections along 14th Street to all major lines north-south lies except the 6th Avenue expresses.
J/M/Z riders should have an easier time once the Williamsburgh Bridge repairs are completed. Bridge speed restrictions seem to be a major cause of the slow running times on these lines.
I thought the riots were in the 60's (right before the serfvice cuts). That's when the rioting most cities was. Since it was the riots that were said to have destroyed Bushwick, does that mean it was still in good condition until; the late 70's? I don't know that much about it before then. As for the working class neighborhood along the lines (like Ridgewood), I guess they just have to suffer as well. Perhaps they were easily ignored, since when everyone thinks of those lines, they think of the major ghetto in the area. Besides, any middle class people can just take their cars anyway, and that is just what they do.
Bushwick was burning long before the 1977 riots. The neighborhood was built with poorly constructed wood-frame rowhouses whose attics were connected by "cocklofts." As they aged and deteriorated, they became occupied by a low income population. Fires wiped out entire rows of houses, spread through the cocklofts. Other rows were condemned and replaced by public housing projects with more durable, though none-too-happy, results.
The 1977 riots were basically mass theft prompted by a citywide blackout. The target was the Broadway commercial street under the el, which was essentially wiped out, and remains wiped out to this day.
I know we're straying a bit far from transit issues, but there's something puzzling me - why were the 1977 riots heavily concentrated in Bushwick when the blackout was city-wide? Other, equally poor (or even poorer) areas weren't affected to anywhere near the same extent.
There was trouble everywhere, but Bushwick was especially hard hit. Why? That would require a sociologist. In its paragraph on the blackout, the Encyclopedia of New York mentions damage due to riots in Downtown Brooklyn, the Upper West Side and Harlem. It does not even mention Bushwick. The article on Bushwick mentions the severe damage during the blackout, and says it came at the end of a long period of decline.
I'm not sure the people on the upper East side care about the 2nd Ave subway. In fact, there may be considerable resistance to its construction, since many may perceive the tearing up of Second Ave as debilitating to businesses and the neighborhood in general.
No that's not what I think they think. They may have originally cut the service because of that, but now 2-3 decades later, the image of the area as burned out and devoid of working people (who also go to Manhatan's entertainment district on non-working hours) ingrained in the decisionmakers' (who are far removed from the area) minds. Plus, the understandable reason that there isn't much political clout, AND it doesn't have a severe overcorwding problem like the E&F, and the 4. These are the lines they will tr to improve first (the 2nd Av line and oter East side alternatives are constantly thought about and planned even though they haven't gone anywhere. They are much more extensive and expensive than the project that is underway--63rd St.)
So noone "up there" thinks there is any problem over here (and many of the people probably just accept it, probably not even knowing about the Chrystie connection, or just flock to the cars and car services.
The notion of "punishing" may not be that far-fetched. There were lots of us living in Bay Ridge in the 1950s who believed that the reason we lost our 24/7 express service on 4th Avenue in 1959 (after 40 years or so of that service) was that Bay Ridge had the only Republican in the City Council for several years and that was Mayor Wagner's revenge.
The problem with this sort of thing is that even if it's true, it would be just about impossible to prove. Did Wagner's office make a call to Jay Street? Was a memo of the call made? Who knows? And except for the people in Bay Ridge, does anyone care about Bay Ridge transit service? (Wasn't it Wagner, BTW, who surrendered the City's Transit System to the TA?)
Ed Alfonsin/SUNY at Potsdam
Following the 1977 blackout, that commercial area on Broadway was never the same. But the new construction of housing along some of the side streets off Broadway between Myrtle & Eastern Pkwy. is very positive. This additional population in time will cause additional retail stores along Broadway being needed.
I have noticed (on my May 30 trip) that the commercial strip along
Myrtle Avenue between Broadway and Wyckoff Avenue appears to be
doing pretty well. And, some months back, I remember hearing on the
news (ch.7) that the incidence of drug-related activity throughout
the Bushwick area was in serious decline - i.e. the cops driving out
the dealers. If this is true (and I assume that it is) then that can
only mean good things are ahead for the entire area.
And LOTS of people ride the "L" - I have a hard time even getting
on one on Saturday mid-mornings and afternoons. It is a very safe
line, at least from my point of view. Maybe they need better than their current 12-minute headway.
Thy sure do need more service. Most of the day Sat & Sun J & M run on a headway between 8 & 9 minutes, so connections can be made at Bway-Myrtle. Because the L runs by itself NYCT runs a longer headway , as you say 12 mins. It is hell to work there on the weekends: mostly we do 5 trips instead of the usual 4 on most jobs; they give us insufficient running time and the ridership is heavy. It's time for the TA to add more service, more jobs, & more realistic running time.
[re new housing in Bushwick leading to retail development]
You're right, if there's enough new housing being developed, eventually the Broadway commercial district could revive. While neighborhood decline is usually a one-way street, I suppose exceptions do occur from time to time. But following up on something Larry Littlefield brought up in a different thread, let's just hope that self-styled "community activists" don't stop any retail and commercial development as they've done elsewhere in Brooklyn.
What exactly are these "Coumminity Activists". and why would they want to stop commercial and retail delvopement that could reviatlize a run-down area?
There's been some discussion on this board recently about the "community activists." Look in the past-message index or archives under "York Street station revisited," or something similar. Basically, there are some people who will oppose just about any sort of development project. They'll claim the project will "destroy the character" of their neighborhood even when the neighborhood desparately needs help. Or they'll oppose any retail development because retail jobs aren't good enough (even though area residents may be eager for any kind of work).
Take a look at the lighting on the stations along B'way. The station lights used regular light bulbs as station lighting. With the exception of Marcy Ave, the rest of the stations lacked efficient lighting. From Alabama Ave to Jamaica Center, lighting is much better. Notice that Eastern Pkwy a major stop lacked good lighting. Transit workers placed six strip lighting bulbs as an addition to compensate for better lighting on the B'way stations.
You haven't been out there recently. New lighting has been installed & in use at all local stops along the route. BWAY-MYRTLE & Eastern Pkwy. have old lighting. These stations are both in the process of renovation when the new lighting will be installed. BTW: the new lighting is too bright. It's blinding the Motormen,.
Yes I have seen the new "lamp posts" on the J Stations. I've seen them
on the Woodlawn-Jerome Avenue line too, and something slightly different on some Flushing Line stations. If the lamps are too bright, instead of using sodium vapor lamps like they do, why not use
a bigger version of the "soft-white" flourescent bulbs they have
installed in the "L" train's tunnels.
Also - Atlantic Avenue "L" station has old lighting - they left the
period lamps in place, which I think is lovely. I took pictures of
them May 28. They just need to put better bulbs in them. Sutter
Avenue station too. That lighting system needs work. Leave the old hooked lamp arms, fix the sockets, add new shades and use the flourescent bulbs. Crinkled metal pie-pan shades would look really nice there (Remember them?)- That shouldn't be too hard to do.
I think that the BMT period lighting should be retained wherever
possible, just upgraded. Too bad so much of it is gone. (I have noted
that they actually RESTORED it at Sheepshead Bay!)
Leave the light on! :)
Wayne
The problem with the florescents is the vandalism. People break them with bats, etc. Thats why I think they have this kind of new lighting on the J, but there should have been a "prototype" station first to see that it was not blinding.
Bill,
There are many ways to skin this cat.
On the trapezoidal-shade lamps (like those at A.A.) put a sheet of
plexiglass over the opening (just inside the lamp's lip, so it doesn't show). And as for the other ones (with the shades that look like little hats), do like they still do at B.J.'s southwest leg - put a cage on em - and bolt it on good! In fact, maybe all lamps could be protected this way.
As for Sutter - skip the fancy schmancy shades - put plain metal pan
shades there AND cover em with cages - just like the good old days.
Flourescent bulbs (as opposed to flourescent tubes) last way longer
than incandescent lamps, so they wouldn't have to be changed as frequently. Yes, it's sad but true that there are vandals out there. Too bad.
I love my ancient BMT lighting
Wayne
The same Sodium lights are now on the 2 from jackson to 241. I have noticed on the J that vandals have already removed the covers from the emrgency lights and stolen the light bulbs. I have also seen at some 2 and J stations that the poles are painted the beige color or black on the J due to heavy graffiti attack.
It's a darn shame what some people will do, isn't it? Anyhow, black
is a pretty neutral color - the old-style lamps look good in it.
If you've ever gone to the "L" station at Atlantic Avenue, you will
see the nicest period lamps left in the system. Eastern Parkway
Station, too. I do hope they keep them.
We'll leave the light on for ya
Wayne
I've been out there recently. I've seen the new lighting that's finally being installed for those stations along B'way. For those types of stations, the flourescent lighting is usually on the top end of the overhead sheltering of the station. I haven't or didn't notice this in the new lighting being installed for the stations.
-GarfieldA
The dim lighting I noticed on my J train trip wasn't in the stations, but rather during the runs between stations. There just wasn't much light coming up from the street through the elevated structure while the train was going through Bushwick, compared with later on in Woodhaven and Richmond Hill.
Along with poor lighting on the street level, station lighting was is also a factor. Obviously this will not be the case anymore with new lighting being installed.
-GarfieldA
I am a critic of Transit Cops. Now mind you, after spending the last 18 1/2 + years working on the trains and over 10 years before that going to work (2 branches of Chemical Bank in Manhattan) and school makes one a critic of anything, everything & everybody. I am not knocking them personally but their bueaucratic ways of doing & not doing things irks me. When we need a cop, Control Center tells us to "signal". That is on the horn: blow long, short, long, short. But the cops, if you ask one, are not taught this in the academy: THAT THIS MEANS RESPOND TO TRAIN. The only way to get one is to call in person or they get it on their radio after we request one with our control center. They tell us to signal in route. BUT THEY DON'T KNOW THE SIGNAL. When they do show up, it's after the fact, we don't need them anymore. Patroling is sorely lacking except when a pretty lady is around: many think they're Gods gift to women. How many times have you seen one talking to a girl? They hide out in Signal Maintainers Relay Rooms (they have keys) & when a mainainer goes in to check on a relay, they get annoyed .I had one put this homeless regular on my train the other nite: I got out of the cab & told the cop I didn't want him that he is a troublemaker & always drunk. He said he is in danger of falling onto the tracks and has to go somewhere. So if that's true he should take him to a shelter. He didn't want to be bothered. 2 stops later, he was lying across a seat sleeping. We are not allowed to use a toilet in their district offices because they have guns around, but they come into ours, eat lunch with THEIR guns around, stay for hours and sometimes sleep. We had one guy recently SNORING. At nite, there should be a cop assigned to every train, to keep those homeless moving, the subways should not be a homeless shelter. The law is a cop can force someone to a shelter if he is a danger to himself &/or someone else. Say he is and send them away to the shelter. We have cars INHABITABLE at night because of the smell and who do the passengers complain to: the crew of course. Hell, we have to smell them all nite! On my line we have a guy who because of the weather, now stays on a platform. But the other 9 months he rides. He pees himself, urine runs down the car, drops his pants on the platform to do "#2", & throws the tiolet paper onto the tracks. The unruly kids steal his crutches & sometimes throw them to the tracks. If he isn't a danger to himself & others nobody is. But the cops don't go near him because his smell is sickening & you need somekind of a mask to be near him. Hope I didn't gross you out & seem to be long winded but I wanted to get this off my chest & perhaps open up a discussion of your experiences of transit cops?
I've often wondered what kind of schedule they have also. I use to use the swing room on 116 St. and 8 Av. when I worked the East Harlem crosstown bus and I remember going to do my first half of work and coming back 3 and a half hours later and the same group of Transit cops still there playing cards and sleeping! They sometimes would hog up the TV and tell us what to watch and often spoke very loudly and carried themselves as gangsters in uniforms. I dont dislike the Police at all and feel they do a great job, but it does seem that since the unification of the Transit with the City police they have become somewhat dissallusioned and disheartened. I remember them bragging about how Transit pays thier overtime so that when they needed extra money they would book and process a fare beater they normally can give a summons to, which really doesn't bother me anyway.
I've also become critical of cops. As you said, I have also noticed cops on several occasions staying one car to talk to a woman (sometimes girls) for several stops while someone could be getting the daylights beat out of them on the same train. I think we've also noticed the car with 4 or more cops hanging together. I know there's safety in numbers, but this is ridiculous - they're supposed to be protecting US. My opinion if the NYPD is not good, and I think the officers in general have little or no respect for others. Look how they basically harass the FDNY over who's in control of emergency rescue situations. You don't see firefighters trying to become crimefighters. Correction - actually they do in plenty of situations where someone commits a crime and the police of course is no where to be found, so of course the firefighters will pursue the suspect and hold him/her for the police. Hmmm - where was the police sitting in their cars talking or ganging up on some poor guy who refuses to suck up to them. The "CPR-Courtesy Professionalism Respect" on the patrol cars are a joke. A friend and I recently discussed how many NYPD officers are disrespectful and think they're above the law. For instance: How many times have you seen a patrol car commit all sorts of traffic violations and not have their sirens on. Also the way they talk to people. They basically bark at you. To put it simply I think many NYPD cops are unfit to be law enforcement officers and abuse their authority - but of course you can't tell Dictator Rudolph (Giuliani) or the PBA that because in their eyes the NYPD can do no wrong. Let me say that I know that there are some fine officers the NYC can be proud of, but I think that the problem of gangster, rude and unprofessional cops at the NYPD is widespread and out of control. We won't even get in to the "Blue Wall". I could go on and on.... My intention is not to offend anyone, but then again those NYPD officers who are good, honest officers know it and know they are exceptions to these criticisms. I think it is so clear. The NYPD and NYC citizens have so many incidents/problems - their must be a reason why. And I know it's unlikely that all of these citizens are law breakers. Let's get with it NYC our police dept needs a serious overhaul.
There was a TV movie (not shown in theatres) that was made in the
mid 1980's called "Stone Pillow", starring Lucille Ball, as a New
York City homeless woman. Anyone familiar with that movie? There is
a scene where Lucille gets on a bus bound for a Brooklyn homeless
shelter. Does anyone know what part of Brooklyn that was? It looked
VERY run down, with a lot of abandoned buildings. There is even a
scene where Lucille wanders into an abandoned house, and falls asleep.
If I remember correctly, I saw an el off in the distance. Hope someone
here can help me with this. I've seen the movie several times, and I
get very curious of where some of the scenes were shot.
Thanks,
Timothy
Dave,
I just found the PCC History article by Tom Matola and the link to the East Troy Electric Railway on your "PCC Streetcars on the WWW" page. Tom really enjoys the two PCC cars that he purchased personnaly for operation at East Troy. He has provided me with some valuable information for a project that I am working on.
Thanks for the addition.
Not entirely a subway question, but:
When I was on the West side of the NJ Transit Atlantic City
train's platform at Lindenwold, I noticed a door, glass block
windows & vent fan on the abandoned seashore train section of
the platform. Anyone know if that was a restaurant/bar/crew
quarters? Thanks!
I think it was for crew quarters but I can't visualize it.
Does Broadway in Brooklyn, between Myrtle Ave. and Eastern Parkway,
run through, or border Bedford-Stuyvesant? Because according to the
subway map, it appears that the Broadway El acts as a divider, with
Bushwick to the North, and Bedford-Stuyvesant to the South.
If you ride either train and look out on the right side of the car, Bushwick Ave is clearly visible at about a block or two from B'way. I would consider the stops between Eastern Pkwy an Gates Ave on the Bushwick side of Brooklyn. Bed-Stuy is when you enter at about Kosckioszko St to Flushing Ave.
One thing to remember Bushwick and Bedford-Stuyvestant are just neighborhood names and may not correspond with actual political entities such as census tracts or council districts. This presumably is true with most other neighborhoods as well. One consequence is evident in real estate ads - by their standards, desirable neighborhoods such as Greenwich Village or the Upper East Side cover geographical areas much larger than in reality :-)
I think the line just skims thru Bed Stuy around Bway-Myrtle. When I leave Flushing Av. going toward Bway-Myrtle I see the B15 bus laying over at Lewis Ave.(I believe that's the street name, but I may be wrong) but the sign says B15 Bedford Stuyvesant.and that is the terminus: near Flushing Ave./Bway station.
Based on obsevrations at the station wher I worked from 11 pm Frioday to 7am Saturday 7/4/1998, there was a 38.9% increase from last week sasme time to this week. I then ignored tokens and went strictly with MetroCards- again a huge increase. The demand was great. I had customers buying two and three cards at a time. In fact I even had one customer come at 11:58 and want a card and I had to twell him to wait. He waited bcause I told if if he'd wait till the time arrived, I would eb sure he got the first card from "my booth". He waited patiently for me to clear up the regular line- I announced "regular cards and tokens only" to allow for an orderly transition. The cards were very popular, This week at work I'll try to track the change from the same day at the same booth last week. I'll post my observations which are just observations and not an official statement.And yes- I still had people buying 10-15 tokens after 12:01AM
One of the people on nyc.transit had an interesting experience this morning. He got a 30-day MetroCard at about 1 am, and upon swiping got the all-too-familiar "Swipe Again at This Turnstile" message. Several more attempts proved fruitless so he went to another turnstile to try his luck there. Unfortunately, the swipes at the first turnstile weren't sufficient to let him through - but they were sufficient to activate the 18-minute lockout!
Let us hope that this trend continues. AND they must iron out
the glitches in the turnstiles. As for myself, I will certainly
continue to use MetroCard. My last token is put away for
safe keeping, in the coin book with my collection of silver quarters.
NOW - the unlimited $4.00 day pass - when is it coming? I could
sure use it on my field trips.
By the way - more pictures for you? I have conquered all the
scanning glitches. "L"s done Rockaway Pkwy to Montrose. The
scanner and software can take even a pretty bad photo and make it
look real good.
Just give us a holler.
Have a nice nite :)
Wayne
Well Saturday I got my 7day unlimted card and used it well. D to Dekal b to pick up a Junior's Cheese Cake, then the walked over to the 4 to 161st for the Yankee Game, then took the D/B to R for the S79 to Dad's house for a 4th BBQ. Can't wait until Friday to get my 30day card (have to wait for payday for a $126 hit for 2 cards). So Saturday I took one extra ride that I would have had to pay for but all rides were extra since I normaly don't ride that much on the weekend.
does anyone know if septa plans on keeping and market-frankford almond
joys when the new adtranz m-4 car delivery is finished. if you ask me that's a car fleet that should not be scraped.these cars are on there way out and they are running the best they have in years. it's ashame new york cant say the same
I heard all cars will be taken off the property & scrapped. They need the room in the yard & SEPTA can make money on every car disposed of. Philadelphia area railfans quickly had better save their collective money for puchasing of cars & yard space rental to make keeping the cars worthwhile to SEPTA.'s empty bankbook.
I'm not sure of the space in the yards being an issue, but indeed the Budds are all going to go to subway car heaven (and you can't get to heaven on the Frankford El, as the old song goes). A good number (I've heard upwards of 30) have already been shipped off to the scrappers.
Car 606 has been purchased by the Penna Trolley Museum (Arden) and will be sent off presumably when the current strike ends.
Two of the 600-series single units are to be saved for non-revenue service. The rest will go, one way or another. From what I've heard, expressions of interest by museums are not pouring in.
There had been talk of saving 30-40 cars in anticipation of problems or for need in case patronage grew, as happened with both the subway- surface lines and the Broad St Subway once new cars were introduced. Apparently, this will not occur.
Yes, it's sad to see them go, at such a young age (especially for the Phila area, where previous subway fleets were kept well into their 40-50 year ages), but it looks like that's what's happening.
What are you talking about? The NY fleet MDBF is higher now than it has been in the past 20 years.
Sometimes it is just time to get rid of some old cars. Even if it seems like they are in good shape perhaps there are structural flaws that you can't see, or maybe the parts are getting more and more expensive to maintain.
-Dave
Dave, you are absolutely correct. One example are the Corona RedBirds. They have an MDBF of nearly 100,000 miles but it's time for them to go. Keeping them running will will not be $$$$ feasible.
I has always said NY should byu then and use them to replace the rusting redbirds on the 7 (since they are stainless steel, and the 7 doesn't seem to be on the list to get any of the R-142's for now). I like their similarity to NY cars. Sort of a cross between the R-32 & 38's set to IRT dimensions, with R-21/22 end door windows. But I heard the TA wouldn't want to purchase cars from anyone. Also, people suggested the dimensions were slightly different from IRT.
Sorry, but the Market-Frankford cars cannot run in NY because
they are wide gauge (5 ft, 2/4 in) and use Metro-North style underrunning third rail. To run in NY they would require new trucks and shoe beams for IRT style dimensions.
Also, the cars are older than the R33/36 cars (built in 1960 vs. 1963-64), and do not have A/C.
Could they be modified? Like using trucks from the redbirds?
(Of course, AC could always be installed)
of course air conditioning and different trucks could be installed on the almond joys. anything is possible these days but does the TA want to do it.
Could you imagine the fuss the newspapers would make if the TA would buy those cars, install Air Conditioning & keep them for a couple of years. What would happen to those soft seats? GET REAL GUYS!
When one talks about MDBF always remember that means the mileage traveled between failures CHARGED TO CAR EQUIPMENT. Signal problems, trains taken out of service due to vandalism, sick customers & the like are not figured into MDBF. So this may not be a total factor in customer satisfaction. All delays have to be charged to some department (or the public as in sick customers & vandalism). If a line has a lower MDBF but has fewer incidents charged to other causes, that line may have a better total customer satisfaction score than the line with the higher MDBF.
I'm well aware how MDBF is calculated. Remember we are talking about replacing cars. We replace cars because of reliability. Sick customers, signal trouble, track work and to some extent vandalism do not create the need to replace cars. The question is not how MDBF is calculated but should we replace the 35 year old Corona Fleet with new cars or someone elses 40 year old junk? I think the original question was ridiculous to begin with and I think Dave's response was dead on.
I think Chicago had the right idea when they used tried and true pcc technology in their 6000series fleet. Sometimes newer is not always better!
The new SEPTA el cars are a prime example of heavy, slower accelerating, schedule lengthening, over-technologized vehicles! They are cramped on the inside.
The Budd cars have been providing reliable and fast service for many years...faster now than ever!
If the issue is air conditioning and one man service, surely a better solution to these problems could have been thought out than the M-4's!
Even today, the newest cars on the CTA roster, the 3200's, were delivered as "all-electric" vehicles. A design that dates back to the late 1940's when the first "PCC" transit vehicles, 5001 - 5004, were delivered.
On top of that, the 3200s have full-width cabs for OPTO, and are not air conditioned. They also have an fluted exterior similar to the 2200s.
The question was not new tech vs the current technology. The question was whether the NYCT should buy new cars or 40 year old junk someone else is getting rid of. The fact of the matter is that an overhaul of a NYCT car averages $400,000 per car. That is for a car that was already compatible with the NYCT system. What do you think you'd have to add to your costs to convert a non-compatible car. $550,000 to $600,000 would be about right. That's half the cost of a new car. I think the conclusion is obvious. If the so-called "Almond Joys" are that good, why isn't SEPTA overhauling them instead of replacing them? Let Philly keep their 'Hand-me-downs', NYC can afford new cars and the customers deserve more than Philly-trash.
Philly trash! Ever ridden your New York equipment lately? Your best, other than air conditioning, can't compare to our "trash" in terms of speed, service and reliability!
So what you are saying is SEPTA is scrapping good cars? Either you over-estimate the equipment or SEPTA management is fiscally irrisponsible & extremely poor !!! As for NYCT equipment, I ride it every day. It might interest you to know that your opinion is in the minority. Transit professionals from around the world and APTA people are constantly visiting our (NYCT) facilities TO SEE HOW IT'S DONE!!
Being an irregular visitor to the land of SEPTA and hearing all the praises of the "Almond Joys", I just have to wonder: What's all the fuss?
1. The Budds were delivered in 1960 and 61, replacing 1908 and 1922 Brill stock.
2. When they were new, the fans hated 'em!!! They rode well, were quiet, clean and comforable. When SEPTA (and it's constant maintanence failures) came about, the cars began to deteriorate slowly. Sure, they were still fast, if you didn't mind the missing points on the accelerators. Ride? They bounced all over the Els and did little else in the subway. Quiet? You can hear them long before you see them, and on board, the noise is louder than an 8500 in full parallel in the subway.
3. Now that they are 38 years old, they are beloved by the fans, tolerated by the riders, and ignored by everywhere else. Nothing is new here.
The only problem with the (woderful) M4's is that, designed by SEPTA, they stand a good chance of repeating the N5 debacle. Perhaps SEPTA will remember that and not be so hasty sending the Budds to the scrappers.
I think it may be too late - many Budds are already going to the happy hunting ground for subway cars!
One of my favorite Budd thoughts revolves around the bouncy ride. It wasn't always just related to speed or rough track. I recall in the early 70's, when the entire Frankford El was a slow zone, that the cars rode awful on the El despite the slow speed. It appeared that going over the jointed rail so slowly was even worse than going at a full clip. Go figure!
I have very little experience with the Almond Joys, but they were more complex than the cars they replaced and more complex cars are replacing them. We continually adopt new technology, which although it has advantages, also increases the cost of the product and of its maintenance. It is a trade off, but one every systemn must make. Good Luck to SEPTA with the new cars, and as for those of you in New York, remember that the Almond Joys are their version of your beloved Redbirds - just a little lighter!
Gerry
I think you're being a little hard on the Philly equipment. Anyway, aside from their age I think the TA needs more Division B cars anyway, they have 1100 new Div A cars already on order. By the time the Philly cars are rebuilt to conform to NY standards, they'll be replaced by the brand new cars.
What do you mean "NY standards"? What did i miss?
You didn't miss anything. Perhaps the term standards is mis-leading. By standards I was (and I believe that Andrew was too) referring to making the cars compatible with the NYCT system. Currently, those cars would not be compatible for numerous reasons.
re: "NY standards"
That was what I meant. Thanks for clarifying the matter.
I have made a 10 question trivia questions dealing with the past subway systems future subway system and thee modern subway system now are you up to it?
Q1- Is it true that there was supposed to be a extension of a certain line in Brooklyn to go into Manhattan?
Q2- What was the 4 trains original color befroe the on line color in 1979? Was it
A- Silver B- Black or C- Magenta?
Q3-When the AA train was elimanated what letter was it replaced by in 1979?
Q3- What two train lines have the longest express route in Manhattan is it
A- 4,5 between 42 and 14/ A,D between 125 and 59 Street or the 2,3 betwenn 72 and 42 Street?
Q4- Which line holds the recored for the longest line in the Subway System in history. Was it the
A- E train from 179 Street to the Rockaways or B- the A train from 207 to the Rockaways?
Q5- Which IRT line hold the recored for Longest route?
Q6- What year was the 8 train eliminated?
Q7- What 2 counties in the city are not served by direct Subway sevice?
Q8- Which IRT line uses 11 cars?
Q9- Which Subway line has a movie about that line?
Q10- Which IRT line other that the 2 and 3 did not serve the South Ferry Station?
Bonus Question- How would the 2,3,5,6 lines be able to connect with a IND, BMT train yard?
1. Can't answer with the information given. What year? What division? Was it a subway line? Were the plans ever fulfilled?
2. Magenta
3. The AA wasn't discontinued in 1979.
3. (there are 2 question #3's) The A&D bet. 59th and 125th
4. Of the ones you list, probably the E from 179 to the Rockaways
5. Probably the former #2 from 241st St. to New Lots.
6. 1973
7. Last time I checked, NYC consisted of the following counties: New York, Kings, Bronx, Queens, and Richmond. Only the Latter (a.k.a. Staten Island) has rail service that does not connect with the rest of the NYC subway system. Is there another county with which I am not familiar? Are Randall's or Governer's Islands separate Counties or something?
8. The Flushing Line
9. The Pelham Line
10. The 7 definitely -- I don't think the 4 ever went to South Ferry, either.
Bonus: Div. A and B tracks connect at the Jerome/Concourse yard complex (Concourse IND and Jerome Av. IRT) and the 207th St. yard (8th Ave. IND and Broadway IRT). There is also a connection between the 3 and the L, but I seem to remember that there's no third rail on the connecting track. Also, don't forget the 7 and the N at Queensboro Plaza. Did I forget any?
3-- When the AA was discontinued (in 1985), it was replaced by the K, which was discontineued in 1989 and replaced with the C.
7-- There is no direct one-ride line between Queens and the Bronx. You need to connect with the Lexington Avenue Line, the B, D, or #2 trains.
Re question #7: I get it now -- the way the question was phrased didn't make sense to me before.
I know there has been much debate about this issue, but I wanted to put this out as far as restoring F Express service in Brooklyn upon completion of the 63rd Street connection.
The F is restored to running express between Kings Highway and Jay Street during rush hours. This would mean restoration of the switch south of Kings Highway from the northbound local to northbound express tracks.
The new V service makes all local stops in Brooklyn, originating from Kings Highway. This will satisfy the Park Slope/Windsor Terrace residents.
The G is extended to Church Avenue as it would be difficult to turn trains at 4th Avenue. Since service has been cut back from Continental Avenue, this shouldn't require the addition of cars.
Bergen Street can remain a local station, as the V is making all local stops and continuing into Manhattan, whereas you had to make the change with the G..
It could work...........
It could work if Park Slope/Windsor Terrace local stops got at least 10 V trains per hour through to Manhattan, in addition to the Gs and the F express passing them by. But wouldn't it cause chaos to turn the trains around at Church, crossing them over two express tracks?
No, I believe there is a below-ground turnaround track, because GG trains in 1967+ turned around there during rush hour for years. And in the pre-1967 days, some number of D trains turned around at Church Avenue during rush hour, so there could be extra service in Park Slope.
I believe the MTA's plan is for 4 or 5 trains to run through the Queens Blvd line, the E, F, R, and either one or two 63rd St. trains. Maybe it would be the Q over Broadway and maybe it could be a Culver Express on 6th Avenue. NYCT seems to like having a service be uniform throughout the day, so the F would probably be local in Brooklyn. But a new rush-hour only V train as described above could be the Culver Express, 6th Avenue local, 63 St. tunnel, Queens Blvd express. The Q train would be a Queens Blvd. local running down Broadway over the (fat chance) Manhattan Bridge to the Brighton Line.
I'm getting the vapors just thinking about it: an intelligently run service in both Queens and Brooklyn... Catch me before I fall...
The Subtalk maps are indeterminate on the Church Avenue turnaround. Tracks are shown, but with dotted lines, which indicates abandonment (and perhaps deterioration), and there does not appear to be enough space beyond the crossover to turn around a train. But this may be misleading. Perhaps an MTA person knows for sure. Perhaps if the space existings, but the tracks are run down, the MTA could fix them up.
To utilize rolling stock efficiently, shouldn't all the locals turn around at Church ? Why run half empty trains to and from Kings Highway, requiring more trains overall?
A split line scenario for rush hour would have the 12-14 F trains running local from Stillwell to Church, and then express from Church to Jay St. The V? new train, with perhaps 10 trains per hour, would run local to Church Avenue, as would the six G trains, for through service every six minutes and service with a transfer (at Jay or Hoyt) every four minutes or less.
Off peak, you could cut both the F and "V?" to six trains and maintain express service in the outer area and through local service in the inner area once every ten minutes. With four G trains thrown in, the inner "local" area would have one train every six minutes.
What I like about adding an F express is that it might induce some Brigton, West End and Sea Beach riders to walk an extra couple of blocks, or hop a bus, and take the Culver. Ocean Parkway, with its apartment buildings, is midway between the Culver and Brighton. As was discussed previously, some of those lines are getting crowded, but there is no way to add peak hour service thanks to the loss of half the Manhattan Bridge tracks -- and one third of the BMT southern capacity. This might be one way to squeeze in a few more riders at the peak, without squeezing them in.
Larry Littlefield seems to have misinterpreted the Church Avenue track diagrams when he writes, "The Subtalk maps are indeterminate on the Church Avenue turnaround. Tracks are shown, but with dotted lines, which indicates abandonment (and perhaps deterioration), and there does not appear to be enough space beyond the crossover to turn around a train. But this may be misleading. Perhaps an MTA person knows for sure. Perhaps if the space existings, but the tracks are run down, the MTA could fix them up."
I'm hardly "an MTA person" (if anything, the opposite would best describe me), but commonly (as here) the dotted line does not mean
"abandonment," but simply that they go under other tracks.
Peter Dougherty's "Tracks of the New York City Subway (Revised Edition)" has a diagram of the Church Avenue yard on an unnumbered page titled "Mainline storage yards." At Church Avenue, between the outer local tracks (B-1 southbound, B-2 northbound) and the inner express tracks (B-3 southbound, B-4 northbound) there are wyes (to track B-5 on the southbound side, B-6 on the northbound) descending to a lower level and fanning into four tracks with a double crossover and single crossovers from the inner tracks (B-7 and B-8). Dougherty says, "Each storage track holds one 10-car train between the sweith fouling points and the bumpers."
There's a similar arrangement at 179th Street, with the four tracks on the upper level each holding two ten-car trains, Dougherty mentions, and one ten-car train on each of the four lower-level tracks. (The Hillside Avenue extension was supposed to go to at least 189th Street, but that's another long-awaited bit of construction that the TA has conveniently forgotten about.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Dougherty's book is really an outstanding one, with easy-to-read track maps and lots of other information that any subway railfan would find
really useful; the only thing I would urge him to add in the next edition is pre-Chrystie DeKalb (he has the Manhattan side, but not the Brooklyn part)
Sorry about my typo in my last post--that's "switch fouling points," not "sweith." (Who knows, I may have just created some new engineering marvel.)
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
(Yard under tracks at Church Avenue)
That being the case, why on earth does the TA turn the G around at Smith-9th, where it must layover blocking the express tracks in the middle of the line, and not Church Avenue where there is a yard designed for that purpose? It's only five more stops, and perhaps five more minutes.
With the Smith-9th turnaround, I am frequently delayed behind a G train crossing at 4th Avenue or being checked for stragglers at Smith/9th. These delays could be reduced with a turnaround a Church. And, it's a cheap and easy way to cut headways for those in Windsor Terrace who much change to the A/C downtown.
The only answer anyone ever gives is "that's the way it's always been done," with the exception of the short period some 25 or so years ago when all rush-hour F service ran express from Jay to Church and GG service was extended to Church Avenue. It was true when A and C service operated along there as well in the 1930s.
There's switchwork east of Smith/9th, used for reversing Crosstown locals, and one storage track with a bumper on its west end, but no additional switchwork until south of Church Avenue.
I could never understand why GG trains didn't run at least to 4th Avenue (even before that was a transfer station) or 7th Avenue, which has express platform configuration. Few things were more aggravating to me than having just missed a northbound D or F at 4th Avenue on a cold winter day and watching the GG reversing 20 feet or so away.
Down deep, I think terminating those IND trains at Smith-9th rather than 4th Avenue was part of Mayor Hylan's vendetta against the BMT company. (If I were to think negatively, I would even wonder if the current Transit Authority's treatment of the old BMT lines like the N reflects that same heritage, with pictures of Hylan in every executive office at TA headquarters.)
8-)
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY Potsdam
From what I heard, the only reason the G goes as far as Smith-9th is because they can't turn them at Hoyt-Schermerhorn. That's as far as it was really intended to go.
Thie concept is interesting, but why create a new express service next to a line (Brighton) that already has all-day local/express service, and leave the West End/Sea Beach area without any? Why not spread them out? Why expect Brighton passengers to go to the Culver line when they already have express service? Why expect West End and Sea Beach passengers to go to the Culver Line when they can have their own express service, on the West End line? The West End and Sea Beach lines entwine each other. Both begin at Coney Island, cross each other arouhd New Utrecht Ave and 26nd St., and rejoin at 36th Street. Why not simply take advantage of the West End's local/express station set-up and add peak rush hour expresses? And drop the Sea Beach line entirely? Someone postend an item not long ago (was it you?) saying there is one too many lines in southern Brooklyn. A look at the map shows how close they are. Dropping the Sea Beach (not equipped with express/local stations) would still leave its passengers
with only a few additional blocks to walk/ride (by free bus of course!!) to the nearby West End, Culver or 4th Ave. lines. Overall MTA operating costs would go down, what with lowered maintenance and personnel requirements. I would think that patronage now on the West End is higher than on the Culver south of Church Ave. (does anyone have patronage figures?) so it would seem more worthy of service enhancements? What do you think of the general idea?
Please note that even with the Sea Beach shut, the area would still have better train service (closer transit lines) than areas of Queens, the Bronx and even parts of Brooklyn now have.
I think shutting down a line without offering anything in return would not go down well in Brooklyn, especially given the fact that service is so much slower due to the Manhattan Bridge problem. It would seem like more disinvestment in the borough. Imagine timing the shutdown of the Sea Beach to coincide with an announcement of a Grand Central Connection to the LIRR. What message would that send? If anything was shut down, it should have been the Franklin Ave.
Also, the West End is in the right place, but the Sea Beach is the right train. It runs on the ground, not on a creaky old elevated. Home many accidents have there been at 9th Avenue in the past decade? If the situation were reversed -- the West End was a subway, and the Sea Beach was elevated, the Sea Beach probably would have been shut down already. In fact, if the TA is spending money to add express platforms to the Sea Beach, perhaps it is thinking that (with the free bus to subway transfer) it can eventually dump the West End.
Perhaps if the cost of construction were not so extreme, the TA could replace both lines with a new subway positioned perfectly between the 4th Avenue and the Culver. The benefits of a new subway would outweigh the loss of one of the lines, and the operating cost savings would outweigh the capital expense. As it is, a loss would be a loss. And other areas which have have less subway service have more wide boulevards, highways, and commuter rail lines, which Brooklyn does not. So that is not a fair comparison.
If the infrastructure is already in place for the Sea Beach, why get rid of it? The West End is not close to it except in a few places. The West End serves 86 St. and New Utrecht Avenue which is a diagonal to the avenues in Bay Ridge and Bensonhurst. The Sea Beach serves the entire length of 62 St. which last time I looked is a mile from 86 St. Both lines are expresses on 4th Avenue on weekdays and the B is all day on weekends too. And there are a lot of people in that section of Brooklyn: many, many 6-story building, many rows of houses.
If any line should be torn down (and I do NOT believe any line should be torn down), it should be the Jerome Avenue line, because it is only 4 blocks from the Concourse line. We could even say that the Flushing elevated line runs near the Queens subway line from Queens Plaza to about 82 St. so why not tear that down? How about the Broadway line above 145 St. The A train is so close by, and it's all residential...
These are all rhetorical questions to demonstrate by analogy that lots of lines are near each other, that dense housing has grown around all these lines and that there is no reason to tear any of them down because of proximity to another line. NYCT has mainly only torn down lines that are falling apart or were technically obsolete.
I agree with Carl Rabbin's comments on not eliminating routes just because of proximity.
For Brooklyn, one of the IND expansion schemes was to have a branch coming off the Brooklyn Line (a/k/a Smith Street-Eighth Avenue and, more recently, Culver) and running via Ft. Hamilton Parkway and 10th Avenue. I don't recall the southern terminus, but it was conceived as an upgrading or replacement for the West End elevated on New Utrecht Avenue. That was part of the philosophy of "recapturing" BMT routes by the City, as did happen with the Culver and the outer portion of Fulton Street (the Dual Contracts section east of Grant Avenue beyond the older section called the "City Line").
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
The argument to dump lines in proximity is that the same number of trains on fewer tracks means shorter headways and more express service. You walk a little farther, but ride a little faster. Unfortunately, while the Culver, West End, and Sea Beach all duplicate each other in spots, it is impossible to get rid of any one of them without putting someone more than a 15 minute walk away from a station.
Similarly, while the Jerome Avenue line is only a few blocks from the Concourse line, the dense housing up on the hill at University Avenue would be a longer walk away if Jerome Avenue were eliminated. Of course, rationally the Jerome Avenue would be a subway on University Avenue, with one line on every hill, or the Concourse line would be located on Webster Ave, with one line in every valley and shorter walks all around. Due to the competition between lines, it just didn't work out that way.
When two lines are close and parallel in residential areas, it seems like it would be better to examine which stations are redundant than to think about tearing out lines. Only part of the Sea Beach is really that close to other lines, and the train needs to get to the yard. However, removing some stations might help things. For example, both the Culver and Sea Beach have a stop on Kings Highway and they both have a stop at Ave. U which appears (I can't tell for real since subway maps are not to scale) to be close to the 25th Ave. stop on the West end line. Closing some of these stops would not add much walking for most people, save $$$, and speed up trains - they do not have to slow to 15 mph through abandoned stops! This would be a simpler way to improve service a little without taking the irreversible step of ripping out a line.
They should have done this in Chicago when they rebuilt the south side (Englewood - Jackson Park) el. The Dan Ryan el is fast, mainly beacause its stops are widely spaced - 1 to 1.5 miles between them. This is inconvenient for many, who need to walk up to half a mile to catch a bus to get to the el. On the rebuilt Jackson Park/Englewood el, they should have only reopened the stops on streets that the Ryan el does NOT serve, but which do have bus service - ie, 51, 43, 59, etc. Instead they gave into political pressure, and rebuilt all the stations, and the train is still pretty slow, and I doubt many get on from the streets served by the Ryan el - 55, 47, etc. Oh well.
But the Sea Beach running in a cut causes more problems than an elevated. During storms, trees fall interrupting service. Vandals throw stuff down & trains strike them, sometimes getting wedged under cars causing more interruptions. When it snows, it builds up on the Sea Beach (& Brighton ) covering the third rail & shutting down service. On an elevated structure, the snow falls thru, only building upon the thru spans. Notice whenever there is heavy snow, the Brighton & Sea Beach are down for long periods of time whereas the West End is only down until the area of Ninth Ave. gets cleared.
Doesn't an el cost a lot more to maintain, with inspections, painting, and so on?
Anyone have numbers on how much money goes into maintaining various routes of different types in the system?
(On a different subject, it might be interesting to look at which lines get the maintenence dollars spent on them for political reasons. Classic Chicago politics were visible in comparisons of the money spent maintaining the Ravenswood el versus money spent maintaining the Englewood/Jackson park el. That's why the latter had to be shut down and rebuilt. Nobody complained, since much of the line was down to 6 or 15 mph by the time they shut it. The comparison was still interesting when one took into account how many were riding each line....
Earlier postings in this thread noted the closeness of other lines, and also the preference of non-elevated lines to elevated lines. The main considerations are whether the service is duplicative and what the patronage is, on the lines. Re: Jerome Ave. vs/ Concourse line, and Flushing vs. IND Queens line: what are the patronages on each? How do they compare with patronages on the Sea Bewach and West End lines? Though the Jerome/Concourse comparison, re: closeness, is a valid one, if their patronages are higher than the Sea Beacn and West End, that could justify keeping them. Note, of course, the irony that it is now the B train that provides peak direction local service on the Concourse line while the D skips stations. It isn't such a far extrapolation to envision the same on the B/M West End line during peak periods. Though the Flushing and Queens lines cross in west Queens, their outer reaches serve totally different areas. I can think of no other lines than the Sea Beach and West End that start
at the same terminal and reconnect on 4th Ave. Note also that emphasis on the Culver Express ingnores the fact that it is, south of Church Ave., an elevated line. So is the White Plains Road, Flushing, Pelham, etc. They apparently are perfectly usable and not one is suggesting they be torn down. The West End and Culver structures seem to look the same, and seem to be in about the same condition.
Why was the Brooklyn Lexington El, and soouthern part of the Myrtle Ave. el torn down? I think patronage as the main reason lines have been dropped, with justification. I think overall economics requires a look at how the areas served by the Sea Beach and West End could be served most effectively. Since this should result in improved peak period (and maybe greater off-peak frequency) service, consolidation should be examined. One posting noted the West End had the better route. It also has Express/local station arrangements and can easiliy support that improvement. But I agree also that maintenance and operational costs and difficulties, on each line, should be examined.
You have to watch out for patronage figures because of the "Levittown Effect": a bunch of people of the same age moving into a neighborhood at the same time. Ten years ago, Bensonhurst/Gravesend/Borough Park were Italian/Jewish had evolved into retirement communities. Therefore, low ridership. These folks are dying out and being replaced by working age immigrants and orthodox Jews, and their children. Therefore, rising ridership. While I don't have the figures, I'll bet that's the case. In short, think twice before eliminating routes (or closing schools) in any area with an unusually high number of elderly residents, because they have a tendency to turn around in a hurry.
The idea of closing duplicative stations to cut costs and speed trains, however, has appeal. For example, the Culver could skip some of the stops wedged in between the N and Brighton, and the B could skip some stops in close proximity to the N as well, creating a de facto express.
Larry's posting has some valuable concepts. The changing nature of neighborhoods is important and I think he's right in characerizing the Bensonhurst, Boro Park and other neighborhoods that are served by the Sea Beach and West End lines as evolving from having older retirees to having workers who use the transit system. I checked my street map of Brooklyn and find that from Kings Highway south, the Sea Beach and Culver lines are about seven blocks apart. Examining the entire Sea Beach and West End routes, I find there are areas now that are further from both that are more than what Sea Beach riders would have to travel, along its entire route, to get to either the Culver, 4th Ave. or West End lines closest to them.
My point, as someone noted earlier, is that you walk (or take the bus) a little more, to get to the train, then wait less for a train and get peak period express service also. The idea of eliminating "duplicative" stations on the Culver and West End lines, where they are near the Sea Beach line, is intruiging. But what results is the elimination of some stations that will make some people walk more, while reducing travel tlime for others already on the system. by the time you look at all the stations on both the Culver and West End lines that might be shut down, you have about the same number of stations as exist on the Sea Beach line. Wouldn't it make sense, then, to just eliminate that line and not have to keep up the maintenance and staff costs on all three lines? Just "consolidate" the stations on two lines, improve the service on them, and make those two remaining lines more effective. While subways may be more ideal than elevated lines, these two, and others, will continue to be used, I imagine.
I see no possibility of replacing any or all with a subway. Scarce funds should be used to construct a tunnel replacement to the Manhattan Bridge. I see no reason why the MTA shouldn't take a good, hard, look at the cost-effectiveness of its varioius lines and with the free bus transfers now in effect, try to figure ways to save money while maintaining adequate service to the various Districts in the city.
I am sensitive to the idea that Larry raised about the neighborhoods now housing more and more transit-using workers. Still, I don't think their needs will be compromised, as other city areas now have transit further away than what will result from what I'm suggesting.
What do you think?
WHO THE HELL TOOK OUR 'R' TRAINS AND SWITCHED THEM WITH THE OLDER 'E'TRAIN CARS? (AND WHY?)
The R uses those cars better then the N (R-32's). I was on it today. It went around the curves faster, the speed was more accurate, and leaving the station was better. However, I hate the fact the faster 46's are being dumb for the slower 32's.
People reading responses to messages expect further discussion on the subject. Please start a new thread with a new subject (applies here, re: which car types are used on which lines). Your cooperation would be appreciated by all readers. To the writers, please note that your message is not read by people who don't follow the particular discussion topic. Starting with a new posting, with its correct title (in this case, something like "R/N car switch - why?" would gain more readers and may lead to further postings in the thread.
Thank you.
My suggestions to the 63rd Street tunnel. I would have prefer a tunnel
built on 76th Street. A connection with the #6 could have been made; reducing overcrowding on the 4,5,6, lines. Another stops could have been made at 21 Street in Queens, via Broadway. Then, on 31st Street connections with the N at the Broadway station could've been accomplish. And finally, a murge with the R and G would've been possible.
i think the almond joys of the market- frankford line are quite handsome cars and still look very modern to this day . i think they beat out the new adtranz m-4 cars any day, especially in speed.the new cars are just to slow and cramped inside.if anyone thinks the almond joys are better looking then the m-4s please post.also what are the dimension differences between the almond joys and the nycta redbirds.
I may be dating myself, however, I remember when the "new" Budd cars were delivered. They were referred to as the Budd cars, since they were built right up the road in the "hollowed halls" of Red Lion. Quite a few handsome cars began their career’s at Red Lion.
I'm not sure how wide the Budd cars are, but I know they are 55 ft cars. Quite short for a transit car these days. They were designed for the requirements of the EL/subway though.
Although I grew up in the Philadelphia area, my new home is Chicago. I haven't had the chance to ride the "new" M4 cars yet. When will that strike be over?
I’ve seen pictures of the M4, and from what I’ve seen, the Budd cars still look good to me. And who can deny the acceleration of the Budd cars. Performance wise, the Budd will probably outshadow the M4. That, along with OPTO, and you will be looking at an increase in your running times along the route.
I think the Budd cars are built to the same dimensions as NYC IRT cars with the exception of the wheels being set for 5' 4.5" tracks, rather than the standard gauge.
And they are great trains, very bright silver on the outside, salmon and green on the inside. They've never had to be repainted, so they don't look like old used cars. The doors really slam shut when they close. They open with a pshhhhhhh sound that lets you know you are at the next stop. The seats are very comfortable, NOT hard plastic. The windows are huge. The end windows open. They zip along really quick. I'd buy one for the backyard if I could now that they are being replaced.
One minor point. The cars are almost identical in dimension to the IRT cars (52'+/- length, 8.5' width), but the track gauge is the Phila trolley gauge, 5' 2 1/4".
You are correct about the appearance of the cars. I was very young when they first arrived on the property, but from my first memory of them, they are almost the same today. The main changes are the addition of the vent windows and the covering of the original decal-type maps. Most cars have had the upholstery on the seats changed, but many operated for a long time with the original pattern of blue/beige.
This is an example of what deferred or delayed maintenance will do. The cars never had a major overhaul and despite this are still in relatively good operating shape. Their major drawback is the lack of air conditioning. With an overhaul, the cars could easily get ten more years of service, and even the overhaul would not be a major undertaking (the car bodies are in good shape, with little rust, damage, etc, despite the years of wear and tear).
The only aspect of the cars I didn't like was the heat. The doors could get a little bothersome, especially on several where they closed quicker and with more force than on others. The heat never seemed to be adequate and I can recall many trains with steamed windows on cold days. This was also evident on damp days when the condensation would literally drip from the windows. The fans seemed to at least keep the cars bearable in hot weather.
I've been reading all the posts about Philly's "almond joys" -
I have seen this IKEA commercial where they "furnish" a subway car -
It looked like an R32 at first, then I saw the inside - blower fans!
Looked narrower than an R32 too. Is THIS an "almond joy"?
Wayne
It looks like an R-32 on the outside but not so much on the inside. I thought it was more like an R-40/42 interior. You may notice the "ding dong" with the door closure, not something you'd find on a 32.
I think it's a made-up version of someone's jumbled recollection of a subway interior.
That's pretty much what all studio subway car mock-ups are. Vaguely resembles different subway car types from different systems.
What you are seeing is actually a "set" that was constructed in a studio in California for scenes needed inside of a New York City Subway car. Yes, It's built from the blueprints of an R-32, even though they did not actually faithfully reproduce the R-32 interior. This set has been seen on various TV shows. I remember once seeing an episode of "Dharma and Greg" with this R-32 set actually being used as the subway (BART) in San Francisco. It was quite odd seeing this New York City transit car type interior with destination signs of the BART. I have also seen this set on the ABC show "The Single Guy". Every once in a while you will probably see this set for shots needed in the NYC subway when the real thing cannot be used.
You mean they actually made that set appear as if it were a BART train?!?!?!
A far cry is an understatement at this point!! I mean, maybe I could understand if they used a set resembling an R-44 or R-46, but even that . . . .
There's also a movie I saw the first few minutes of called "Hangin' With The Homeboys", that in the opening scene, a gang gets into a fight with somebody over a seat on the train, and it looked very similar to the R-32 interior, before being rebuilt. It might have been said set, but I can't really remember.
Just recently, I read a newspaper article about the fastest and slowest subway lines in Queens. The article happens to mention the N as one of the slowest lines in this borough, Queens. I'm not surprise. Everyday I have to wait a long time for it. And, when it comes, it's very crowded and dirty, as the article points out. Anyone who reads this post, and uses this line, should contact the New York City Transportation Authority. Tell them that service on the N line needs considerable improvements.
Meanwhile, the 7 earn the highest remarks: Rapid service, clean trains and on time schedule. Since a year ago, the E, J, M, Z, & R service has improved. However, the F train has gotten worse.
The 7 train earns high marks?! The 7 train is among the dirtiest, most crowed of all the lines. Meanwhile, the N train remains one of the cleanest, and in my opinion, fastest trains the city has. To be sure, improvements can be made, but it is far cry from the slowest, dirtiest line in all of Queens.
I agree when the Mets play you will have to wish to get a seat and the Express is worse for the N line all they need is a couple of R-110B and some R-68s and a little more service and when I went on the N train it was the cleanist train I ever saw. The D train is the one that has the problem I go on the D every week and there is light to heavy amounts of dirt and just imangine it in the summer when all of the people are sweating on the train dirty it is a bad line. The N train I give my higiest remarks to umong cleaninst trains I have seen. The R train to and when they get faster service they will be the next champions and also how can they say that the 4 train is worse than the 7 train I know that it gets packed but you can always expect a clean fast ride and also they make the N or add a new line to be exprees and that will be good too.
N LINE SERVICE IS HORRIBLE IN BKLYN ALSO I WAITED FOR A N EXPRES AT PACIFIC ST STA ON A WEEKDAY AT 330PM AND 2 R TRAINS AND 2 B TRAINS SHOWED UP UNTIL A N ARRIVED AND IT WAS FILTHY AND THERE WAS A PUTRID SMELLING HOMELESS PERSON ABOARD IN THE 1ST CAR WHICH WAS EVACUATED QUICKLY BY ITS PASSENGERS WHERE WERE THOSE TRANSIT COPS THAT DAY
I ride the N train almost everyday and I know that it's not well kept. In fact, it's very filty and service is slow. Furthermore, it is very crowded, and you have to wait for it.
Just stand at the Queens Boro Plaza station on a winter night. You will find out very quickly.
Meanwhile, the #7, which uses the same station, comes very often. Sometimes about 4 to one during rush hour. And when you ride it, it flies; express and local.
I recommend pushing telling your representatives to have the N train extended north into the Con Ed plant, through the industrial area, and to LaGuardia Airport. As the city's "front door," the N would become its premier line. It would come more often, be cleaner, get the newest train cars, and be heavily policed to prevent miscreants from preying on visitors.
The only problem I see is the MINBY thing from the residents on 31 St. between Ditmars Blvd & the Con Ed plant. I somehow think those residents won't be too happy about an elevated structure outside their window.
No, residents of those two blocks would not be happy with an extended elevated train outside their window. The fair thing would be to buy them out at a premium, with enough money to buy something else nearby, and replace the houses with commercial space and playgrounds. That would be still be much cheaper than building a whole new line from Queens Plaza.
Everyone else in Astoria, even those one block away, would be better off if the N were extended to LaGuardia. In addition to the subway improvements mentioned earlier, superior access to the airport would raise the value of homes and accessory apartments, since Astoria would become a great place for airport and airline personnel, and those who fly frequently on business, to live.
Couldn't just the portion between the present terminus and the ConEd plant (and I gather that the line would be in industrial/commercial areas from there to the airport) be run through a subway tunnel? When Chicago extended the old Logan Square L to Jefferson Park in the late '60s (and ultimately the airport), most of the extension is expressway median but the portion linking the old L to the median line is a subway about 1.5 miles long, with two stations.
I know everybody says there is no money for subway construction, but the cities seem to gather the money to build other, even deeper, tunnels large enough to carry a subway, such as the new water tunnel in NYC and the ongoing Tunnel and Reservoir Project -- DeepTunnel -- in Chicago.
The current terminal is only two long blocks from the Con Ed plant. One of the four block-faces is already commercial. By the time the trains descended, they would already be at the plant -- and close to the water.
I'll bet Con Ed would give up the easement for nothing. An M3 zone is one of the few where you can erect a billboard. They could erect billboards near the tracks to catch the attention of the inbound traveler (stay at our hotel! See our show!)
From there the train would run elevated down 19th Ave, with M1 (industrial)zoning on both sides. It would pass by the bridge to Rikers Island, the city's jail. Perhaps a jail spur could run over the bridge than express to Queens Plaza to an unused platform to carry visitors. The neighbors hate the buses and cars which carry vistors to the jail.
The last three blocks of 19th Ave have residential on the inland side, but the train could turn toward the water and run along the bulkhead line (through the Bowery Bay sewage treatment plant) before reaching the airport.
Granted, views of a sewage treatment plant, power plant, and jail are not what you might want for your premire train. Running down 31st Ave, however, the views of Manhattan would be great.
A N train to the airport is good if two things happen. One, north of Queens Plaza, they are working to connect the 63rd Street line into the Queens Blvd E, F, G, R lines. Why don't they build a viaduct (elevated structure) connecting the N line above. Beside this area could use better service; creating a route to 6 AVE. And, two, if this line is extended, surely service would have to be improve considerably.
(Connect to 63rd St tunnel?) I don't know that I agree. The 60th St tunnel needs to be used, and the BMT Broadway local goes to a lot of important places. But while were are spending fantasy money, why not extend the N past the airport, on to Shea Stadium, through to a terminal in Downtown Flushing (where extensive commercial and residential development is on the verge of being approved).
The reason why the 7 has so much more service is because it carries many more passengers, and one reason why it carries more passengers is because of all the people who switch from buses in Downtown Flushing. Running the N as an express from Flushing, through a park and ride at Shea, past the airport, then down through Astoria would increase the passengers on the N, resulting in more trains. You might even get rush hour expresses on the middle track. The 7 would be less crowded, with the N taking more of the load.
I think the original Port Authority light rail included a stop in Downtown Flushing and at Shea. But it all comes down to the low priority of transportation improvements, and the ridiculously high cost of making them.
The Fastest and slowest trains was published in the Queens Tribue two weeks ago. The #7 rated as the fastest, cleaniest, rapid service train. On the other hand, the N was described as slow, dirty, not on time, and doesn't come very often.
I live in Astoria, and uses this line very often. It is what the article protrays.
Do me a favor, stand at the Queensboro Plaza station in 30 degree weather and you will see what I'm talking about. The #7 pulls in every 2 minutes in rush hour. About four of these trains pass me before I get an N train. That is why I prefer using the Shuttle train and walk up as far as Astoria Blvd and 8 Street. Not only do I bypass the filth and the slow service, but, I don't have to endure the crowds that seems to bother me the most.
Remember: The 7 can run more service because it runs by itself. The N can't run like that because the R & M merges with it down the line.
Then why does the M, B, R, D, and Q lines run better. That's no excuse. I could see the M runing fewer trains because not many people ride it. It's practically empty. As for the R, it is covered by the G train in Queens. And for the three stops it has alone, the few people can wait. The same with the Q train, its whole route is covered - D, except for 57th street. Just stand in the Dekalb station.
The N needs substantial improvements.
To the person who rides only 1 line per day, that is the only line he/she knows. They remember the bad not the good. Some people are not qualified to talk about other lines if they don't ride them. It reminds me of when I used to volunteer at a church bingo some years ago: I heard bitching all nite "I never win". Hell somepeople won because we gave away $1,000.00 every occassion.
I don't ride only one line, however, since I live 2 1/2 miles from the R and S, I'm struck with the N. But when I use it, I make sure I transfer away from it. In other words, I get off at 59th Street/Lexington Avenue and Take the fast 4,5, and 6. Or, I take the N to 42nd Street to the 1 train which takes a much more westerly route.
If I'm not in a rush, I will use the N for the entire trip. Beside, it has the best route in the city. It covers the eastside and westside proportionally going into lower Manhattan. The other lines aren't that complex: The 4,5, and 6 is the eastside. A, C, and E, and 1 2, and 3 and B, D, F is westside. The B, D, and F, does not go into the financial district; and very important section of the city.
I did not imply that you personally only ride one line. I was talking about subway riders in general, not us rail fans & frequent riders, or TA employees. The average passenger takes 1 or 2 trains per day, maybe a bus too, knows only one way to get to/from their destination and that's it. Only remembers that 1 or 2 trips out of 10 that they had a bad trip. Yes, the N is a disaster, I've worked the line and couldn't wait to be able to get off. I was always running late, arrived at the terminals late, denied my recovery time in between trips and ,many time munched down my lunch IN THE CAB WHILE OPERATING. Do you think we like being late? All I know that NY1 talked to pasengers the day the findings came out & interviewed passengers on the 7 line & others. Several #7 riders couldn't believe it. They complained how rotten their line was despite th Straphangers' findings. Ever hear the saying "The other guys' grass looks greener than your own"
Why isn't something being done to speed N train service. At least from Astoria to WhiteHall Street doing rush hours short runs? I stand in the Queensboro Plaza station and see the #7 trains rolling in 5 to 1 N train. In the meantime, good luck with your job.
Two things, but first I am not trying to justify what the TA is doing: I do think the TA doesn't have as much Astoria service as they should have because there are only a few stations in Queens & if people are packed/squeezed in they don't have too long to ride. Also you must remember you have a high ratio of 7 to N because The R & M must merge in farther down the line. True more short turns to Canal & Whitehall must be operated, but as bad as the N is, there is always a 1 to 1 ratio of N's to R's. all the way to Brooklyn. Otherwise the R people will complain of too many N's.
I like to share my personal comments about the faster and slower lines.
Q - This line has greatly improve since its operation on the 6th Avenue route. Clean trains, on-time service, and comfortable train speeds. However, I give it a low rate in coming often.
A - My all time favorite. However, If you are traveling to Lefferts Blvd, Rockaway Park or Far Rockaway, the service is poor. Like the Q, the time it take this train to leave the station is good. An exception, the train could be a little cleaner.
N - All time low. Poor service, crowded trains, breakdowns, and dirty trains. Further, this line ranks the slowest in my book.
D - Sluggish, gets caught in the tunnel alot, dirty trains, on-time schedule but come regularly.
7 - Since the Q switch from the 68 A's to the slanted 40's, I rate this line as the fastest in the train system. Fast - service, clean, and not crowed.
4 - Equal to the #7 in speed, rapid train service and clean trains, although during morning rush hours this line can be a headache.
5 - Same as #4, except, if you are traveling to the Bronx during evening rush, don't use this line! Take the #4 to 149th St. and transfer to the #2. For some reason, the TA runs 4 #4 trains to one 5 even though the 5 goes to 2 different terminals.
E - Great overall, comes often, but can be slow (32A's are one of the slower models), and crowded.
F - Fastest train cars in the system (46's - 38's are second). However, speed is not everything when a train does come due to delays.
G - Average: Since it does not run it Manhattan, I guess the TA doesn't see a need to run them more often. Speed is great, very little delays, and trains are clean.
J - Comes often, you can get a seat in Rush hour, but is very sluggish. There are many slow spots on this line: Williamburg Bridge, Crescent Street, Alabama Avenue, Broadway Junction, and so on.
L - I always avoid this line for transfer purposes. Unlike the #7, it isn't schedule to come often, and many times they are delays.
C - Since they dump those bangers, this line has improve considerably. Comes often, not very crowded, and clean.
R - Doesn't come often (more then the N and less then the others), but is very fast in comparison to the N train. In fact, I ride this line to my house which is alot closer to the N. I guess, I prefer walking then standing in a dirty train.
M - Uses slower cars then the J and Z, but runs regularly. One big problem with this line, is that, it some many different services, and service changes.
1 - The best local service of all train services. Comes regularly, but can be crowed in rush hours. On time schedule and few delays.
9 - Slower then the #1. Service the same.
3 - Does come as often as the #1 but service is good overall. Never crowed, even in rush hour, and fewer delays.
2 - Very Sluggish. I call it the super local. It takes the longest route to the Bronx from Manhattan, and doesn't come very often. The trains are dirty and crowded. However, not as bad as the N line.
B - Good Overall. Comes more often then most lines, and fast. however, it could be a little cleaner.
6 - Very similar to the #1 but could be extremely crowded during rush hours. At times, this line suffers from delays.
Z - Identical to J.
Question: How much of the difference in the service of these various lines can be attributed to the TA mngt ????
- Could it be that some TA opns mngt is better than others ???
- If so why doesn't top brass profit from the talent & apply their procedures to other divisions ???
- What does the TA Pres/top mngt care about (their office, what's for lunch, cost of opns, on-time preformance) ???
Granted some of this difference is due to:
- Tracks (four vs. three, elevated & tight curves vs. not)
- Trains (older, slower, etc.)
- Population density (too many people for too few cars, i.e. faster newer cars on the LIE wouldn't change a thing)
So the bottom line, what will fix the system: $$$, tinkering with schedules, opns procedures ??? (YES all of the above will help, but have they overlooked some key area ???)
Mr t__:^)
Hmmm...I must disagree with many of your assessments. (Granted, I haven't spent more than a month at a time in NYC for five years, but I'm pretty familiar with the subway system.)
A: Pros: nice express run along CPW; spectacular run through the Rockaways; interesting station at 190th Street. Cons: boring run through Brooklyn, but at least it's express.
B: Pros: West End line; Manhattan Bridge. Cons: R68A's; slow local along CPW.
C: Pros: seats are easy to come by. Cons: slow, slow, slow -- boring local run all the way.
D: Pros: Brighton line; Manhattan Bridge; nice express run along CPW. Cons: no complaints here.
E: Pros: none. Cons: crowded; boring run through Queens; local in Manhattan.
F: Pros: Culver line; Gowanus Canal crossing; interesting (but unused) station at York Street. Cons: Delancey Street and Second Avenue smell funny; boring run through Queens.
G: Pros: seats are easy to come by. Cons: local all the way.
H: Pros: free admission to the Transit Museum. Cons: I've been waiting decades for it to come.
J: Pros: fascinating ride through Brooklyn and Queens; Williamsburg Bridge; interesting stations at Essex Street, Canal Street, and Chambers Street; fascinating trackage in Manhattan. Cons: no complaints here.
L: Pros: interesting ride on eastern segment of route. Cons: long waits, local all the way.
M: Pros: see J. Cons: I think they've reduced the M run to Brooklyn to about five minutes a day by now.
N: Pros: Sea Beach line. Cons: local all the way.
Q: Pros: R40's; Brighton express, Manhattan Bridge. Cons: R40's; what's it doing on Sixth Avenue?
R: Pros: none. Cons: local all the way; boring run through Queens.
S(42): Pros: interesting history (still largely visible). Cons: too short.
S(F): Pros: interesting history and views. Cons: inconvenient transfer to C.
S(63): Pros: not much. Cons: 20-minute headway.
S(R): Pros: spectacular run through the Rockaways. Cons: isolated.
Z: see J.
1: Pros: runs often and pretty empty outside of rush hours; history; interesting stations at South Ferry and in Washington Heights. Cons: virtually always makes unscheduled express runs during rush hours.
2: Pros: excellent express run in Manhattan; redbirds. Cons: slow ride through the Bronx; crowded in rush hours.
3: Pros: excellent express run in Manhattan, although not quite as nice. Cons: crowded in rush hours.
4: Pros: express; redbirds. Cons: crowded in rush hours.
5: Pros: express; Dyre Avenue line; redbirds. Cons: crowded in rush hours.
6: Pros: City Hall; redbirds. Cons: local; crowded in rush hours.
7: Pros: interesting elevated run; redbirds. Cons: crowded in rush hours.
9: see 1.
--------------
Now, how about stations? I'll let someone else start off with their favorite or least favorite stations.
I was curious to know since I live in Florida and am transferring to NYC later this year, what are the car assignments for the IND/BMT
I've attempted to copy for you the car assignments as of late 1995, along with the number of cars of each type. line by line, although I suspect the formatting will get fouled up in the process. If you can't read this, you can find it where I did, on this New York Subway Resources site, under FAQ.
What car types and how many are assigned to what trains?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Answer as of November 1995)
Line AM Rush PM Rush
A 80 R-38, 224 R-44 70 R-38, 224 R-44
B 190 R-40 200 R-40
C 96 R-32, 72 R-38 96 R-32, 56 R-38
D 240 R-68 224 R-68
E 220 R-32 210 R-32
F 400 R-46 352 R-46
G 72 R-46 352 R-46
J/Z 80 R-40M, 88 R-42 80 R-40M, 88 R-42
L 24 R-40, 112 R-42 16 R-40 104 R-42
M 152 R-42 152 R-42
N 80 R-32, 20 R-40, 120 R-68a 70 R-32, 10 R-40, 120 R-68a
Q 104 R-68, 40 R-68a 104 R-68, 30 R-68a
R 30 R-32, 184 R-46 184 R-46
RockS 12 R-44 12 R-44
FrnkS 8 R-32 8 R-32
1/9 280 R-62 260 R-62a
2 310 R-33 290 R-33
3 216 R-62a 207 R-62a
4 70 R-33, 270 R-62 70 R-33, 270 R-62
5 90 R-26, 80 R-28, 80 R-26, 70 R-28,
100 R-29, 50 R-33 90 R-29, 40 R-33
6 90 R-29, 50 R-36, 230 R-62a 80 R-29, 40 R-36, 240 R-62a
7 30 R-33s, 290 R-36 29 R-33S, 280 R-36
GCS 10 R-62a 10 R-62a
The B now has a number of R-68 trains, the FS has been converted to entirely R-68's.
Number of trains entering the Manhattan CBD (or crossing a key point on a non-Manhattan line) during the peak hour of the morning rush:What car types and how many are assigned to what trains?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Answer as of November 1995)
Line AM Rush PM Rush
A 80 R-38, 224 R-44 70 R-38, 224 R-44
B 190 R-40 200 R-40
C 96 R-32, 72 R-38 96 R-32, 56 R-38
D 240 R-68 224 R-68
E 220 R-32 210 R-32
F 400 R-46 352 R-46
G 72 R-46 352 R-46
J/Z 80 R-40M, 88 R-42 80 R-40M, 88 R-42
L 24 R-40, 112 R-42 16 R-40 104 R-42
M 152 R-42 152 R-42
N 80 R-32, 20 R-40, 120 R-68a 70 R-32, 10 R-40, 120 R-68a
Q 104 R-68, 40 R-68a 104 R-68, 30 R-68a
R 30 R-32, 184 R-46 184 R-46
RockS 12 R-44 12 R-44
FrnkS 8 R-32 8 R-32
1/9 280 R-62 260 R-62a
2 310 R-33 290 R-33
3 216 R-62a 207 R-62a
4 70 R-33, 270 R-62 70 R-33, 270 R-62
5 90 R-26, 80 R-28, 80 R-26, 70 R-28,
100 R-29, 50 R-33 90 R-29, 40 R-33
6 90 R-29, 50 R-36, 230 R-62a 80 R-29, 40 R-36, 240 R-62a
7 30 R-33s, 290 R-36 29 R-33S, 280 R-36
GCS 10 R-62a 10 R-62a
The B now has a number of R-68 trains, the FS has been converted to entirely R-68's.
Number of trains entering the Manhattan CBD (or crossing a key point on a non-Manhattan line) during the peak hour of the morning rush:
Is there a way to receive photos?
I can't copy these.
But there are lots of photos of the different types of cars on THIS site, www.nycsubway.org.
Go to the home page and click "Illustrated Subway Car Roster"
There is (was) a nice calendar put out the past few years of old & recent subway cars. I picked up a couple of years in the store at Branford (Shore Line Trolley). If U want the publ name, leave a post & i'll find one of them (put away in a safe place).
Mr t__:^)
P.S. EYE also know of a publ of NYC buses. The calendar has two weeks per page (so U get more pictures) & happen to know he's still publishing. So if anyone is interested, leave a post.
Mr t__:^-
I'd like to add:
H: Pros: Never crowded. Cons: Really, really, really long headways.
2things I would like to comment on: How can the 9 be slower than the 1 when all they do is alternate stops uptown? Don't say the M uses slower cars than the J/Z. The fleets are the same-- the cars are interchanged freely due to car wash requirements.
Why don't you go to the Essex Street or Chambers Street station and make some comparisons. Clearly you will see that the M uses different cars from the J and Z. The same is true between the 1, 9, 3, 4, and 6 trains. The 3 and 9 uses a slower model of these cars. They are also manufactured by a different company.
I should know, I work the line! And I have worked the J/Z & L and worked in East New York Yard moving cars around! Here are the car assignments for those lines: R-40 slants (used on L line only) 4398-4449. Modified R-40's used on all lines:4450-4549. R-42's used on all lines: 4550-4949. The 1/9 uses the same pool of cars, inspected at 242St. adjacent to Van Cortlandt Park terminal on the #1 line.The cars on the 3, 4, & 6 are used on those lines only. Seldom do those cars venture off their own line. Check the colored boxes under the number boards. Blue for the #3; orange (I think) for the #4; and yellow for the #6.
Thank you for explaining to me the different models of trains. For some reason, certain lines runs slower regardless of what train car is used. I have rode the #1 line for years, and know it runs faster and smoother than the #9 and #3. As for the N, the Q used those same cars very well, especially around turns. The N takes for every around turns - even slower than the R which uses the 46's.
All I can say is if you want a ride on classic rapid transit cars (and I do mean rapid!) come to philly and ride our Budd cars while they're still here, thatis if the septa strike ever ends.
I agree...these cars are not meant for New York...they're too fast!
It seems as if the Septa Seahag has been reincarnated in several new forms, can it be attributed to the Philly transit strike?
Hey guys I must have missed the question about the almond joy cars from the land of SEPTA. I am guessing that someone considered using the M-3s or "Almond Joys" for #7 servoce. That probably would not be a great idea. But in defense of those wonderful Budd cars they still look good, and as I have said a while back when someone asked for the fastest subway car, that those Market-Frankford carts can hold there own to anything that the NYCTA has from the R-68s to the R-33s. These cars accelerate well and can really move. But yes they fail as far as air conditiong goes.I read with a little sadness that the new M-4s don't have the zip of the almond joys. Is this really true and are they cramped?
Because the previous thread has gotten fragmented, I've started over here.
I was in GCT last night and arrived on Track 40. I saw that both tracks 39-40 connect to an upper level turnaround, which means that I was wrong when I said that there were no upper level turnarounds. Also, the rails showed obvious use. I asked about this, and the engineer told me that the turnarounds are used for the storage of trains during the day. I asked about whether the tunnels had adequate clearance, and he said that he didn't know, but that not all of the turnaround tunnels were used. I think that some of the tunnels are too tight, because that's what I was told years ago, but I don't really know any more.
The upper level turnarounds come out on the E. side of the terminal on one or more of tracks 1-5. None of these tracks have platforms. I couldn't get close enough to see whether the rails showed use. It is certainly possible that trains are pulled into the turnarounds and stored, or maybe brought all the way through and stored on the eastern tracks under the Graybar building, or even brought through the turnaround, switched onto tracks 1-11 (the ones that are stubs) and later backed out, reversed, and routed back through the turnarounds as needed. I don't know. I am sure, though, that no revenue service is put through the turnarounds because 1) there is no need to do that since the trains are bi-directional; and 2) I've been riding them since 1970's and never had that happen to me or anyone I know.
I also checked the elevation of the tracks and concourse. The concourse rises somewhat as it approached Lexington Ave. This may be to accomodate the turnarounds, or simply because of the street elevation, I don't know. I confirmed that there are occasional dropoffs between adjacent tracks in the eastern and western ends of the terminal, as I said earlier. That's all I know at the moment.
Nothing new to add about the "third level." Hope all this helps.
--mhg
as it says in my subject i am looking for a subway cay and other ny stuff fot my resturant by disney area. signs station markers, ect
anyone know where i can get some ??? phone 407-721-0972 or email me
check out my web page www.floridagetaway.com/nypw
I would think that for a whole subway car, you'd have to buy a scrapped one from the MTA, if they even sell them. I don't know. I have occasionally heard of pieces of subway cars being used as decorations in NYC restaurants, though I've never actually seen one.
As for signs, however, there's a little antique shop/yard in NYC, on the north side of East Houston Street near maybe Second Avenue, that has a big collection of subway signs for sale, many of them in good condition. They quoted me prices of $150-250 for the big black rectangular signs that hang over the tracks and on station entrances, among others.
I don't know the name of the place, but they seem to specialize in funky commercial signs and similar stuff, and you'll see the subway signs outside among other types.
I'm not sure, but I think it may be B-4 It Was Cool Antiques, 89 E. Houston St., (212) 219-0139. If not, they'll probably know which store I'm talking about.
Just do me one favor in return: If you advertise your sandwiches/pizza/steaks/whatever as "New York Style," make sure they really are. We have a reputation to uphold, you know! :-)
There's a deli on Staten Island near the SI Mall that has an R-4 in it.
Also, there's a diner on Bway and 50th (?) near the Winter Garden theatre that has a mockup of an IRT redbird in it. I think it's called Elaines and it is owned by a former Miss Subways.
--Mark
There will be over 1,000 for sale shortly. I think you'd have to contact someone in the 'Scrap' area of the material dept. Start with the general info # (718) 330-3000 and go from there.
I will be visiting New York from July 24-31, and was wondering if the Transit Museum is sponsoring any special events, tours, fantrips or similiar ventures during that time frame. I am also traveling with someone who is very interested in ocean liners and this is his first time in New York. Is there anyone out there who has any knoweledge about where the liners used to dock in New York and if there are any special places we should see? Also how visible are the West Side LIRR yards from the street, and where is the best place to view the yards from at street level? Thanks
The West Side LIRR yards are very visible from 10th Avenue between 32
and 33 Streets. There is a ramp down to the yards there and you can
see right in. It is guarded so you can't get past the entrance, but
you can see just about everything.
Your timing is rather good! I just got a flyer (not here at work so wil post all info tonight) that NYC Transit RTO is sponsoring a ride on the New Technology Train R-110B covering the BMT Southern Division in Brooklyn (which consists of the Brighton, Culver, West End and Sea Beach Lines). I do not know the intended route. The cost is $25.00 and IIRC the pickup time is 9:30AM Sat July 25th at 34th St (I don't remember if it was 6th or 7th Ave). I'll post the entire flyer tonight.
This is NOT a Transit Museum event, by the way!
--Mark
As far as Transit Museum tours are concerned there is one: The Bronx Els on Sunday 7/26/98. But as is goes with most of the TM tours this one is probably fully booked. You might try calling the Museum at
718 - 243 - 8601 to see if there is any room left.
Ocean liners mostly docked in two place in Manhattan, both along the Hudson River. The first is just about where the Chelsea piers are now, below 23rd street. The United States Lines terminal was there, among others. The piers are no longer used for this purpose. The second location is just north of the Intrepid at 42nd street. There is still a passanger ship terminal there, and you can go right in and look around. This is where the Cunard and White Star lines docked, and where the Normandie burned and sank in the 1940's. Ships occasionally visit, but I think that the berths have not been dredged in so long that the largest liners can't dock there anymore.
Mostly, New York's maritime grandeur is past. Your best chance of seeing a ship is to go to the South Street seaport. To learn about what used to be, the Museum of the City of New York (105th & 5th) has a great exhibit on ships and shipping, and also (if its still being shown) a terrific photo exhibit of Bernice Abbot's work, which has some interesting shots of the waterfront. If you really want to see the waterfront, the Circle Line might be your best bet.
Luck,
--mhg
Howdy everyone! I've been sick the last week or so but Jack is back!
Some items to point out. About three weeks ago I was driving by the trolley portal at 40th and Woodland and saw a wonderful sight-a SEPTA PCC. It was just sitting there on the outbound track with two modern LRV's. I didn't get the number but was glad to see it.
Also, does anyone know whether or not the new cars for the Regional Rail were definately made by Bombardier?
Jack, you must still be a little woozy! We haven't had SEPTA transit service for 36 days and counting now. Thus, it was a little more than three weeks ago that you saw action at 40th St portal.
All kidding aside, the push-pull cars (non-MU's) are Bombardier products. The coaches are numbered in the 2400 series and the cabs in the 2500's. Several new coaches are on order, piggybacked with Metro North and NJ Transit orders, I believe, and these will be the 2600 series. The main difference between these and the older ones will be a center door.
And, speaking of center doors, these are surely missed on the Silverliner IV's with the strike crowds these days. The IV's were supposed to be retrofitted with center doors (the center panel was built to be able to be removed at some point) once the Tunnel was finished, but the cost was a little too high. The makeover of the IV's, however, is very nice - I rode on 335 last week and it looked fantastic!
They finally updated the site. Go to:
http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/mtacc/demo/mcgtreng.htm
-
No you can't use the metrocard on the Staten Island ferry,
but I have good news for you. The Staten Island ferry is free.
Of course you can ride the Staten Island Ferry on a Metro Card or Unlimited Ride Metro Card -- just stick it to the bottom of your shoe with a piece of gum!
Just don't do it on a wet surface.
BTW, since the ferry was made free last year, why are the turnstiles still at St. George?
"BTW, since the ferry was made free last year, why are the turnstiles still at St. George?"
To count the number of passengers, I presume.
The turnstiles are there to count the number of pax who use the Ferry. They won't disapear anythime soon.
Little known fact from a deckhand I know, now that there is no charge to carry passangers the Passanger Only Ferries (ie.. Non Kennedy Class) fall under different Coast Guard inspection rules. They no longer need a 6month dry dock inspection as well as some other small changes. Since the Kennedy Class still charges for cars they are still for hire vessels and there are no changes for them.
Speer-mint I assume.
It was a great ride for a quarter and even a better ride for free.
Can I make a small request? Can anyone tell me if it's possible to tell an R44 from an R46 just by looking at it from the outside? If so, I'd really like to know how.
I used to rely on the sound of the brakes. Not any more! Since the cars have been overhauled, you can't tell by their sound. R-46's used to make a "whistling" on release, whereas the R-44's made a sort of "chaw."
Look at the top corners of the passenger doorways -- R-44's have an extra piece of frame at the top that makes the doors appear more squared off, whereas the openings to the doors on R-46's have a simple, rounded corner. Also, the armrests next to the transverse seats have a little extension on R-44's, but on R-46's they are smooth and sort of rounded off.
I'm sure there are more differences visible to the naked eye, so let's see what everyone else comes up with!
How about the faux wood paneling on the interior of the 44's?
Or, of course, there's the "If it's on the [A] it's an R-44; otherwise it's an R-46" line that has been lurking out there...
Both R-44's and R-46's originally had the blue belt (or stripe) along their sides and across the front end. When they were overhauled the blus stripe was removed. On R-44 cars this area now has grey paint, whereas the R-46's have no paint at all. My understanding is that the R-44's were painted because when the blue paint was removed many of the R-44 cars had corrosion in this area. Other than that (and the things mentioned by Timothy and Todd) they're not many other visual differences between the two.
How about the controls? I know a completely different type of controller was installed on R-44's, but I haven't seen an R-46 controller in years.
The R-44/R-46 controllers were different when I rode them last almost 5 yrs ago.
The F, R, G uses the 46's. Only the A line uses the 44's. The 46's are
considerably faster than the 44's.
Both the R-44s and R-46s originally had a combination T-shaped brake and controller handle. Pushing the handle forward released the brakes and applied power; pulling it towards oneself applied the brakes. The deadman's feature was the T portion; twisting it so that it was at a right angle to its direction of travel (so it looked like T-handled shift lever in an automobile) nullified it. During rebuilding, they were fitted with a rotary combination brake and controller handle (Chicago's 6000s had a similar controller/brake handle). These cars also had analog speedometers; I remember seeing them function on the R-46s, but not on the R-44s. All cars today have digital speedometers, so you can easily tell how fast your train is moving. Too bad the R-1/9s and R-10s didn't have speedometers.
Look at where the blue stripe used to be. If I remember correctly, when the stripe was removed, you could see the actual stainless steel on the R-46's. On the R-44's, that area is gray.
Okay, two differences which have not been mentioned (outside of the obvious. Inside, the crew door on the R-44 is smaller and swings in while the R-46 has a larger crew door which slides. On the outside, there is an almost inperceptable difference. If you look at the R-44 coupler, you will see 2 chains attached to it where the R-46 has no such chains. The chains run from either side of the draft gear to the underside of the car body. The coupler (which has some axial rotation) may not be sitting parallel to the car body but the R-46 (which permits no axial rotation) will always be parallel.
Is there anyway, short of memorizing numbers, to tell the R68 and R68 A by sight from the outside, or the R62 and R62A.I know that usually they tend to stay on one line or the other but since they are interchangeable(within their division)...
I think the R-68A has a larger tilt-in portion of the windows than the R-68. As for the R-62 ans R-62A, at least from my observations, the R-62As are equipped with door hangers while the R-62s are not.
R68A's are numbered in the 5000's and the R68's are I believe in the 2000's.
Yes, the R-68A's are 5001-5200 and R-68 #'s are 2500-2924
One difference between R44 and R46 I noticed, and it is cosmetic-
On R44,the glass panels adjacent to the doors are still in place;
on R46, they're gone. I do believe they were there when first
delivered.
Wayne
I was sorry to see those glass panels go. On the R-46's most of them had been removed (probably by vandals). On the R-44 some have been removed. I'm not sure if it's the R-44's they were re-built by NYCTA that retained these glass panels or if it's the others.
Another R-44/46 difference is that on the lower (non glass) portion of the same panel - There was the key hole for the doors, but it wasn't there on the R-44's.
At one point did'nt the R46s have problems with cracks in the undercarriages of the cars? I don't remember hearing about any problems with the R44s in this area.
I seem to recall the cracks were in a structural member in the trucks, which were a new, untested type produced by Rockwell.
The truck problem was a nightmare resulting in litigation against Rockwell. Trucks were being constantly swapped out, and many of the R-46s were assigned to the CC for rush hour service only. The defective trucks were all replaced by 1983.
BTW, one other difference was the door to the motorman's cab. On R-44s, it was narrower, possibly hinged, and the window did not have a rubber grommet aound it. The window could easily pop out if one leaned against it - I saw it happen. On R-46s, it was wider, of the sliding type, and the window did have a rubber grommet. After overhaul, the R-44s were fitted with a panel in the window opening, with a small circular hole for those of us transit buffs who like to look out the window. The R-46s have the windows covered from the inside with a black sheet, with a narrow slot for looking through - if it's not blocked off with a sheet of newspaper.
So, why are so many of the front windows of transverse-cab subway trains covered with black paint, newspaper, etc.?
Looking out the front window is a well-known joy of subway fans, and it doesn't seem to hurt anything or anybody. And the transverse-cab trains are all equipped with windows in the cab doors that allow a front view if they're not blocked off.
Are operators that worried about their privacy that they'd ruin a good time for some of the subway's most loyal and responsible customers? Or is someone else doing it?
What's the deal here? Does MTA approve of blocking these windows? How about the union? How about all you operators and subway employees out there?
Technically by rule, newspaper should not be covering the cab window. It is done because that little opening causes a confusing glare on the motormans windshield. BTW: I do feel sorry for the rail fans out there especially the young ones. When I was younger, I learned all about the system by looking out the front window. That "luxury" is getting rare today. When I worked the N a few years ago, I could hear the glee of youngsters on occasion who were lucky enough to look out the front window when I had an R32 or #2 cab of an R68. My boys were excited when the R40's were put on the Q and they could ride the Brighton Exp. with a front end view. Transverse cabs: as a MOTORMAN (that's what they hired me as and that's what I still consider myself!) why do I need it? I'm in the corner anyway operating. I don't need all that empty wasted space. TRANSVERSE CABS=OPTO capability. It takes away the fun out of looking out the front window.
Unfortunately, you never see R-68s with the narrow (I presume) #2 cab facing out anymore. Once in a while, I got lucky on a Q train back in the early 90s. Now, with the R-68s being reworked into 4-car sets, we definitely won't be seeing the narrow cabs facing out.
The first R-68 4-car unit has not yet been completed and is not in service. It will be 2500 - 2501 - 2503 - 2502.
So that is beginning now? Has the problem at Concourse yard been resolved? Or ar they still going to have to pull them all off the D next year?
There are many issues which must be resolved but at the present time the sentiment is to leave the R-68s on the D line & at Concourse yard. There are 3 major problems which must be solved in order for the 4-car units to be properly supported in Concourse Yard.
1) Additional Cars to increase the spare factor.
2) Additional space to perform unscheduled maintenance.
3) A track section long enough to perform Track Testing.
Hey, I like that appropriately-colored "D". I didn't know you could do that.
P.S. Are there official 24-bit RGB values for the various colors used to designate the subway lines? If anyone has such a list, how about posting it.
I learned the HTML tag codes, and I've been using them in the posts. It uses a hexidecimal system RRGGBB with values 00-FF for each.
for orange I used #FF5000--the red is on full, and the green is half on. There is no set hue for the colors. They vary from sign to sign to map to map. The original 1979 map had brilliant oranges and greens, and afterwards they mellowed out. The D signs on R-68's are more pale than on other signs, and the N and Q on R-68A and R-40 are a brighter lemon yellow. (on the R-68, they are an almost reddish traffic light yellow.) Some R-40's have B and N with the same yellow-orange with white letter, (if its supposed to be yellow, they don't make yellow with white letters anymore; if it's supposed to be orange, they don't make orange N's) On a poster listing metrocard stations a couple of years ago, they used a deeper orange for BDFQ, and used almost the lighter orange usually used for those lines (with white letters) for the N & R. What I've suggested in the past is for them to use this color (#757500) for the Broadway lines. It is deep enough to use with white letters, (I always thought black&yellw was ugly), and would make the line on the map more visible too. Now that the mapmaking is all computerized, that should be easy.
What I await is digital color signs. I'm hoping by the time the R-143's are constructed, LED signs with blue will be viable (more perfected and less costly) so they can be used on the cars.
The R68's A are simply faster and were mostly used on the Q line. On the other hand, the R68's came out earlier running mostly on the D line. One is manufactured by a canadian company, while the other is manufactured by a Japanese company.
Actually, the R68's were built by Westinghouse-Amerail (or was it Amrail?) which was some sort of French consortium or something like that. You may be thinking of the R62A's, which were built by Bombardier -- a Canadian company.
Sorry but you are wrong on several counts. The R-68As are definitely not faster than the R-68s. The cars, which are virtually mechanically identical operate at the same speed. Second, the R-68s were built by Westinghouse Amrail (A french consortium & ANF of France. They were actually built in two groups which differ from each other in several ways. The first group (the base cars) were built with car numbers 2500 - 2724 and the second group (the option cars) were built with car numbers 2725 - 2924. Finally cars 2500-2599 and the R-68A fleet made up the D line through early 1995. In 95, the 200 R-68As were sent to Coney Island in exchange for R-68s #2600 - 2799. The R-68As ran on the Q line until they were moved to the B line in 1997. Currently the D line is made up of 276 R-68s #2500 - 2775.
Living on SI, I ride the SIR daily. This line uses R44s. I have noticed that on most of the trains there are cracks eminating from the compartments housing the door controls to the doors themselves. On R46s this has been eliminated with a break in the wall from the compatrments to the doors.
Please remember the R44's on the Staten Island Railway are modified from the orginal R44's. They were also rebuilt by a different firm that the deal fell through when the cars couldn't pass load tests and the rebuild job was finished by the TA shops.
R44's on the SIR don't have tripcocks, do not share compressors on the B unit and are not semipermaentate coupled (I believe). They can also operate backwards from the head car without a yard key.
First - NYCT R-44s and R-46s do not have compressors on the 'B' cars either.
Second - R-44s and R-46s can operate backwards from the head car at full speed.
Third - What is a yard key? In more than two decades in the business, I've never heard the term except on this site.
First - NYCT R-44s and R-46s do not have compressors on the 'B' cars either.
Second - R-44s and R-46s can operate backwards from the head car at full speed although I can't imagine anyone doing it.
Third - What is a yard key? In more than two decades in the business, I've never heard the term except on this site.
My big question is: WHEN IS THIS STRIKE GOING TO END??? or IS THIS
STRIKE EVER GOING TO END??? It is totally stupid for a strike to last
this long, especially since the whole city relies on the system.
Something should be done to get at least part of the system running.
I just cannot see Philadelphia becoming the largest city without a
transit system. Here are a few other questions I have concerning the
SEPTA strike:
1. Why can't the city hire temporary replacement workers to operate
some of the major bus routes and subways?
2. When the strike began, there was talk of SEPTA managers operating
the Broad Street Subway, Market-Frankford Line, and Subway/Surface
Trolleys. How come that plan didn't materialize? Is that option still
being considered?
3. Of the system that's still running, which is the Victory (former
Red Arrow), How come service can't go into the city limits of
Philadelphia? I know there is one line, which is the Route 37, that
runs between Chester, and Broad Street and Snyder Ave. in South
Philadelphia, via the Philadelphia International Airport. However,
I don't know if that route is in the Victory, or city division. If it
is a Victory route, it should be able to continue running.
4. Back in 1983, SEPTA's commuter rail system went on strike for
108 days (over 3 months). What is the likelihood that this strike
could be a "carbon copy" of the 1983 rail strike? Is it likely that
this strike will break the record of being the longest transit strike
ever?
Although the SEPTA strike doesn't affect my daily life, I still
would like to see it end REAL SOON! I had made plans to bring a
couple of my friends from New York City who are also subway buffs,
to Philadelphia this summer to check out the subway and el, and I
have until September to do this, because they go back to school, and
the next chance will be during the winter holidays. I hope I won't
have to end up cancelling my plans.
Hope someone here can answer my questions.
Thanks,
Timothy
In response to your questions:
1: Septa won't do it, the TWU won't let 'em and Rendell does whatever SEPTA does.
2: The plan has been ruled out for some d.s. reason, though the El and subway still run, but not for revenue.
3: The routes I know still run are the RR, and everything out of 69th St. except the El. The NHSL, the 101 and 102 and buses at least up to 111 still run west of the city.
4: It doesn't look good. Thanks to the union, we may not get the DNC in 2000. Last week, a planned visit was postponed because of striking events. I don't know what else the union will do but they've demonstrated that they aren't above inconveniencing the entire east coast(i.e.-standing in the way of the R7, which uses AMTRAK lines!!!!!!!
And of course some residents voice their outrage. It's not uncommon to see F*** SEPTA tags all over town.
Jack seems to have hit the nail on the head. In response to your question 3, the 37 is a City Division route even though most of its run is outside the city - that's a historic anomaly, since 37 was part of the old PTC. Route 108, a Victory route that runs from 69th St to the Airport, is running (I just saw it today), but its operation within the city is limited. There are others in the 100 series that are Victory (ex-Red Arrow) and those drivers are represented by the UTU, which settled its strike without ever striking in April.
Some Victory routes, such as 124 and 125, are only partly running to avoid any service to the city.
The daily Inquirer has been giving a small table in the Metro section covering what's running, what's not, and what's truncated.
As for the striking operators, I am convinced that they make too much money. How else can they afford to miss five weeks of work without pay or medical benefits? There is one explanation, and it's a little funny with its logic. Many companies, hospitals, universities, etc have contracted with charter and school bus operators to provide employee transportation services during the strike. I've been told this, and haven't verified it, but who do you think is providing the extra manpower needed for these operators to field these services? Hmmm....
Hmmm... I guess they dont really make all that much money then huh Bob?
Many of us here in Phila are beginning to wonder if they DO make too much money. Who else could afford to be out of work for over a month with no medical coverage, etc? The mortgage companies, banks, utilities, etc, to the best of my knowledge, don't waive payments just because an individual is out of work. However they're managing to do it, it's a mystery to me.
My point was that it's interesting that some drivers, while striking to make a point with one employer, are making money by driving with a company which may only need the extra manpower because of the strike. I'm not knocking them - they have to make a living, too. There's some irony here which I guess you don't see. This is life in America, I guess.
On the other hand, look at it this way. The taxpayer is saving money because SEPTA, which only covers a portion of their operating costs, is shut down. The drivers are making money by driving for private operators -- maybe more than before, maybe less. The private operators are making money. People are getting around using the private operators.
Lets go with this. How about SEPTA renting out the buses to allow more private operators to replace more service? If former SEPTA employees want to go into business, fine, as long as they provide the service. Who knows? Perhaps by wringing out inefficiencies (management and their own), they'll earn more than before. There's only two subway lines -- perhaps SEPTA can lease those out as well.
Pretty soon, that will be that.
On the strike front, you have to admire the UAW's strategy. A small number of workers go on strike, making them ineligible for unemployment compensation, but this idles the whole of GM. The rest of the workers are laid off, not on strike, so they get unemployment payments -- over GM's protests, raising GMs unemployment insurance taxes based on its layoff rate. So the guys in Flint are taking the big hit for the entire union.
On the other other hand, Local 230s strike has merely pointed out that their jobs can be contracted out or privitized with savings all around.
Usually the workers can't afford to go out on strike. You are unaware of union politics. They are ran by beaurocracy, not by the members themselves. Most strikes happen because of divisions within the executive board of the union itself. I can't speak for SEPTA, eventhough they are TWU, just like NYCT. But I can tell you this: The 1980 NYCT strike was because of divisiveness WITHIN the union leadership, not those out in the "trenches". NYCT workers were LOCKED OUT, we were told by the Transit Cops babysitting the terminals that if we wanted to sign on, we would have to go down to 370 Jay St. The workers are FORCED to join the union. On the other side of the coin, the union is needed for job protection. The least little thing, management wants to suspend you. The policy is "Guilty till proven innocent" Finally workers sometimes have to go thru the union just to get a day off. Transit workers work odd hours & have odd days off. We accept this, it's part of the job. But sometimes management refuses a request for a day off eventhough the employee has time "in the bank" I've even had asked somebody to work for me & still management denied it. This is where the union comes in to get you that day off.
I have had experience with unions and their interworkings. As a young union member, I recall going to a meeting when a strike authorization vote was to be taken. Naively I was looking for ballot boxes, etc. At that point I realized that the vote would be a "voice" one with a show of hands. Of course, two things could happen: 1) People are intimidated to vote for a strike, since this is what the union wanted, or 2) The vote, regardless of how anyone voted, was counted such that the union got what it wanted.
The single big issue I can't understand with TWU is that Mr. Brookens has allegedly not advised the rank and file of what is on the table. I have heard that the overwhelming majority of members (and I'd bet few of them can afford to be out of work this long, so I don't blame them for taking other work) did not want to strike. Brookens seems to like the limelight and I think this is driving much of the action. He is now jousting with a powerful state senator who may very well look to cut SEPTA funding as a result of this whole affair.
I'm not saying labor is wrong or management is wrong. There are sins on both sides. The shame of all this is that transit-dependent people are without ways to get around and those who can choose to go other ways will likely not return to SEPTA when the strike is over. SEPTA will never be the same and the TWU is only hurting its own members by prolonging the action. Of course, SEPTA could help too, but you've heard my spiel before on its responsibility to be efficient and meet fiscal constraints. There's some give and take all around.
Whats ironic is that your saying SEPTA workers make a lot of money and then you turn around and say they are driving for private companies. Why do you think they are driving for private companies? To pay their mortages and bills! And what exactly to you is to much money? If you were riding late at night and it appeared to you that someone was going to harm you I bet you would be overjoyed to see that over paid employee. Who are you to decide if someone makes 40,000 or 50,000 dollars that its to much? I think todays sports figures make to much money at several million dollars a year. You try to drive a bus or a train and deal with the public, the hardest part of the job and see if you would feel that you were overpaid.
A couple of points:
1. I often do ride transit (when it's running) late at night and I appreciate those workers. I also appreciate it when they do their jobs. I admit it's not easy but too many drivers make the riders dislike them with their bad driving habits, rudeness, inconsiderate manner, etc. I have also seen drivers who ignore troublemakers, etc on runs because they don't want to get involved, even though they have radio contact with police. I have seen drivers leave vehicles because they didn't want to drive in snow, ice, etc and the passengers were stranded. There is a "social contract" here and this is what the driver is getting paid to do. When they don't fulfill this contract, they are, in my opinion, getting overpaid.
2. I am glad that I don't have to drive a transit vehicle although I have a job which often puts me in direct contact with the hostile public. Sometimes I don't think I'm paid enough either. But I knew going in what the job was going to be. In the same manner, unless they are completely naive or stupid, folks who become transit drivers have a fairly good idea of what to expect. If the pay isn't enough, perhaps they should try other fields.
3. I agree that sports figures are overpaid. We live in a society that treasures sports talent a little too greatly and refuses to recognize other talents. We found one area in which we agree.
4. A 40-50 K annual salary is nothing to sneeze at these days. Compare it to an entry-level teacher, architect, engineer, or similar college graduate. It's better than almost any of these fields. It's pretty good for someone who can come out of high school with little formal training. Yes, the hours are crazy, the working conditions are not the greatest, the exposure to a hostile public is there - am I talking about the teacher or the transit operator?
Economists would say there is a quick and easy way to figure out if people are underpaid or overpaid. How many qualified people are willing to take the job? If you have difficulty recruiting people, they are underpaid. Outside poor central cities, notice the help wanted posters in every fast food restaurant? Those people are underpaid. Meanwhile, when the TA offers a test for a few positions, tens of thousands apply. I'm sure its the same in Philly. Of couse, it might be reasonable for the TA and SEPTA to pay more to get the ABSOLUTE BEST workers out there. But, then, that's what the public should expect.
The problem is this: the free market has placed a value on highly skilled (pro athletes) and educated (doctors, lawyers, and CEOs) which is far, far above the average worker. People don't think that's fair -- the more skilled and educated deserve more, the think, but not THAT much more. But there is nothing they can do about it in the private sector. In the public sector, however, people's values have an effect. Therefore, anyone with a college diploma will earn less in the public sector than in the private sector. And anyone without a college diploma will earn more in the public sector than in the private sector.
And, therefore, aside from a few non-financially motivated individuals, most of the low paid managers and professionals (ie teachers) in government tend to be those the private sector would be unwilling to hire. Or, as in the case in NYC now, it raises standards and finds it cannot find qualified teachers, social workers, etc.
The worst part of this situation, for me, is not the fact that I earn less per year than the average private sector worker in Manhattan, including all those working part time and cleaning bathrooms. After all, a $50,000+ salary is nothing to sneeze at, and I don't think the variation in wages are fair either. The problem is that when I sniff around to see about another job, private sector employers seem to assume that as a government employee I must be lazy and incompetent.
The fact is that this SEPTA strike really wasn't about pay increases but for certain union rules that garantee job security. Zero drug tolerence may sound good but everyone should be given a chance excepting if an accident of incident occur directly because of operator drug or alcohol abuse. There should never be part timers allowed because this is where overtime and extra pieces of work will go. Management should at least have meetings with the union concerning schedule changes and cuts in lines of service. I think certain types of services can be contracted out to private services but again the union should be consulted to see if they can provide the service cheaper and more reliably. While $50,000 is nothing to sneeze at its worth nothing if you dont have security.
I personally an proud to be a NYC transit employee as well as any other employee who comes to this page regardless of position. But I can personally testify that there are days that even I a transit buff at heart could have a really bad day and may get testy with a innocent customer or member of the public. And if I were to find another job that paid equally as to what I make now I may just consider going into that field because of the high stress related to driving a bus in Manhattan and many other operators will tell you the same thing. Of course once you get used to a certain type of life style and way of living its hard to just look into other fields of work especially if you only have a High School diploma.
I love Philly and visit often but have never taken a ride of transit there so I can't say how bad it is there but here in NY I do believe transit workers here are much more professional and take pride in what they do especially with the high emphasis on customer service by management.
We are agreeing again! Must be the full moon?
Anyhow, the only point on which we disagree is the drug business. As a customer, I want the operators drug-free. Yes, it's easier said than done, but it's a noble goal. Too many SEPTA operators have had accidents relating to drugs (the most notable being the operator of the Market-Frankford train that derailed in March '90) and then are quickly returned to service. This is scary to me.
Many, many SEPTA operators take the same approach to their jobs as you, and it is commendable. I know it's not easy to work with the public and I'm sure, with SEPTA's fare-free days, there will be many riders giving the operators what for (and worse) after missing 40 days. Unfortunately, there are many bad apples in the ranks of operators who only make it more difficult for the good ones to do their jobs.
The only problem with zero tolerence while it may sound very noble there is the very real possibility of a drug test being wrong. It has happened although not very much and is a very narrow chance of it happening, but even in our law and order society murderers get a chance to walk out of prison in less than 10 years.
As I said before I do not believe a chance should be given in a case of an accident being the direct cause of drugs or alcohol especially if human lives are injured or taken in the accident.
I agree. There is the chance of error in any such test. People have had positive readings on drug tests from doing something as simple as eating a poppyseed bagel. As you stated in your second paragraph, those whose drug or alcohol use results in an accident with injuries need to be handled accordingly. To date, SEPTA has been a little too lax with this and the union wants to keep it that way. As a customer, I would hope that this could be changed.
CNN reports that Rep. Richard Shelby of Alabama stated that AMTRACK's operating subsidy will have to be eliminated immediately, since it is competing for funds with highways, aviation, and other important priorities. Will somebody inform him that Alabama gets $1.35 back from the federal government in spending for every $1.00 it puts in in taxes (www.nemw.org, regional equity analysis) and that also takes money away from other priorities?
The current law requires AMTRACK to break even by 2002 or face an orderly liquidation. Since the Northeast Corridor probably makes money, and is subsidizing the rest of the system, there is no doubt which part of the country would end up liquidated. Hence Shelby's desire for a disorderly shutdown. Its economic war.
Congress has been babbling about eliminating Amtrak's subsidy for years. Nothing ever happens and I doubt this year's any different.
Just out of curiosity, what would happen to Amtrak employees if it were liquidated?
If Amtrak were liquidated a la Shelby, I believe the employees would arrive to find a sign on the door which said "Sorry, We're Closed, You Last Paycheck Will Be Mailed." The exception, of course, are ROW and signal workers on lines used by commuter rail lines, who would presumably be hired by state and regional transit agencies.
If it were liquidated in a more reasonable fashion, things get complicated. Let's say the Feds allow the states to take over the rails and stations, and issue a request for proposals for private operators to take the rolling stock and provide service. The question is, would the private operators be required to inherit union contracts and work rules? Moreover, my guess is only a few lines would attract operators, with the Northeast Corridor and Pacific Coast lines, and some of the lines radiating out of Chicago, the strongest possiblities. With seniority, would those who work on those lines be bumped? Hard to say.
Basically, I want to know why there was never a subway under Atlantic Ave.(or an el overhead). It's big enough and extends through to Queens, so why isn't there a line on it?
There is, and always has been, a line on it -- the Long Island Railroad. It used to run down the center of Atlantic Ave on the surface, and through a (now abandoned and recently rediscovered) tunnel to a ferry at the waterfront. It now runs underground from Jamaica Station (the hub for all LIRR trains) to Bed Stuy, elevated through Bed Stuy, then underground to a terminal at Flatbush on the edge of Downtown Brooklyn. The terminal is currently a hole in the ground, with a retail and entertianment complex planned.
It used to be a truism that Atlantic Avenue was planned to be a grand boulevard, wider than most streets, and filled with elegant shops. Unfortunately for Atlantic Avenue, retail business downtown grew up under the Fulton Street elevated instead of along Atlantic because people rode the el instead of promenading along Atlantic. Of course, the combination of Mayors Hyland and LaGuardia and the Fulton Street merchants forgot where their bread and butter came from and agitated to get rid of the Fulton Street el. The first Fulton Street department store to close was Loeser's (if I've spelled it right) within a few years after the war even though the economy was booming.
The rest, as they say, is history.
A similar retail development happened along Jamaica Avenue but I doubt if anything has replaced the department stores and shopping around 160th to 168th Streets. Could you imagine what would happen to Roosevelt Avenue if the Flushing el were torn down? All those businesses would probably get flushed, if I can pun.
Ed Alfonsin/SUNY Potsdam
The stretch of Atlantic Avenue west of the LIRR terminal has undergone an interesting change. It's now the home of many antiques shops, maybe not as fancy as those in Manhattan's Antiques District but not limiting themselves to sales "To the Trade." It's too early to say that Atlantic Avenue will become another SoHo, but stranger things have happened ...
One of the stranger things that has happened is the development of a similar antiques row on Bruckner Blvd in the South Bronx. My father in law says that years ago Atlantic Avenue was the place you went to buy junk. Has the merchandise changed, or just the marketing?
[One of the stranger things that has happened is the development of a similar antiques row on Bruckner Blvd in the South Bronx. My father in law says that years ago Atlantic Avenue was the place you went to buy junk. Has the merchandise changed, or just the marketing?]
From what I could tell on my one and so far only walk through the area, the antiques shops along Atlantic Avenue seemed decent enough but by no means fancy. They were more like flea market booths in a storefront setting than like the overpriced Martha Stewart-ish antiques shops you see in northwest Connecticut. As for the quality of the merchandise, I'd say that the dividing line between trash and treasure is too blurry to support any conclusions.
There's an interesting transit-related story with regard to the former shopping district along Jamaica Avenue. One of the reasons why the Jamaica Avenue El was demolished and replaced with the Archer Avenue tunnel was agitation by stores in the area, who though the old elevated structure was a blight. Macy's was the biggest store and the leader of this push. And once the El was gone, Macy's soon followed.
And, of course the Archer Avenue tunnel, which was supposed to go along one of the LIRR branches through St. Albans, Queens, hasn't been built and is never discussed as the "next construction project." It seems, from my looking at a map, that there are two short sections of LIRR track near each other in SE Queens, and one of them could be converted to subway tracks without a huge expense. Will it ever be done? Who knows??
If either of the two branches of LIRR track were to be converted
to NYCT use it would probably be the westernmost one (think it's
called 'Atlantic branch' don't quote me on that); the one that
winds up at Locust Manor and Laurelton stations. This would, of
course, mean that Far Rockaway and Long Beach LIRR would have to be
diverted to the other branch, the one that goes by St.Albans,
currently in heavy use by Babylon branch and lesser extent West
Hempstead branch. The upper level Archer Ave. tunnel curves south
east of Jamaica Center, where it ends I don't know, but from what
I remember, they have to construct a ramp, and a few hundred yards
of tunnel to connect it to the Atlantic branch. Will they do it?
I don't know. Much has to do with the relationship vis-a-vis
NYCT and the LIRR, I'd guess.
You are correct - the LIRR Branch through Locust Manor, Laurelton, and Rosedale is the Atlantic. The one going through St. Albans is the Montauk. At Valley Stream an interlocking allows movement between the two branches.
If LIRR ever relinquished the Atlantic Branch for NYC Transit use, the Montauk would have to be triple tracked at very heavy expense to carry the heavier train volumes required. This idea is a vestige of the MTA 1968 expansion plan, but is now not on any current expansion plan. With Metrocard allowing single fare trips from SE Queens into Manhattan, a major argument for this line is lost (two fare vs. one fare zone issue).
[With Metrocard allowing single fare trips from SE Queens into Manhattan, a major argument for this line is lost (two fare vs. one fare zone issue).]
Heavy competition from the "dollar van" services is another reason why expanding LIRR service to SE Queens might not make sense. Anyone riding an LIRR train into Jamaica any morning can see the fleets of vans discharging riders at the Jamaica Center subway terminal. Elimination of double-fare zones doesn't seem to have had much of any impact on the vans' buisness.
Remember that Fulton Street is one block north of Atlantic Avenue and has hosted a BMT el (1889 - 1940) and the IND subway (1936 to date). East of East New York, the Jamaica Ave. elevated (today's J train) is a block or two north and parallel to Atlantic Ave. This has been a transit route since 1893 (as far as Cypress Hills) and 1917 (from Cyrpress Hillls to Jamaica).
Does anyone know when the 63rd St connection will be finished? It seems like the construction has been going on for a long time.
The connection is due to be completed in 2001. The proper question should be, When will it open? Now that's a whole other story.
Not until 2001? That's three years from now, and the connection has already been under construction for several years. The entire Contract 1 subway only took four years. Why is it taking so long?
For one thing, 24-hour service has (mostly) been maintained through the entire process, including all express/local service during peak hours. I'm no expert on this, but I think splicing a new two-track line into an existing five-track line (which has to be be widened to six tracks) -- including the double fly-under -- is no small feat while trains go a rumblin' through.
larry u can not imagine the work that has to be done there...I have personally been on the tunnel on the queens side....the pilings have to be dug deep and thay have to be in place before any digging out is done...don't forget that the new connector is going to run below the current tracks which are already below the groung.....could u imagine if northern blvd collapsed........hope to speak to ya soon...
Building contract 1 caused much more distruption than building the 63rd St connection. The open cut method tore up entire streets at a time. There wasn't any existing subway line to worry about. There may have been areas where existing Els needed to be shored up but they were few and far between.
In the building of this connection, 4 subway lines on 5 tracks continue to run 24 hours a day (sometimes with reduced service) at the same time construction goes on. They have to ensure the existing lines are supported (a project in itself) before adding the new connections.
--Mark
Nonetheless, I get the feeling that the speed is slower and the cost is greater now than in the past. How long did Nassau Street take? or Christie St and the 6th Ave express? How long did the Church Ave connection to the Culver take? How much did they cost? (I know Nassau St cost $10 million -- that's just $110 million in today's money). If this is how long it takes, and how much it costs, you can forget about new investments.
Let's say keeping Northern Blvd open really inflated the cost. Would it have been cheaper and faster to build a new N/S bridge over the yards to a grade separated interchange with Queens Blvd, and then divert traffic for a couple of years? At the end, you'd still have the bridge, which we could use.
Note that the 6th Avenue tracks on the Manhattan Bridge are due to be shut down the same year (2001) the 63rd St tunnel is due to open. Perhaps they'll break ground on the LIRR/GCT connection the same year. That will really give Brooklyn the point.
There is one big factor in construction since the 1960s which did not exist to the same degree before -- worker safety. You can't compare how long it took to build the Contract One IRT to the 63rd Street project because (knock on wood) nobody will die in the present project while several people died in the building of the IRT. That is the difference: even up to maybe 50 years ago, it was presumed that somebody would die in a construction project if it was big enough. Now, though there are still construction deaths, we don't presume that every large project will have its "blood sacrifice."
No doubt worker safety and congetion raise costs, but it is difficult to believe it is by that much. And the average NYC construction worker earns less, adjusted for inflation, than in 1963 according to my calculations. Moreover, in other industries new technologies and materials bring costs down.
I can only guess that two factors play a role:
1) Mafia control of the construction industry, which the Mayor is going after. The book "Underboss" is enlightening on that score. Mafia-backed cartels would explain why workers are earning less, but costs are higher.
2) Contractors working the bid system. A TA engineer I met at a campground told me that 1/3 of all TA capital money is wasted. Contractors (usually lawywers who bid out the actual work) win the bid by bidding low, then spend every moment from day one documenting how every delay and cost overrun is the TA's fault. There is no way to write a contract detailed enough to prevent one of these operators from ripping you off, without spending more on the contract than on the project. A private entity would never do business with someone like that, the TA is legally required to.
I wasn't responding to the cost issue as much as to the time question.
Perhaps the time is generated by worker safety, as you said, and the desire to avoid disrupting service, as someone else said. Above ground, there is no question that highway reconstructions go on for years due to the desire to keep two of three lanes in operation. I don't think we should pay a Blood Price. But perhaps we should be willing to tolerate a year of hell to avoid a decade of heck.
I agree, they should slash & burn to get it over with.
The TA/City seems to care too much for every driver & deli owner.
This too can be carried to an extreem, but the Mayor/TA Pres should be able to get out in front of it with how much $$ were saved & how much MORE was added to the system to add capacity & improve service.
Heck, every IND rider would vote for Rudy if he got it done within 4 years ! And lots of LIRR riders would vote for George for the same reason.
Mr t__:^)
I agree with all those who think that the amount of time to repair the Manhattan Bridge and the amount of time to build the useless 63rd Street connection is an abomination. Under the Dual Contracts, the elevateds on 2nd, 3rd, and 9th Avenues all got express tracks added with express platforms added without any disruption of regular service on all four of the el lines.
No one has yet explained to me how the 63rd Street puts one more train on Queens Boulevard than is or could be there now--all that will happen will be to replace 'G' service with another Manhattan routing. That could have been done by simply running another six-minute service through 60th Street.
Real imagination would have been to connect the Crosstown to 63rd Street and have a Brooklyn/Queens/Manhattan loop or services shaped like the letter "J."
If the TA would finish the Houston/Chrystie connection to add the Nassau Street link, that could add another set of optional routings (and help with the Manhattan Bridge problem as well).
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Well put, indeed. To add to your observation concerning the els: the remaining Myrtle Ave. and Broadway-Brooklyn els were upgraded to subway standards without any disruption of service. The same can be said of the Jackson Park L in Chicago. There, the tracks were jacked up at stations to allow mezzanines to be built.
This is just a guess, but might there be an element of deliberate delay on the part of the TA? As long as this construction goes on, the TA can continue to claim that they are continuing to spend money extending/improving the system. When the project is finished, the TA would have to admit that they have absolutely no more extensions or improvements planned (cue accusations of lack of vision, lack of political will etc.), or perhaps be forced into spending some big money on the next project.
Yeah - maybe they could resume building the 2nd Ave line as soon as the 63rd St. connector is finished. In my dreams, right? Right.
Chicago recently did this with the reconstruction of the Green Line. A business case determined it would cost less and take less time to shut down the L for 2 years and rebuild it.
Did this actually turn out to be the case? Would CTA do it again if they had to rehablitate, as an example, the Evanston Express north of Howard?
--Mark
If I recall, the Evanston line north of Howard runs mostly on an embankment, with bridges over streets. There aren't all that many retaining walls. Now, south of Howard, well, that's another story. There are retaining walls all the way to Wilson .
The factors you mention make sense. But all around the country, construction costs have probably risen a lot faster than inflation, just like education and health care have. Why? 'Cause they are labor intensive, and thus not benefitting from the improvments in productivity that things like manufacturing and services undergo.
Better to compare NYCTA's construction costs to the costs of other similar projects being built by other agencies (public and private) in NYC and in other cities today, than to compare to past costs in NYC. While NYC is certainly expensive for construction, what about the fiasco in LA building their subway....
I understand what you are saying, but I still think public works are too slow and overpriced in NYC. For example, according to FW Dodge, a constuction data company, construction in general costs one-third more in NYC than the national average. Since the cost of living is also one-third higher, that makes sense. But it seems that the cost of public works, paid for by the worlds biggest sucker, is 2/3 times the national average. They shut down the LA subway because it was costing $200 million a mile -- in an area whose cost of living is just as high as NYC. I doubt we could be more subway for $200 million a mile. Heck, the 63rd St connection is going to cost $700 million to go a few feet.
Take the Manhattan Bridge problem. As has been posted, one solution is to link the bridge tracks up with the Cranberry and Rutgers tunnels on both ends, taking advantage of their unused capacity. When the new signal system increases the number of possible trains, the bridge could be abandoned, in the interim, it could be used just during rush hours. Now, that's four connections. If they cost $100 million apiece and would be disruptive for a year or two, maybe this is doable. If they would cost $700 million apiece and take eight years, forget it -- well have a subway until the Manhattan Bridge rusts, and that's it, no more subway.
Assume that labor is 50 percent of your cost, and construction workers cost $75,000 each in wages and benefits. That's 666 man-years, or 333
workers for two years, or 100 people working per shift, round the clock for two years, with jackhammers, backhoes, dump trucks and other mechanized equipment. Isn't that enough?
Yes, and we didn't have Environmental Impact studies or NIMBY to slow up construction or increase costs...
The Nassau St. connection had to thread its way through a congested area under a narrow street, dodging both the East Side and West Side IRT lines, not to mention the IND line at Fulton St. which was being built at about the same time. At Chambers St. the line runs side by side with the Lexington Ave. line, with only one wall separating the two lines.
where do you go to put in an aplication to be a red cap at Penn. sta..any info would be greatly appreciated
DOES ANYBODY KNOW THE STATUS OF THE WORK BEING DONE ON THE BWAY LINE TRKS. OF THE MAN. BRIDGE I WAS RIDING ON THE B LINE THIS MORNING AND THE WORK LOOKED ALMOST FINISHED I ALSO HEARD THE WALKWAY WILL ALSO OPEN IS THIS TRUE??THANKS....
The work has looked almost finished since ... since ... 1988!!
--Mark
Are you sure? take a nice long look. thewalkway is blocked by what looks like a corrogated metal box, the size of a tractor trailor's trailor, and I see there is no third rail at some places, the canal st bridge line station has no track and no trackway, and the bridge is missing any rail in some places to make way for miniature cranes.
Phil
It was reported in the Daily News by Gridlock Sam recently that the automobile Brooklyn Bound upper level (which would be the roof of the roadbed of the Bway side) is closed for reconstruction. Sam blamed former Mayor Dinkins for this mishap in which those automobile lanes which were rebuilt during the Dinkins administration have to be rebuilt again.
This scenario seems to be repeating itself elsewhere. Exhibit A: the express tracks on the Brighton line were rebuilt not too long ago, and now I understand they're being torn up again for some reason. Exhibit B: the Queens Blvd. viaduct on the Flushing line. During the 80s, the tracks were redone. Susequently, deterioration was discovered all along the viaduct, necessitating extensive rebuilding which included tearing up the recently reworked tracks. Exhibit C: the trackbed on the 63rd St. line. Now they discovered that it wasn't done right in the first place and has to be completely redone including - you guessed it - tearing up the tracks.
Something isn't right here.
Steve B. writes
This scenario seems to be repeating itself elsewhere. Exhibit A: the
express tracks on the Brighton line were rebuilt not too long ago, and
now I understand they're being torn up again for some reason. Exhibit B: the Queens Blvd. viaduct on the Flushing line. During the 80s, the
tracks were redone. Susequently, deterioration was discovered all along the viaduct, necessitating extensive rebuilding which included tearing up the recently reworked tracks. Exhibit C: the trackbed on the 63rd St. line. Now they discovered that it wasn't done right in the first place and has to be completely redone including - you guessed it - tearing up the tracks.
The moral of this post is if you want something done right, don't do like the MTA; meaning do it right the first time or why bother?
I can only repeat what I was told by an actual TA engineer I met while on vacation last year. There is a set of preditor-lawyers who earn a good living winning construction bids from the MTA. The post the low bid, contract out the work, then spend every day from day one "documenting" how the fact that the work is late, poorly done, and overpriced is the TA's fault and not theirs -- with a eye to future litigation. The work is more expensive and of lower quality than the private sector could get from a real contractor. "Responsible bidder?" It's a joke, which does not apply unless you are in the Mafia or something (before it got greedy, the Mafia was a better deal than the lawyers). Disbarr them? A long, drawn out fight after which they form a new company and go right back to bidding. I worked in Materiel fo the TA, so I know he isn't making this up. And all the other agencies are worse.
So much for the benefits of contracting out. If you can't get good value out of your workers, only some of whom are goldbrickers trying to rip you off, how can you get fair value out of contractors when all the good ones get pushed off the bid by lowballers?
P.S. The 1989 City Charter included a clause which gave the Mayor more leeway to take someone other than the lowest bidder, based on the quality of work. One of these sleezballs sued and won -- state law trumps the Charter. You could have read about it on PAGE 10 of your local paper, written by a reporter who had no idea what it meant. I almost threw up.
P.S.S. Under the Wicks Law, every subcontractor on a job has to be hired separately, so they can all blame each other when the job is late/terrible/double the cost. Every Mayor regardless of party goes to Albany to demand that this law be repealed. And every state legislator collects a little kickback/campaign contribution in return for keeping it on the books. The Vampire State legislature just passed a bill, awaiting the Governor's signature, to require the Government to pay penalties if work is not finished on time. Another page 10 story.
AAARRRRRGGGGHH.
I was being sarcastic :)
The construction was supposed to be a short term project ending in the late '80s.
--Mark
I WAS JUST BROWSING THE SITE AND I NOTICED SOME PHOTOS OF THE LIGHT BLUE R33/R36 CARS THAT WERE USED ON THE #7 FLUSHING LINE DURING THE 64 WORLDS FAIR I WAS ONLY 3 IN 64 BUT I DO REMEMBER RIDING THESE "BLUEBIRDS" OFTEN TO MET GAMES IN THE LATE 70S TO EARLY 80S THEY HAD THE OLD STRIP FLUSHING LINE MAPS IN EACH CAR WITH ALL THE STOPS LISTED DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THESE CARS WERE USED ON ANY OTHER LINE??AND WHEN WERE THEY TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE I KNOW THEY DIDNT HAVE A/C
The cars were never used in service on ay other line although they were tested on the Dyre Ave line when delivered. Similarly, they were never taken out of service. They were so badly marred by graffiti that they could not be cleaned. They were painted white and later red. They are still in service today.
Some of the WF cars escaped to other lines... there are pictures on the site showing them in consists on the IRT main lines (mostly the #1). In general though, they stayed put.
The cars you mention are the ones in the R36 fleet without the
picture windows (Units #9524-9559). They can be distinguished from
the Worlds Fair cars by their set of three rectangular windows.
They were for years on the #1 line, now they're on the #6. I don't
know if they were ever blue (don't think so) or ever served on the
Flushing Line.
Wayne
Nope... check these out:
The first is #9418 on the #1 at Times Square. The second is #9497 on the #1 at Dyckman St. The third is #9517 on the #1 at 233rd St. None of those are in the range you mention.
I see some of the WF picture window cars on other IRT lines as well. I usually see this on the 2 line.
--Mark
The Flushing R-33's are used on the #7 and the #7 only. The Flushing R-36's are used on the 7 and also on the #6, usually mixed in with a unit or two of mainline R-36's (they look exactly like the other mainline redbirds, except they still have the original lighting along the center of the ceiling, as in the Flushing cars). The Flushing R-36's are not currently used on any other line (to my knowledge anyway). The #1 used them in the past, but is now exclusively R-62.
6 and 7 -- that's it. Lexington-Pelham and Flushing.
The World's Fair cars on the 6 are colored the same as the mainline cars, but they still have the picture windows and original doors, so they are very distinct externally. The WF cars on the 7 have had their doors replaced with ones pretty much identical to the other mainline cars, which is somewhat displeasing aesthetically. Why were the 7's doors replaced if the 6 runs their WF cars with the original doors?
I wouldn't say that. The doors on the WF R-36s, specifically, the windows, are very similar to the ones on the R-32s and R-38s (at least when the R-32s and R-38s were new). If you look close, you'll see that the door windows on the WF R-36s and WF R-33s are set lower from the top than those on mainline Redbirds. One other distinction: when the WF R-36s and R-33s were rebuilt, they kept the rubber grommets around the door windows. Same thing with the storm doors. The mainline Redbirds, and for that matter, all other rebuilt cars, have metal sheathing on the door window grommets.
Well, it was like that right after they were rebuilt, but those cars, too, were retrofitted with the metal frames. With the exception of maybe a few isolated storm doors, all cars have steel frames around the door windows, side doors and storm doors.
But on the 7, they are using doors with the window set higher up. This is clearly evident because with original WF doors the windows are at the exact same height as the picture windows giving the look of the cars a continuous "flow". For some reason they did this with the WF cars on the 7 but not the 6.
And the saddest thing about those cars when they were main lined was that they were NEVER washed. It was hard to believe other cars were on the 7
The R-36's that you mentioned are mainline R-36's. They're still some WF R-36's operating on mainline routes today.
Hi all,
In case you haven't ventured out into the site recently, here are some new pages on the site. They are all part of the Subway Line-By-Line descriptions:
IND 6th Avenue/63rd St.
IND 8th Avenue/Fulton
IND Concourse Line
BMT Broadway El/Nassau St. Subway
Updates to BMT Astoria El
Updates to IND Rockaway Branch
Complete list of IND Station Tile Colors
Thanks to Peggy Darlington, Adam Weiss, and Wayne Whitehorne for their contributions.
-Dave
As promised, here's the post on the R-110B march of Dimes trip.
There's a train ride (the flyer does not say fantrip) aboard the New Technology Train R-110B to benefit the March of Dimes. The train is expected to run in the "BMT Southern District" (usually the Brighton, Culver, West End and/or Sea Beach Lines).
Date: Saturday July 25th, 1998
Departs: 34th St and 6th Avenue at 9:30am
Cost: $25.00 for adults, $5.00 for children
For more information, (and I'd preseume, to reserve your spot), call the District #4 General Superintendent Office at (718) 714-3903.
--Mark
Does anyone know waht the new R143 cars look like
Are there any pictures anywhere of it????????
Dude, they haven't even been ordered yet.
They'll probably look similar to the R110-B.
-Dave
When the new trains (the R-142 and the R-143 respecfully) are delivered, what will become of the R-110 prototypes?
Ohhhh!!!!!
okay but what about the r142's
i know those were ordered
but i havent seen any picutes of them
The R-143 mock-up was officially unveiled today at the 207th St. O/Haul Shop. While it appears to have some of the looks featured on the R-110B, the R-143 will have a unique and distinctive look. The cars have fetures (if the mock-up is accurate) never seen before on an NYCT car, such as a door enable feature similar to the one originally delivered with the LIRR M-1's. Multi-colored LED signs too, complete with advertisements to (KFC ad on display). It is rumored that there will be an open-house at the 207th St. Overhaul Shop tomorrow, to introduce the R-143 to the public. I have no details as to time of if, in fact, there actually will be one. Details will follow.
Hopefully someon will get some pictures and make them available.
I concur!!!! Dave or anyone out there. If this info is true, It will be nice to see a couple pics on the site.
Tonight, while leaving the Dyre Ave station I saw a poster on the wall near the Station Agents booth, which made reference to a public display of the mock up of the R-143.
I am sorry I did not get the details, but it did mention 207st yard.
I will be working at Dyre tommorow. I will get the details and post them.
According to the posters so abruptly put up in subway stations the unveiling of the R143 mock up was at 207th st shops Friday July 10 from 3-8pm. Would this be the same mock up of the display from transit museum? the latest Transit Museum brochure announce from July til Sept a mock up of the train of the future is on display...
I don't know if the mock-up at 207th St. last night iis the same one you'll find at the Transit Museum, but it seems likely.
I went to the 207th St. shops last night, which, if nothing else, allowed me and my friend to poke around the 207th St. Shop!!! Very cool. Lots and lots of trucks lying about being worked on, and tons of truckless cars up on stands about six feet in the air.
As for the mock-up, it was not incredibly detailed, but you could see the design of the various cool electronic signs (one was a working model, others were just decals). They include a route map with light-up stops, an overhead sign with the next stop, and a smaller variable sign for service updates, assorted other stuff, and probably ads as well. The last one can animate like a scoreboard sign.
My other favorite part was the improved system of hand rails, including two smart new things: little hand-holds on the end walls, and double rails overhead, running the length of the ceiling directly down the center---always a tough place to be in a crowded car now, because there's nothing to grab.
The seats were actually benches -- no individual indentations or dividers -- which I'm sure our larger straphangers will appreciate. They're a pretty maroon color, but they're kind of hard.
They've sacrificed some seating capacity to make more standing and walking room, both down the middle and near the doors.
I took pictures with a throwaway camera, and I'll try to figure out how to post them if people want to see them, although I suspect a lot of subway fans took better photos and will be posting them shortly.
The mock up at 207 St is not the same as the one at the Museum. The one at the Museum is a mock up of the R142.....
if the mta is showing these off to the public, is this a sign that they will be introduced in the near future?
i'd love to see some of the improvements in the mock-up implemented sooner than later... a friend of mine is in tokyo and is raving to me about the quality of the subway system there..
again, any sort of rough timetable on this issue would be perfectly fine.
thanks.
jordan
Is the IRT Powerhouse at 58th St. still in service? Is it
possible to tour the facility?
The powerhouse is still in service, but it's no longer used to provide power for the subways. Subway power comes from facilities in upstate NY. Consolidated Edison uses the powerhouse as a regular generating facility.
I bought the unlimited metrocard on sunday
monday i used it in the morning with no problems
when i was going home i got on the train no problem
got off the train got on the bus and the free transfer was used
then i had to get on another bus
used the card but i could use it!!!!!!!!!!
the bus driver said i had to wait 18 minutes before using it again
whats that all about!!!!!!!!!!!
so i had to get a bunch of change out to pay for the bus!!
unlimited!
i knew it was too good to be true!!!
If you used the card on the same bus line within 18 minutes you can not use the card. The card is "Locked Out" for 18 minutes on the Subway, and same Bus Line number to make sure you are not "Passing Back" the card to other customers.
In the fall they will change it to only lock out the same subway stop I hear.
But the thing is it was two different bus lines
oh and yesterday i used the card to get on the subway after work
got off the train and went back on in bout 10 minutes and the card work
they should have worked out the bugs before introducing it to the public
There are some restrictions on bus lines. There are some lines you cannot transfer between without waiting the 18 minutes. These are listed on the MTA's Unlimited Metrocard page at
http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/mtacc/demo/mcgtreng.htm.
See the bottom under "Restrictions".
-Dave
As I understand it, the lock out is for _up to_ 18 minutes. I don't know any of this for certain, but here goes:
Some time ago, some clever folks figured out that the free-transfers would last for as much as 2 hours and 18 minutes (or so), b/c the clock used to time stamp the metrocards when they are used were updated every six minutes, or spoke to the central computer every six minutes, or something to that effect. As a result, depending on how soon after the clock "tick" you swiped your metrocard, you would have extra time to transfer. Certainly, that has happened to me.
The same logic should hold true for the unlimited ride cards. I don't think that the lock-out was intentionally programed at 18 minutes (I could be wrong, of course). I recall reading that the 18 minutes was a glitch and the MTA wanted a shorter time, just enough to prevent multiple use in one location. I think that it was programed at some lesser time period, like six minutes, but that if you time it just right, the lock-out could be for as long as 18 minutes, using the same sort of logic that makes the transfers last up to 18 minutes longer.
Since this is complicated to explain (if its true), the MTA just says 18 minutes.
As I said, I don't know this for sure. Can anyone confirm or deny?
--mhg
EYE think this goes back to the 1997 "blue" MetroCards that had a pass back lock-out feature. So the current 18 min is that same feature that was reactivated, that's why they say it's going to be fixed, actually it's going to be enhanced/improved/replaced. EYE don't know what specifically Tenn (Cubic programming) entends to do.
Mr t__:^)
the lockout, officially called "passback restriction" is designed to reduced card sharing(see Chris C's post). At present, according to official instructions, the passback applies to any station within 18 minutes, but sometime this fall the software will be changed to 18 minutes at the same station or same bus line.
even at 18 minutes, I already have seen people waiting to re-enter at my station bercause they forgot something on the street,or wnet outside to smoke, etc. PATH's passback period is one hour for their monthly card(not the 40 ride card)available by Mail which allows 46 rides during the month after which the balance is lost.
If the "swipe on exit to give someone a free ride" becomes a problem, (besides being hard to detect electronically), might provide the impetus for exit scanning. It'll be a pain in the ass and might require more exit turnstiles but it's already done in many systems throughout the world (DC Metro, BART, London Underground, Paris Metro, Brussels Metro...). The limit would apply to within 18 minutes at the station you entered at and maybe only 5 minutes at the station you exit from. Maybe the exit scanning would only be used at high volume stations or certain periods of the day. (An example of that is in London where outlying stations don't even have turnstiles at all--for entrance or for exit.)
Once exit scanning is in place they have the ability to charge based on distance traveled for those without monthly cards, or monthly cards good only between two given stations at various prices based on distance... the possibilites are endless.
-Dave
London only works without turnstiles because travellers are required to have a permit to travel with them at all times. This means that on-train checks and surprise exit checks are possible, and I understand these are ruthlessly efficient.
[London only works without turnstiles because travellers are required to have a permit to travel with them at all times. This means that on-train checks and surprise exit checks are possible, and I understand these are ruthlessly efficient.]
I've predicted this before and I'll say it again here: once tokens are phased out, the MTA will be able to require that all passangers have a valid metrocard on them in order to prove that they paid their fare. (Groups using a single card will have to prove the card was used for each of them). It will be just like London, Paris, D.C., etc. The police will be able to evict people from the system as fare beaters without waiting by the turnstiles, b/c they will be able to check the user's metrocard to see when it was last used. This will be good (panhandles evicted) and bad (my wife evicted when I pay her fare and get off at an earlier stop).
--mhg
Perhaps I am pressing the issue only because, secretly, I am amused by the notion of Gulliani Style storm troopers detaining rush hour commuters in midtown on monday morning demanding to see their metrocards. These special officers could carry card swiping machines on their belts so that they can read exactly where and when each commuter entered the system. As though the whole system isn't already devolving into and inneficient mess, now, let's get the Civil Liberties involved.
Well, exactly. We can only take comfort from the fact that Heir Guilliani will be long out of office before the MTA could get such a system working.
But seriously, consider the advantages. You can't remove people from the subway system simply because they are begging, or sitting on benches or subway seats. You certainly can remove them for failing to pay their fares. It will be a lot easier to address quality of life issues in the subway if there were a better way to deal with fare evaders. It's not quite as simple as I make it out to be, but I think that it will be an improvement.
--mhg
[You can't remove people from the subway system simply because they are begging, or sitting on benches or subway seats. You certainly can remove them for failing to pay their fares.]
People can be removed for begging, as it is a violation of subway regulations.
If you are using "Heir" to indicate the German word for man, the correct spelling is "Herr".
And, since when is enforcing the law to be equated with Nazi Germany? Laws are made to protect us. If the legislation is unjust, the people should petition to get it changed.
However, in my opinion, a law against begging and loitering is not unjust.
I agree that there should be such laws. That is why I am seeking a clearer interpretation of terms, (like loitering and begging or fare beating) to prevent the predudices of the state, or a particular administration from using vague laws to wield power in a descriminatory fashion. I belive that Pataki has been deliberately unclear about use of the unlimited metrocard so that the police will have the option to beat up on some individuals and not others.
In reading all the back-and-forth comments about the unlimited use Metrocards, one wonders if the whole controversy might have been anticipated when the term "swiping" was adopted for using the card.
I still think the real MTA thievery is having an expiration date on a regular Metrocard--BART and WMATA cards don't have that, nor do dollar bills or coins, and it's really handy for the occasion visitor to be able to have ready fare in those cities. But New York (and now Chicago) say, "Trust us--mail a year-old card and we'll send you a check or a new card if you can prove you mailed it, but if you wait much longer than that, your money is ours."
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Good lord! I'm sorry to say this, but I've never seen such silliness is response to what I've posted.
First, begging is a form of speech protected under the First Amendement. You can't lawfully be ejected from the subway solely for begging, unless you violate some other rule (like don't pay the fare, block staircases, etc), or are "agressively panhandling", whatever that means. Sorry if y'all don't like this, I didn't make it up, that's the law.
Secondly, I think that Guilliani acts like a dictator. I never said that enforcing the laws is equatable with Nazi Germany. Please, read a little more carefully.
Last, I don't even understand the post about Pataki beating people up because someone doesn't understand all the details about how the metrocard wors.
--mhg
A liberal is someone who believes pot should be legalized and tobacco should be outlawed. A conservative is someone who believes that a corporate sales representative who calls you during dinner is exercising a free speech right, while a begger asking for a quarter is committing a quality of life crime.
Seriously, the courts have held that begging on the subway is not a protected expression of free speech and can be banned. Why? Captive audience. If someone stands on the street and asks for money, they are speaking and anyone who does not want to listen can walk away. In a subway car, however, you cannot leave and are FORCED to listen. It one thing to have the right to do something, and another to claim the right to force someone else to do something that they do not wish to do. The courts have held that that is unfair.
Free speech rights do not allow you to set up a sound system in a public park and have your speech broadcast so loud that others cannot hold conversations, cannot engage in recreation, cannot do anything but either listen to you or leave YOUR public space. Neither can you beg on the subway. That's the law, and it is a good law in my opinion. If you must accept someone in your face as the price of frequenting a public place, cities and transit will be abandoned and everyone will hide out in gated communities and private cars.
As for Herr Giuliani, he has merely applied the same standards of behaviour in public places which always existed in affluent neighborhoods to poor neighborhoods, to the general benefit of those who live there. Whereas before, it was taken for granted that given what THOSE PEOPLE are like you have to accept litter, vandalism, drug dealing, murder etc. in those places, and you can't expect them to work or take care of their kids either. As if they were some other species. I don't agree with everything he has done, but I do agree with that.
I don't wish to debate what people should and should not be allowed to do on the subway. I've never taken a position in this thread or elsewhere about what is right or wrong. All I am saying is what the law is, and why having to keep a "receipt" for your subway fare serves a useful purpose -- proof of fare evasion -- that can be used to deal with certain groups of people.
BTW, I don't think that _you_ really believe that Guilliani or the police officers on the street even try to apply all laws to all people in NYC even-handedly.
--mhg
[First, begging is a form of speech protected under the First Amendement. You can't lawfully be ejected from the subway solely for begging, unless you violate some other rule (like don't pay the fare, block staircases, etc), or are "agressively panhandling", whatever that means.]
The list of subway rules posted by many token booths explicitly prohibit panhandling and begging. Is this inaccurate?
Let's assume the worst occurs and some idiotic, lifetime-job-security, driven-everywhere-in-a-chauffeured-limosine, home-on-the-Upper-West-Side federal judge decides that subway begging does indeed enjoy absolute Constitutional protection. Some relief might still be possible. The solution would be to outlaw *giving* money to beggars. Keep in mind that unlike the beggars themselves, most of the people who give money are respectable sorts who can be deterred by such a prohibition. If enough people stop giving, the beggars just might go away.
Peter, I don't mean to attack you, really. But here's the scoop. Please see my post to Larry, also.
1) Just b/c the MTA posts a regulation doesn't mean that the regulation is lawful. Example: all black people must sit in the back of the bus. Further example: no one can speak about topic X on the subway.
2) The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled along the lines of what I posted earlier. Panhandled is a protected form of speech, within the limits that the government is allowed to place on it. That's the law.
3) It's easy to attack judges for making decisions that are unpopular. Your characterization of them is inaccurate and unfair. For example, most do ride the subway, and I have personally witnesses a panhandler in the same subway car as a federal judge. Some are more liberal than othes. So what? They have a job to do, which is to interpret the laws and Constitution of this country. They are obligated to consider things other than the personal preferences of you, me, or anyone else.
It is easy to attack a law that seems to promote nothing more than socially undesirable behavior. Of course that is only a matter of perspective, isn't it! It is part of the price of living in a free society -- I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Only if your behavior goes over some hazy, ill-defined line does the government have the right to prevent you from doing what you want to do. This issue comes up over and over again, w/r/t to the subway and other public places -- can I pass out Operation Rescue pamphlets? campaign for election? sell things? hold a labor protest? yell and scream? etc. Each time, the interest that is guaranteed by the Constitution must be balanced against the disruption to everyone else who uses the system, to see if the behavior at issue is over that line.
Where is that line? The question is really who gets to decide. Someone has to, and the government is set up so that judges are the ones who have the ultimate say. Don't like it? Change the Constitution.
In my opinion, it's probably better that federal judges are life-appointed (on good behavior, of course), free from political pressures and paid well enough to resist corruption. There is a balance here that would disappear if the decision makers were motivated only by their self interest. Otherwise, it is likely that that panhandlers could be thrown off the subways, but blacks would still be on the back of the bus.
Please, go back to what I originally said. Someone who is begging on the subway in a manner that is dangerous, frightening, etc. can be removed. Someone who sits silently with a cup out cannot. Everyone in between is subject to the sound discretion of the people who enforce the laws (the police and judges). What I think of their discretion is beside the point, (although I said earlier that I thought Guilliani acts like a dictator when matters like this come within his purview). That is all.
If you're interested, read the decision about panhandling on the subway. The cite is: Young v. NYCTA, 903 F.2d 146 (1990). You might also try Loper v. NYC Police Dep't, 999 F.2d 699 (1993) about anti-begging laws generally.
--mhg
It is easy to attack a law that seems to promote nothing more than socially undesirable
behavior. Of course that is only a matter of perspective, isn't it! [It is part of the price of living in a free society -- I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it. Only if your behavior goes over some hazy, ill-defined line does the government have the right to prevent you from doing what you want to do. This issue comes up over and over again, w/r/t to the subway and other public places -- can I pass out Operation Rescue pamphlets? campaign for election? sell things? hold a labor protest? yell and scream? etc. Each time, the interest that is guaranteed by the Constitution must be balanced against the disruption to everyone else who uses the system, to see if the behavior at issue is over that line.]
Reasonable restrictions on free speech are more acceptable on the subway than on the street. Subway riders are a form of "captive audience" and can't easily avoid listening to some skell's phony sob story. In the same way, giving political speeches or handing out Operation Rescue pamphlets ought to be prohibited on the subway as well. There are appropriate places for the exercise of what might be called "assertive" First Amendment rights, and subway cars aren't among them.
[Just b/c the MTA posts a regulation doesn't mean that the regulation is lawful. Example: all black people must sit in the back of the bus.]
What sort of example is that supposed to be? The MTA has never posted any such thing.
[It's easy to attack judges for making decisions that are unpopular. Your characterization of them is inaccurate and unfair. For example, most do ride the subway, and I have personally witnesses a panhandler in the same subway car as a federal judge. Some are more liberal than
othes. So what? They have a job to do, which is to interpret the laws and Constitution of this country. They are obligated to consider things other than the personal preferences of you, me, or anyone else.]
Jimmy Carter may have been a woefully incompetent president, but he did leave an unfortunate legacy by appointing a bunch of staggeringly incompetent federal judges (e.g. Leonard Sand and Constance Baker Motley). These judges have brought a knee-jerk love of the "downtrodden" to the bench, along with a scorn for middle class society. Accountable to no one, they have chosen to impose their will on the very same public that pays their inflated salaries nad act more like unelected legislators. They have pandered to the sort of "identity" politics that can rip apart a nation. Fortunately, lifetime tenure or not, they won't be around forever, and presidents since Carter (including Clinton) have been much more competent in their selection of judges.
[[Just b/c the MTA posts a regulation doesn't mean that the regulation is lawful. Example: all black people must sit in the back of
the bus.]]
[What sort of example is that supposed to be? The MTA has never posted any such thing. ]
Please, you know me better than to argue like this. The discussion was not about what the MTA has or hasn't done, it's about what it can or can't do. I'm not going to insult you by explaining the history of segregated busing because I think you know about it already. The point is that a municipal agency's rules and regulations are not the final word of law.
[Jimmy Carter may have been a woefully incompetent president, but he did leave an unfortunate legacy by appointing a bunch of
staggeringly incompetent federal judges (e.g. Leonard Sand and Constance Baker Motley).]
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, which is why opinions alone aren't worth all that much. I don't think you know enough about the federal judiciary to make this comparison, and I challenge you to prove me wrong. I'd be interested to see how, in comparison to the other 1000 or so federal judges in the country, those two are "staggeringly incompetant." Indeed, I'm not even sure what that means.
--mhg
[[Jimmy Carter may have been a woefully incompetent president, but he did leave an unfortunate legacy by appointing a bunch of staggeringly incompetent federal judges (e.g. Leonard Sand and Constance Baker Motley).]]
[Everyone is entitled to their opinion, which is why opinions alone aren't worth all that much. I don't think you know enough about the federal judiciary to make this comparison, and I challenge you to prove me wrong. I'd be interested to see how, in comparison to the other 1000 or so federal judges in the country, those two are "staggeringly incompetant." Indeed, I'm not even sure what that means.]
Leonard Sand was responsible for the Yonkers housing discrimination travesty. For an extended period he bascially took over the city government (and cost the taxpayers millions) because he decided that the city had discriminated against blacks and Hispanics by concentrating taxpayer-subsidized public housing in the SW part of town. He was too dense to realize that he was being utterly demeaning to minorities by concluding that the only way they could live in Yonkers was in public housing. In fact, blacks and Hispanics were and are free to buy Yonkers houses on the private market, with any discrimination being strictly prohibited by federal law. And economic factors bear this out. Minority homeownership rates nationwide (there's no reason why the NY area should be different) have risen significantly. Minority (especially immigrant) buyers are partly responsible for fueling the nationwide housing boom - according to the Wall Street Journal, the most common surname among home buyers in Los Angeles County is Garcia. But try telling this to Lenny ...
Constance Baker Motley was responsible for a decision upholding the "rights" of skells to *live* in Penn Station. The less said about that, the better.
I grew up in Yonkers. Yonkers had problems long before, and far beyond, Judge Sand. It is a place where the people who lived there pretty much adopted a beat the system and move out attitude, and the system ended up beaten to death. The City nearly went bankrupt in the early 1970s, and ended up with a local income tax and horrible services, before the desegregation case was even heard, as a result of graft and waste. The only relatives of mine who are still in the city are over age 65.
Peter, (sorry Larry, but I like neat threads)
I was really surprised by your prior post. Let's talk about Judge Motley.
Judge Motley did _not_ rule that skells could live in Penn Station. That wasn't even part of that case -- the homeless plaintiffs conceded that they had no right to overnight shelter in Penn Station. The case was about, to quote the decision, "whether people who are simply there, people who look dishevelled and look homeless, can be asked to leave, even though they have not committed any crime or are not committing a crime, and whether they can be arrested for trespass for doing that--remaining in and about Penn Station." Not the best sentence I've ever read, but it gets the job done.
If you want to read the opinion, it's Streetwatch v. NRPC, 875 F. Supp. 1055 (1995). It doesn't even suggest that people who are trying to sleep overnight in Penn Station can't be evicted. It was about whether the NYC police can "beautify" NYC by gathering up people they think are undesirable and carting them off to somewhere else, without anything reason like breaking a law or being a danger to the public (they usually overlap). I hope that doesn't sound appetizing to you either.
You know what, no one even bothered to appeal the decision, that's how unremarkable it was. Big deal.
My point is this: Arguing that Judge Motley is (how did you put it?) "unbelievable incompetant" either because you disagree with her decision is really valueless. She may be right or she may be wrong, but to argue that she's wrong you have to show that she made an error in her decision based on the facts and/or the law.time
Most of the time, this sort of rehtorical, inflamatory "ad hominum" attack masks is an effort to hide the fact that the writer doesn't know much about the topic and wants to distract the reader from the merits of the point under consideration. Where is "I-man" or Mark Kortlander when I need a good example? Reasoning minds usually avoid that sort of thing, which is why I was _really_ surprised to read that sort of thing from you.
So I say, if you'd like a copy of any of these decisions, I'd be happy to provide them. I'm happy to discuss and argue their merits. I will fight against anything else.
--mhg
(BTW, the President really doesn't select federal judges in NY. Federal judges in NY are nominated by our two Senators, who take turns giving names to the President. The President can and sometimes does reject the suggestion, but usually accepts them. They are approved, of course, by the Senate. Politics as usual? You bet. Carter chose Motley & Sand? Nope.)
--mhg
I'll read the Penn Station decision when I get to work on Monday. I do disagree that removal of "offensive" looking people is always a bad thing - yes, the potential for police abuse is there, but that can be controlled. Penn Station is an important gateway to the city and its appearance - which by the very nature of the place starts with two strikes against it - can make important first impressions on visitors. Does anyone want tourists and business visitors having to negotiate through the dregs of society when they first enter the city? I sure don't. That sort of thing will drive tourists away and discourage business investment, which the city urgently needs given its still-weak economy. Making the skells move on is no huge infringement on their "civil liberties." People who have chosen to reject the norms of society shouldn't complain when they have to experience a little inconvenience. Sending them back onto the street is not the same as hauling them off to labor camps, which no one ever proposed.
I disagree with the spirit of what you are saying.
We live in a free open society and having people who we may consider undesirable, who we can attach all kinds of labels too, around is one of the prices of living in such a society. Not a high price to pay for the benefit.
I think that what you are suggesting is unworkable in our legal system. Who is to decide what an undesirable person is in the eyes of a tourist? You are suggesting an unworkably arbitrary system.
Also, give some credit to the tourists. For one thing there are a lot of wierdos outside of NYC. When I go there, its not like its the first time I've seen a homeless person since I was last in NYC.
Yes, the large amounts of folks living in Penn 10 - 15 years ago were a disaster. But that can be dealt with in legal and reasonable / non-arbitrary ways.
Funny you mention the long history of troubles in Yonkers. Just today the Daily News had an article about the disbanding of this special state authority that had overseen the city's financial affairs. From what it said, the city's fiscal condition had improved enough that it no longer needs special oversight.
prt of the trouble with beggars, unauthorized vendors, homeless stretched out on platforms or stairs is station agents refusing to call the police due to the mentality "they have a right to..."
Another problem- supposing the police are called they may just ask the person to leave. In one case where I worked, the guy came back 2 1/2 hours later and yes, I had him removed again!! different officers but I told them he jumped the second time (and probably the first time also) and they di take hiom away to a shelter this time. Even just taking them away is easier said then done. Many times I was on a station and saw a cop or group od cops and told them about an "outstretch" and was told "we're off duty".
The homeless have rights but when you live in a society you have to give up certain rights for the sake of the group(society) at large. For instance-in a crowded theatre you give up your free speech right to scream "fire". If a homelss person "moves" into a station and harasses others, openly drinking alcohol, building "houses" of cardboard or wood crates. I ask them to leave and then if they dont I call the cops (If I am safe in the booth. If I am outside the booth I go to the booth and ask them to call the cops.) At one station I transferred at to get to my assigned station for the night, A homelss guy was drinking and openly harassing others. I called the booth, they got me a cop, The person's booze was poured out and the person removed. The crowd cheered after the person was removed. All in a day's job. I could relate more such tales but space does not permit. Suffice to say that if I were to write a book it would be rejected as fiction that could not be true in any way!
***opinions expressed are my own and not those of MTA or NYCT***
Society has a problem with what to do with people who are drug/alcohol addicts or are mentally ill, and have no family or have exhausted the patience of their family. I saw a 60 Minutes report on a psycotic convicted child killer in Kentucky. He served his time and was released, but is only OK if he stays on his medication. Ketucky has a community notification law, so everywhere he went there were massive protests. Finally, Ketucky "solved" the problem by shipping him out of state. Want to guess where he was shipped to? Fortunately Ketucky tends to ship people with problems directly north to Michigan or Illinois. Had it been the Carolinas, he'd probably be in the subway right now, and we'd be looking to cut spending on education and transportation or raise taxes (relative to other places) in order to fund his care. Welfare reform makes the incentive to ship out people with problems all the greater.
[Finally, Ketucky "solved" the problem by shipping him out of state. Want to guess where he was shipped to? Fortunately Ketucky tends to ship people with problems directly north to Michigan or Illinois. Had it been the Carolinas, he'd probably be in the subway right now, and we'd be looking to cut spending on education and transportation or raise taxes (relative to other places) in order to fund his care.
Welfare reform makes the incentive to ship out people with problems all the greater.]
Of course, *two* can play at that game. Nothing stops New York from shipping skells off to Charlotte or Atlanta ...
Not everyone who is mentally ill is a "skell", although all are a burden. In addition, there are those who act stupidly as teens, and get hooked on drugs, and can't quit.
In addition to the large number of actual Christians in the city, New York is prevented from shipping out people with problems by a clause in the New York State constitution which requires the state to care for the needy.
One thing I would like to see, however, is the publication of the place of birth of every person on public assistance, and the address one year prior of every Medicaid recipient (along with the address of their taxpaying children), in the state. I know from a census run that only one-third of the city's heads of households on PA in 1990 (and in 1980) were born in New York State.
I don't know if I agree with a pure self interest policy of dealing with the poor. I do agree with publically blasting the suburbs which keep them out, and the states which ship them out, on a regular basis.
Maybe what would help is having more "outreach" workers on the subway to deal with skells. These workers could offer assistance rather than just removing the skells from the system (and, presumably, they'll be less reluctant to act than are the cops). Penn Station, Grand Central and the Port Authority have similar groups and as far as I know they've been useful.
By the way, I fully agree with what you've said, how individual rights have to exercised with group rights in mind. An absolutist view, which allows no limits on individual rights, may sound fine in theory but will lead to chaos in practice. There is a happy medium between chaos and repression, and they key is finding it and keeping things that way.
When I was in London in 1978, I remember having to tell the ticket clerk where I was headed when buying a tube ticket. You had to put it through a scanner as you went through the turnstiles, whereupon it was returned to you. As you exited your destination staiton, you had to hand your ticket to an attendant as proof of payment. This is where you would get nailed if you didn't have a ticket.
The ticket collectors are long gone (in the rush hour you could probably hand them any sheet of cardboard and get away with it). Now we have entry and exit gates at all busy stations. Suburban stations (e.g. Amersham) are gateless, so in theory certain journeys can be done for free. In practice, there are surprise on-train and exit checks. However, the penalty fare for having no ticket is not that high, and I am sure that it is probably cheaper to pay the occasional penalty fare and not bother with tickets.
The new system has not obviously saved staff. People have to be on hand to check tickets that the gates reject, and Amersham always seems to have more staff there than it knows what to do with (probably because it is a terminus).
It used to be that outlying stations (beyond zone 2 of 6) didn't have turnstyles. But expansion of turnstyles has now reached many of the outlying stations. Many stations in zones 3 and 4 now have them.
As for ruthlessly efficient - not really. I lived in London in 1994 and as a student with almost no money, I counted on lax enforcement to visit friends in outer zones at no cost beyond my monthly zone 1 pass. (Look, I know this was wrong - I wouldn't do this now that I have a job, please don't turn this into another Cris C. bashing thread. )
Cover the zone number - flash the pass at the station attendant - and you would usually get through. I was never caught, but considering that the fine was the equivalent of $16 - it wasn't much of a detterent. Especially considering how expensive the tube is! Even though you pay by distance, the cheapest ticket assuming your trip begins in zone 1 is £1.30 or almost $2.20!!! Yes they've had daily/weekly/monthly tickets far longer than the MTA - but even those are rather expensive. For example: Weekly for just zone 1 is $22, all zones is $57. Think of this the next time you decide to complain about MTA prices.
Presumably, the intention is that all busy stations in the suburbs will eventually get gates no matter how far out (e.g. Uxbridge) but that others will never be justified.
I am getting mixed stories on the ruthless efficiency, I think that LT decides to have periodic drives, and then drifts back to inefficiency. Everyone I know who has been caught or has seen someone caught say that it is a very unpleasant experience.
Prices for most public transport in the UK are much too high, and are a big deterrent to their use. The Labour government has just announced a spending spree, but I doubt that much of it will head for London. On the other hand, there are three other underground railways in the UK (Glasgow, Newcastle, and Liverpool technically), so who knows.
The exit scanning at Wash DC is done via the "Smart/Proximity" card, i.e. a completely different tech than Metro "dip/swipe" card. U wouldn't have to swipe, the cards would just have to be close enough to the reader (in you wallet/pocketbook). So buses as well as turnstiles could have this equipment.
The TA is "considering" this change (would cost more millions) to get traffic & preformance data, AND as said in previous thread to allow charging for the ride based on distance.
From an operations standpoint it would tell you where customers get on & off (now you have to have counters with clipboards out there). Why run a bus/subway the whole route if only a few blocks is where all the customers are ?
Mr t__:-D
What are you referring to with the Washington Metro? I rode that most excellent system very recently, and passengers swipe the same card to get in and to get out. I would not be surprised if WMATA was doing studies on or planning to use proximity devices, but 1) they are not using them now, and 2) if they had proximity devices to exit the system, why not use them to pay fares as well and expedite the process of loading the trains?
John, Sorry I stand corrected.
So much for believing what you see in print from the mfg. Cubic is doing something in Washington acording to one of there recent newsletters, but it doesn't look like I saved it.
I've stated this before, so I'll have to look further in my files before I speak of it again.
Mr t__:^)
Washington Metro's systems doesn't just just "swipe to exit". The system works like this:
1. Upon entry, the faregate simply sees if there is value (not how much) timestamps the card with the entry station and the time, and admits the passenger.
2. When the passenger exits the system, the faregate notes the original entry, examines the card's value, and does either of two things: either determines enough value is on the card, deducts the correct fare and opens to allow exit, returning the farecard to the passenger; OR determines that there is not enough money on the card and returns the farecard to the passenger, directing him/her to the AddFare machine.
No counting or studies are involved.
Such a distance system is all well and good in D.C. where all the rich people live on the outskirts and the poor people live downtown, but it would be something to see for a New York pollitician suggest that people living in the Outer Boroughs should pay more than the people living in Manhattan.
Let me put in my 2 cents worth .... boy that ain't worth much !
- There is NO TRANSFER feature associated with the Unlim MC, i,e, a dip is a dip & the system doesn't care wether U'R initial boarding or transfering. So, if it's 18 min U'R dip works.
- Caution don't try to use your Unlim LOCAL MC on an Express bus cause you'll have to pay FULL FARE, i.e. no Transfer & no "Step-up" on the Unlim MC (still get "Step-up" on value MC)
- Exception: RFM (Sr/Disab) can step-up:
-- Peek for full fare
-- Off-peek at discount
Mr t__:^)
P.S. EYE pushed the wrong button so this may look formular, please excuse.
IMPRESSED...........I STILL THINK THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN BORN DURING THE YEAR OF 94'
It is now considered "Polite" to, as you exit the train, swipe your unlimited metrocard for persons entering the system. I did it this morning and got a warm friendly New York Thank You. It made me feel kinda warm and fuzzy. It seems that enough people are doing this to create a whole new friendly atmosphere among Subway riders. Thank You TA for a more enjoyable ride!
Passing your card in this fashion is about as courteous as providing a stepladder for someone to jump over the turnstile.
Do they sell unlimited stepladders???
{It is now considered "Polite" to, as you exit the train, swipe your unlimited metrocard for persons entering the system.]
Polite?? Hardly. Swiping people through the turnstiles may seem like an act of courtesy but in the long run will lead to revenue losses. Figure it this way, should this practice become commonplace occasional riders won't bother paying for their fares, they'll just wait for holders of unlimited MCs to swipe them through. Resulting revenue losses won't be in anyone's best interests. Eventually there would be a crackdown, mostly likely by following the DC Metro policy and requiring riders to present MCs on demand.
That's why riders should always carry a second used-up metrocard to be presented to the cops on demand. I would like to see them try and stop people at random at rush hour. I think that's what this city needs.
The fact that the TA has put a 17 minute time limit on the card is the City's way of saying, after 17 minutes you can do as you please. If this was not the case, they would made the cards for one time use only. Just like the old tokens.
The reason the MTA hasn't implemented a policy to stop you from swiping people in is the people who work for it aren't as smart as you are. Once they figure it out, they'll prohibit it.
You suffer from faulty moral reasoning. You perceive that the person swiped through is better off, you are no worse off, and therefore you have just made the world, net, a better place. But the bottom line is the subway has to be paid for. If the person you swipe though goes through free, someone is going to make that up.
As Immanual Kant says, an act is immoral if it will be self-defeating if everyone does it. If everyone is either swiped through or swipes someone else through, as Peter says, revenue losses will force a) a crackdown which will cost money b) a fare increase ie a $68 monthly card c) or service cuts. People will end up waiting around to swipe each other through, but will be no better off than before. (Whether the TA can afford the pass as they intended it to be reused remains to be seen).
And there's something else about swiping people through - if a person thinks it's an act of generosity to do it, he or she is being a schmuck. After all, the swiper paid for the MetroCard, why should he or she let some stranger ride for free?
That's a very negative/selfesh attitude. This morning I swiped a tourist through on my way out at Rockefeller Center. That tourist will now see that New York is a friendly place and want to come back, helping the local economy! What's next, should we refuse to give strangers directions!?!??
"I'm sorry sir, I was holding that door for myself. You open your own door!"
[That's a very negative/selfesh attitude. This morning I swiped a tourist through on my way out at Rockefeller Center. That tourist will now see that New York is a friendly place and want to come back, helping the local economy! What's next, should we refuse to give strangers directions!?!??]
There's no comparison between swiping people through and giving directions because the latter doesn't involve any costs. You had to pay for your MetroCard - why should this tourist at Rockefeller Center get to ride for free? And I doubt he's going to come away with an impression of New York as a friendly place (assuming he is a tourist - how could you really tell?) He probably thinks that New York is a dishonest place full of people willing to "beat the system."
Read up on the other posts in this thread. If swiping through becomes a common practice (though I suspect it won't), revenues will suffer, crime may increase, and eventually there'll be a crackdown.
If I pay $63 for a metrocard I'm going to use it however I damn well please within the system! What business is it of yours or the government how I spend it. I suppose you are suggesting that if I lend the card to my wife or kid or friend or a blind date that that's cheating. Even though Governor Pataki has signed off on it. Are you suggesting that the government should keep a special list of who's friends with whom? They could assign special police to make sure that noone is getting a free ride off their spouse or roomate or girlfriend.
OFFICER: I'm sorry sir, but unless you know the person's mother's maiden name, you can't swipe them through.
When I give to charity, there's money involved. Are you suggesting that the government should crack down on such activity!
What makes you so interested in what I do with MY money? Are you wone of those people who thinks that all transactions should be regulated by the government? Just to let you know, Communism is dead!
I couldn't care less how you choose to spend your money. If you'd like to sink your life savings into developing and marketing pedigreed tape worms, that's fine by me. But the point is, *you* should care. I sure would - there's no way I'd let strangers ride for free when I have to pay.
You are right, lending unlimited MetroCards to other persons when the holders are not using them is explicitly permitted. But the potential for fare losses in that situation is quite a bit less than with indiscriminately swiping people through.
I think that if the TA wants the right to complain about how people are using the system, then they have make clear cut rules about how the system is supposed to be used. If the TA insists on handing that responsibility over to the average rider, then they have no right to complain.
Chris,
That's like saying its OK to put graffiti on subways because the wall is there and no one will stop you. Or its OK to piss in the rear doorwell of a bus because you have to go.
Loaning YOUR card to a friend or relative is one thing BUT swiping the card as you exit the system is something else.
The MTA could get realy stinky about this if they see a dollar cost. Just take the LIRR for example: If you're a "Mail-and-Ride" customer your name is on the pass, if you loan, make sure the loanee is the same sex or the agent may take the pass. Some real pains in the ass even make you prove your name. Fortunely my son has the same name.
Mr t__:^)
First of all, the TA has very clear cut rules reguarding Grafitti. It seems to follow that if they want they same strictness of regulation for the Unlimited Use of Metrocards they should come up with equally clear cut rules. That's a no brainer.
Now as far as this sex thing. If a cop wrote me a ticket or took my card for no other reason than because, I was, In his opinion, the wrong sex it is my belief that the officer is in the wrong. The officer would have to prove first of all what sex I am. In my opinion than means "clinically".
Second of all if my card said Shirley what right does a cop have to question that a man might have that name? A pattern of this kind of discrimination could land the authorities in hot water. Somewhere there is a man named Shirley or Jackie or Gale who is going to be questioned one too many times and take them to court!
Simply put if officers are given the power to push people around simply because they don't like the way they look, then our form of government is in serious trouble.
A libertarian is a liberal who has been mugged by a coop board.
I don't know what a Libertarian is or a liberal or a coop board.
A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.
A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested.
Chris,
The "sex" thing relates to the fact that the "mail-and-ride" ticket has the customer's name on it. The paper ticket had a male/female box that got punched by the condutor. LIRR sold ONE PERSON a ticket for "unlimited rides" for the month. Use by anyone else was for-boten. The current dip/swipe and the future smart/proxmity cards could have everything incl SS# encoded.
Mr t__:^)
It still seems to me that the burden of proof as to Male or Female falls on the authority issuing the ticket. I would like to know what, in a court of law constitutes proof of sex. XX chromosome or XY chromosome. Something biological like that. Passengers should refuse to have sex punched on any card without proof. Next they will have a punch for Black or Hispanic.
[It still seems to me that the burden of proof as to Male or Female falls on the authority issuing the ticket. I would like to know what, in a court of law constitutes proof of sex. XX chromosome or XY chromosome. Something biological like that. Passengers should refuse to have sex punched on any card without proof. Next they will have a punch for Black or Hispanic.]
It somehow doesn't seem right that commuter rail tickets indicate the holder's gender. This isn't the sort of objection that's easy to articulate, it's just there. I highly doubt that eliminating this designation would lead to any significant increase in ticket-sharing. What is sort of amusing is how conductors and ticket sellers deal with people whose gender isn't readily apparent - maybe not something one encounters every day, but probably not unheard of either.
As far as racial designations are concerned, at least it's extremely unlikely that we'll be seeing them anytime soon. Race is just a bit too controversial to be shown on train tickets. Besides, far more so than with gender, it's often difficult to determine a person's race by physical appearance. At least in America, racial identity is as much a state of mind as a matter of biology.
It use to be, in this country, in my lifetime, that if you were 1/16th black you had to sit on the back of the bus. It made no difference how light or dark your skin was. This was a very specific legal definition. Today, in the eyes of the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, we turn a blind eye to race on such legal points. I believe that the same fairness should apply to gender.
[It use to be, in this country, in my lifetime, that if you were 1/16th black you had to sit on the back of the bus. It made no difference how light or dark your skin was. This was a very
specific legal definition. Today, in the eyes of the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, we turn a blind eye to race on such legal points. I believe that the same fairness should apply to gender.]
Well, the Male/Female designations on commuter rail tickets aren't being used for purposes of discrimination - no one is saying, for example, that only men can ride during rush hour. These designations presumably are meant to limit ticket-sharing. Even so, I don't like them.
Race and gender are two different things. Race is, as you note, more or less a continuum with several basic categories and an infinite number of variations. Except in very unusual cases, gender is an either/or thing, with every person either 100% male or 100% female.
Peter, I always checked the "other" box because they didn't have one for WASP. I also:
- Give the clerk a WRONG phone number
- Tell Edwards that I was born in 1902 when I buy beer, then they resopond that I'm "out of range", is that another word for being Senior ?
Chris don't missunderstand I'm NOT siding with you.
If you have ever wondered why many people do not like the way of life in the NYC area, this is a perfect example. Where else but NYC do people consider it polite to give free rides on their transit system? Where else but NYC do people (illegally) make left turns just before the light turns green? Make turns (illegally) from one lane over? Drive on parts of the road marked as not for driving? Exit from freeways onto the service road through the dirt using any opening in the bushes, rather than waiting for an actual exit ramp (just check out the Belt Parkway east of JFK Airport)? Need signs at toll booths saying "Counterfeit money will be confiscated"? (Jeez, officer, I didn't know youse could tell; Can I have it back to use somewhere else?) Require shoulders on highways to have raised curbs and cobblestones so people won't drive on them? To require all medallioned cabs painted yellow so people will not get into an illegal one? Where stores routinely check $20 bills under ultraviolet light to be sure they are not counterfeit? Etc, etc.
Everywhere else there is a higher level of decency. In NYC people expect and often get the worst. This is (despite the howls of protest that will follow this posting) nothing to be proud of. However, something about the NYC culture actually does make New Yorkers proud of their heightened sense of distrust and sneakiness.
Oh, well, I still like the trains, the pizza, and the knishes. Maybe I'll be in a pleasanter mood tomorrow...
Are New Yorkers less decent or just less polite? When you look at NYC's taxes and spending, it is the most generous place to the poor in the United States, something we pay a high price for. Other states bus out people with problems, as the recent 60 Minutes episode shows. NYC is also the most tolerant place in the U.S.
On the other hand, many New Yorkers do have a beat the system attitude, and are impolite enough not to cover it up. Others are more discreet. For example, no one is coming right out and saying the Taxpayer Rights movement is a ruse to help those to know how to beat the tax code -- and the rest of us. But that's what its about.
I have a sister-in-law who works in tax enforcement. The MO right now is to simply pay no taxes, get caught after a few years, demonstate the ability to hire lawyers and drag the whole thing out in court for years. The IRS then "settles" and you owe 50 cents on the dollar that others would pay.
You don't hear Southern Republicans talking about the right of their campaign contributors to beat the system. Perhaps New Yorkers are not so sneaky after all. Perhaps they ought to be more distrustful.
Oh, this IS a rich vein of inquiry: farmers getting paid NOT to grow things, tobacco subsidies, Western land giveaways to mining companies, gated suburban communities ... where does one begin?
And we New York types are soooooo cold and unfeeling that we brush right by homeless people without giving them our spare change. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Except that anywhere else, Residents Concerned About Preserving the Character of the Community have them shipped out, ban low-income housing through restrictive zoning, and compete to see who can cut welfare payments the most.
Then all the schoolchildren join hands and collect a few canned goods for Somalia, and everyone congratulates each other on their preservation of traditional values.
As for "beat-the-system" types like Chris C, you're right: those with that label are those willing to admit it, usually people who snatch a dollar here or there, sometimes for profit, other times for fun or to make a point. The people who REALLY chow down at the public trough big time never admit it.
Meanwhile, all this system-beating goes to show that looking out for Number One is human nature. Therefore, fairness and responsible behavior can and should be enforced by government (like the MTA), and yes, by society at large and its institutions.
If it is left up to the goodwill of individuals, then people with real community spirit will end up paying the bills for people without it -- and feeling like fools for doing so.
All true, but then again we have plenty of special deals here in NYC. "Special" schools for yuppies and the few NYC teachers who don't live in the suburbs, rent control, Mitchell Lama coops where the waiting list is only known to insiders, etc. Once again, those who are really beating the system are shrewd enough not to advertize it, inside and outside the city. New Yorkers are more likely to call atttention to the defects. In fact, I think the city (aside from the grandstanding Mayor) sufferers from reverse civic boosterism. New Yorkers whine, while others gloss over the problems.
I was out in Tulsa recently, and it turns out that 42 children were killed by their parents in Oklahoma last year -- in a state with just over half of NYC's population. That's the equivalent of 80 in one year in NYC. But the 42 killed in Oklahoma are spread out over an entire state, spread out over the entire year, and each is a third page story because no one but those involved gives a damn. Here in NYC, every child who dies is a front page story, playing to a population which believes that the community can and should ensure the welfare of every child, even those with awful parents.
I prefer the whining variety of civic discourse -- in case anyone hadn't noticed.
When I was a reporter, I also covered the criminal courts in Sussex County, N.J., which is very rural (believe it or not). I regularly saw children who'd been abused by relatives for years, sexually and otherwise -- often with the knowledge of other relatives and friends. Some prosecutors there say that unlike the big city, which may be scarier but more sophisticated, there are plenty of people in the boonies who think parents' rights to "raise their kids as they see fit" extends to all forms of abuse.
To digress still further, Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, a Londoner, once said he could never view isolated country houses as peaceful havens---because he well knew how much evil their isolation is capable of hiding.
Time and again, the crime statistics have shown that the crime rate (number of reported offenses per 100,000 people) is not much different from rural to suburban to urban area. The problem is that 100,000 people could be the population of five or six counties in a rural area while it's the daily ridership of a single rapid transit line in Chicago or New York. Those five or six rural counties may have four separate newspapers and constitute two or three separate broadcasting markets, and a murder one county away may as well have been committed on Mars Colony. On the other hand, the "big city" metro area is a single media market, and all the murders in six counties with a combined population of seven millions gets publicized as "local," the same as a murder occurring across the street.
Incidentally, I read that same Holmes quote. It never ceases to amuse me, because Watson's response to the statement is the same disbelief that you would get from the average person to the statement -- or to any statement that crime is no worse in the city than the country. It may be true, but it is contrary to all that we have been taught, formally (by parents who instill fear of the city in their children) and informally (by movies and television shows which depict the cities as universally slums).
Trying to beat the system is a national pastime these days. NY residents probably are no more or less likely to do such things than are people anywhere else. In fact, the more brazen sort of tax protesting seems to be concentrated in the South and West. All in all, I don't see any reason to single out NY residents as particularly dishonest.
And let's keep something else in mind. This whole "Metrocard Manners" thread started with Chris C.'s idea of using unlimited MCs to give out free rides. Yet I still don't know if such things actually have been occurring to any significant extent. My guess is that it was mostly just talk.
[Where else but NYC do people (illegally) make left turns just before the light turns green? Make turns (illegally) from one lane over? Drive on parts of the road marked as not for driving? Exit from freeways onto the service road through the dirt using any opening in the bushes, rather than waiting for an actual exit ramp ?]
Where else? Here in Boston, where rude driving was invented. We don't have 'defensive driving,' we have 'advantage!': Right turn on red WITHOUT stop. Left turn on red WITHOUT stop. Even straight through on red WITHOUT stop! One key thing to remember about driving in Boston: if you make eye contact with another driver, you lose and have to give right-of-way!
I learned to drive in NYC... cars, trucks, and buses... and in my mind, NY drivers are no worse than Boston drivers. In fact, sometimes I think NY drivers are more predictable, so easier to deal with! The solution -- take the SUBWAY!
The reason New Yorkers drive so badly is 30 years of non-enforcement. "Why are you bothering me? I work for a living and I'm not a drug dealer!" This has changed in recent years, and should change some more. So has farebeating, littering. What is different in New York is not the proportion of selfish people, but the extent to which selfish people were allowed to get away with it.
To me the worst place to drive is Long Island. I often get caught in the "Long Island Trap." You are in an acceleration lane, but a car is next to you in the right lane. So you have to slow down to pull in behind the car that is already on the highway. So the car behind you, with no car in the right lane next to it, enters the highway and floors it to cut you off. It happens every time.
Of course, I don't drive much, or to many places. No one is shooting anyone on Long Island. Drivers are shooting each other elsewhere. Now THAT's rude.
I'd say that much of the bad driving in NYC is really a result of congestion. For instance, unsafe lane changes may be common, but illegal double parkers are frequently why drivers have to change lanes in the first place. Similarly, people are more tempted to speed and run lights when they can, because the all-too-frequent gridlock breeds frustration. The bad driving often shown by taxi drivers results from the nature of the cab-leasing arrangement, which makes high volumes a necessity
All your points are true, and I realize you're not making excuses for anyone, but in fact people often do use those very points as excuses, further worsening traffic and encouraging even more bad behavior in a vicious circle.
That frustrating gridlock, for example, is of course not caused solely by congestion; it requires people to enter intersections they know they can't get through. Bad behavior causing problems that encourage more bad behavior.
I'm sure you know all this already, I just thought I'd mention it.
I also think, though, that some of the ways in which NYC driving appears rude (especially to people who aren't used to it) are in fact very sensible adaptations to genuinely unique conditions.
Our avenues are basically parallel, multi-lane highways with cross streets, traffic lights, potholes and parking spaces on the side, not to mention buses and taxis picking up and dropping off people. This requires driving in ways that are not appropriate in the 'burbs, but that are mutually agreed upon by NYC drivers.
Changing lanes repeatedly, for example, is simply a necessity at times. When people insist on strictly following lane markers in NYC, as often as not it slows the whole street down. Conversely, when a hundred skilled NYC drivers elegantly and fluidly weave around an obstacle, making the rules up as they go, each attuned to all the others as in a school of fish, it's not only practical, it's also kind of pretty to watch.
It makes me wish I still owned a car ... almost.
One thing I've noticed is many Boston intersections have no traffic control devices whatsoever. It's nice not to have to stop at an intersection (sometimes!), but how do they get away with not having stop signs in so many places?
It must be a holdover from the British or something. At the Alewife Traffic Circle there is a sign that says:
Route 3 North
Route 2 West
Route 16 East
THIS WAY====>
Huh?
(To sort of bring this back to NYC transporation, the subject of
this board...) A block away, tacked onto the side of one resident's
garage, is an authentic white letter on green background traffic
sign that says: STATEN ISLAND FERRY STRAIGHT AHEAD. Hmmm..
One thing I've noticed is many Boston intersections have no traffic control devices whatsoever. It's nice not to have to stop at an intersection (sometimes!), but how do they get away with not having stop signs in so many places?
I think what people object to is lending it to a complete stranger. Lending it to a relative or friend when you are not using is is another matter.
I am sorry, but who is to decide the intricacies of human relationships? The state?
I am very sick and tired of this us verses them attitude Perpetuated by name calling. If the blond hair and blue eyed people conspire together, that's alright, but lets keep out the "Strngers"
It's sick.
So if everyone has the same idea, then the TA will suffer a severe revenue loss despite increasing ridership. If that happens if the TA has more restrictions on its' use, has exit swiping so you can' go back in right away or "lend"it to some stranger or worst case senario just eliminate the unlimited ride pass, look at your self in the mirror when you ask WHY? That tourist maybe at the time thought you were a nice guy, but as she recalls memories of her NYC visit, she may come away with the impression that New Yorkers are a bunch of schemers.
Undoubtedly Chris C's logic is faulty in a practical sense because, as you and Kant point out, giving away rides will hurt everybody in the long run (including him).
And maybe such giveaways are also immoral for that reason.
But are they any more immoral than other things we do or fail to do?
I mean, what if we found out that -- as you have seemed to worry -- using the unlimited Metrocard AS INTENDED will reduce subway revenue. Would we all stop using it, that is, give up our additional free rides, in order to support the subway system?
Wouldn't Kant say we should all burn our Metrocards under those circumstances?
I think we agree that it's ultimately up to the MTA to draw the lines formally. Consistently enforces laws and rules provide automatic protection of the public good, while allowing individuals to feel that they're each getting a "fare" shake.
And so they allow individuals to look out for their own interests and blithely swipe their cards -- without calculating the effect of each swipe on the MTA 's annual revenues, or performing equally complex philosophical calculations.
I don't know how you make a living & quite frankly don't care. But maybe you can put in a resume with the TA & maybe get hired as another superintenent (we have lots of superintendents) so you can figure out how to stop people from beating the system. You sure do know all the angles, and your knowledge of how to beat the system can maybe increase TA revenues. Then with your employee pass, you can ride for free FOREVER.
As a station agent, I have another word for this:
"stealing". The MetroCard policies clearly prohibit sharing these cards in this manner. If a police officer sees you do this, you can be subject to fines.Station agents also have instructions to call police if we see someone swiping in alot of other people.
Warm and fuzzy, fine! Cheating, No!!
Part of any business involves having payment(fares) high enough to cover shrinkage (fare beaters). If shrinkage increases, so does payment. Imagine what the fare could be if we had no shrinkage or greatly reduced shrinkage.
I've read a lot of talk on this board lately about what is or isn't courteous, or policy, or legal, or enforceable, all inspired by Chris C's assorted suggestions for Unllimited Metrocard "give-aways."
Many posts have said that giving away rides to strangers in the manner suggested in this thread is specifically "against Metrocard policy."
So what, exactly, precisely, is the policy, word for word? And how closely is the policy tied to state law? If it doesn't specifically state that this behavior is illegal, people can and will do it.
What language is the judge going to see in front of him/her when deciding the case of a person arrested for swiping in strangers?
This is the real legal question, thus the practical one. Can somebody answer it?
Now, if ANY of the various forms of Unlimited Metrocard "give-aways" ARE LEGAL as well as technologically possible -- and I'm certain that at least some of them are -- then I have another set of questions involving ethics, for subway buff, Larry L. and others who disapprove of such "giveaways."
If it's legal, why shouldn't people do it? I mean, I want the subway system to have all the revenue it needs. Lord knows it gets plenty of my money. But is it a moral requirement for a citizen to close loopholes that the government leaves open?
FOR EXAMPLE: Lots of people using the value-based Metrocards to run an errand take a subway in one direction and a bus back along the same route an hour later, to get the free transfer. This is clearly NOT what the MTA intended when it offerred the transfer. It intended to eliminate the "two-fare zones" suffered by people whose neighborhoods have no direct subway service.
So is the subway-there-and-bus-back trick stealing, too? I mean, shouldn't we do the decent thing and buy a token for the return trip?
And if we want to get silly, when an empty A train schleps me from the Bronx to the Rockaways at night, it costs the MTA one heck of a lot more than $1.50, and it's worth a lot more to me. Should I voluntarily pump in a few more tokens?
The entire tax preparation industry, not to mention much of the (extremely well-funded) corporate world, run on the premise that if the government didn't want you to do it, they'd make it illegal, and if they left it legal, it's OK to do it.
Why get on the little guy's back if the government happens to hand him a freebie while serving the greater good?
Isn't it up to the MTA and NY state to close any loopholes they want to see closed?
OK, I'm through ranting now.
I'm afraid they'll "close this loophole" by discontinuing the unlimited passes if this gets out of hand.
We should not abuse this benefir if we want to keep it.
Yes, they should prohibit swiping through people at the turnstile. And if it becomes a problem and they figure it out, they will prohibit it. As I said in my post to Chris C, they probably just didn't figure it out. If he didn't mention it, I wouldn't have figured it out either.
As for ethics, I think Immanual Kant had a good idea (see the prior post).
I pulled this off the MTA Website. Way at the bottom, fare below the simple statement that you are allowed to share the metrocard when not using it, in a finer type, it says:
"Unlimited ride metrocards may not be transferred to another person until the completion of the trip for which entry was obtained."
Hmmm. What does that mean? Lawyers can write dozens of pages on that question.
The finer print: even below that, it says: "Use of the unlimited ride metrocard subject to MTA NYCTA tarriff and additional conditions."
What additional conditions? Bet they haven't come up with them yet. They may not have known what Chris C was going to do, but they seem to have guessed he was going to come up with something!
Yes, I saw the same words in the TA handout. I wouldn't be a bit suprised that the author will be fired, if the "sharing" gets out of hand. Personally it was a dumb thing to put in print ! They should have said that the card was "yours" to use as much as you want. So why are they going to "fix" the 18 min "problem", do they want to make it easier to "share" the card ? Sounds to me like someone is out of touch with reality at MetroCard Central. That group/person is going to get a call from Virgil or George real soon !!!
That is of course unless "they" have a secret agenda ... remember when the politations said it would be "cheeper" to run the system if they gave away the rides ????
Ohhhh can you spell Staten Island Ferry ??????????
Disclaimer EYE don't work for the TA or any of its divisions.
Mr t__:^)
You are allowed to share cards because an advocate cornered Pataki and asked him and, this being an election year, he said yes. Politicians have a hard time saying "whoops, we thought it was a good idea, but we were wrong." As in Vietnam.
In any event, it would be extremely difficult to stop people from sharing cards, and that would just set up a system where dishonest people get a better deal that honest people. There is too much of that in NYC already. But the TA could stop the Chris C problem be requiring him to actually GIVE the metrocard to the person entering as he exited. That would continue to allow sharing with friends and family members, but would discourage swiping in people you just run into -- unless it is the 30th day of the card.
Although, as mentioned earlier, I would have preferred an off-peak discount, the monthly does make the transit system more like a car. You pay a hefty price to buy/lease/insure a car, and then forget about it. Then you can go anywhere, and share it with friends and family members, for "free."
I resent the suggestion that using the system within its own guidlines is dishonest. I would suggest, rather, that people who don't use a system to its fullest potential are, in fact, LAZY!
Look, imagine you go to an all you can eat restaurant run by a lumbering bureaucracy instead of a business owner. You're full, but realize there is no posted rule against carrying food out. So grab an additional dinner's worth of food, and hand it to someone else who was about to pay to get in, making their day. Now, I can understand doing this and thinking "gotcha," but it seems a bit much to think of oneself as a Robin Hood.
It kind of reminds of a Peanuts cartoon in a book of them I have. Linus says: "When I grow up I want to be a world famous philanthopist, and drive around handing out money to deserving people in my sports car." Charlie Brown says "You can't do that! You need millions of dollars to be a philanthropist!" Linus thinks about it and says: "I want to be a philanthropist with other people's money."
And yet, you have not considered that it might be the TA that's being the philathopist with other people's money.
The mass transportation business is a "Non-profit-organization" Extremely non-profit!
They just have to make the unlimited card like the paper transfer you get when paying cash/token on the bus. Put on the back "NonTransferable" and it is all an ill egale. I know our great Governer said share it with your family and the Nontransferable hasn't stopped people handing over transfers as they get off the bus to other customers but it is a step in the right direction.
No! WRONG! Sudewalks are non-profit operations, likewise fire departmemts, and many other endeavors deemed by the polity to be of public benefit. As the 'fares' represent only a minor component of the axtual finances ot the operation, they should be abolished. Failimg that ANY legal method for increasing usage while decreasing user fees is fine by me. BTW Chris C, your attitude clealr indicates true communism(not that Soviet abominatiom) is still alive. As to any person being harassed for 'giving away' a fare this is akin to busting a citizen for walking along putting coins in parking meters that have timed out. What an impedument to rapacious meter persons!
Let's look to the wonderful example of the Soviet Union and the economic state of its "descendant" countries to see how far communism advanced the general populations' well-being and the state of its infrastructure. Do you really want subway and bus service to come to a screeching halt? Then let's make sure that the goal of the MTA is ultimately to provide everyone with free service. I'm sure the MTA workers would gladly forgo their paychecks. Suppliers of new subway cars should be expected to gladly provide their "donations" for the well-being of passengers. And any of you who work, especially those who may have jobs related to MTA purchases and other expenditures, should be willing to forgo your paychecks.
It just doesn't work that way. There is nothing wrong with the idea that if you use something, you pay for it. To think otherwise is to promote a thieving society.
It isn't communism to spend my money and utilize the system how I see fit. That my friend is the innovation of capitalism. It is my critics who are the true communists. They expect some perverse moral ediquit to to take the place of the law! Failing to exploit the financial benefits of the system for the benifit of the "whole" ridership. Now that's communism!
Capitalism isn't spending money as you see fit. Capitalism is the production of goods and services that buyers want, and the PURCHASE of them by buyers at prices agreed to between sellers and buyers. It is not the production and sale, without payment. Do you really see the idea of payment as "perverse moral etiquette"? Would you accept your employer to arbitrarily choose, whenver it suited them, to not pay you your salary whenever they chose not to pay you, because if you demanded payment for the services you rendered, it would be "perverse moral etiquette" on your part?
Think these things through, all the way, before you post.
On the matter of people feeding meters as a "favor" to other people:
There are two purposes for parking meters: 1) by charging money, to make money for the city (the obvious one), and, 2) by means of the two-hour limit and the rule against refeeding, to discourage people from parking on the street who are going to be there all day and leave the street for "in and out" parkers. In other words, in areas with meters, the plan is that people who are parking for their apartment (8 or more hours) or work (8 hours) should go into a garage or other off-street parking, while the metered spots are for people shopping, eating, or otherwise doing business in the businesses along the street.
Therefore, the people who feed other people's meters are doing a favor for those parkers, but a disservice to 1) the people who come along and can't get a parking spot because nobody is leaving theirs and 2) the businesses that lose customers because nobody can come, easily park, go in, and do their business.
I don't think refeeding meters or feeding meters for other people is a major offense, and feeding other's meters is obviously done with good intent, but it SHOULD be punished by a ticket and small fine to make the point that it is NOT doing the public a favor, only those lucky enough to get to the parking spaces and lock them up all day.
This was a well developed, thoughtful, posting, probably presenting a view that many people haven't considered. I think it's correct.
While your rationale for parking meters exactly matches the origin--encouraging turnover in commercial districts, having meters in a city lot adjacent a movie theatre with limits less than the average running time of a feature clearly have some other agenda. In recent years many l.ocal government units have taken to parking enforcement as a major revenue stream. Consider the following: a vehicle is ticketed for parking in a bus stop zone--$230.00. The ticket was issued by an inspector from the transit agency which would have netted the bulk of the fine. The driver was able to have the ticket quashed on the grounds that on the day in question no bus service is operated on that street. So WHAT was the inspector doing anyway searching for lost buses? My point is that some of us no longer give credence to the supposedly beneficial basis of government actions or laws; based on sad experience of caprice.
What local goverment are you refering to, and in what municipal area is the fine for parking in a bus stop $230.00!!
As to parking fines as revenue streams, California in general. I reside in Oakland. Checking with the actual victim today, she thinks it was only 200, still way much.
Thanks David, I knew it could not be New York City. We do have outrageous parking fines but not $200.00 for parking in a bus stop.
I am suprised to hear that a ticket issuing authority would receive the bulk of an accesed fine. Here in N.Y.C. the issuing authority receives none of the fine. It all goes into the goverments revenue stream. Although I have heard that some ticket issuing authorites do receive a very, very, very, small fee to cover there cost handling the ticket.
Has everyone gone crazy?!?!
How will we ever eliminate internal cumbustion from New York unless motorists, particularly those coming in from out of town, are not sadistically punished???
My suggestion to the city would be to eliminate ALL Avenue curbside parking south of 125th street and instead collect their revenue by jacking up the parking tax from 18.25% to 22%. This idea would also save money by reducing the number of enforcers waiting for the meters to tick down. The freed up lanes could be used for loading and unloading, buses and much needed pedestrian space.
Sorry, there are still reasons to drive in New York. In Manhattan. From out of town -- specifically from out of town.
There is rarely a good reason for a commuter to drive in Manhattan, but there are often good reasons for out-of-towners to drive into the city. Consider that public transportation, while excellent in the NYC metro region, is nonexistent throughout much of the country, and that driving may be the only way to reach NYC. Couple that with the fact that travelers (and I don't mean tourists here) often have a fair amount of heavy luggage, and parking the car at an outlying train station becomes impractical.
If you are a traveler, and driving in, I recommend staying outside Manhattan. The amount of money you save, both for the room and parking the car, is significant. There is now a Marriot in Downtown Brooklyn over Jay St, with underground parking. And there is a Comfort Inn on 4th Avenue in Bay Ridge, near the R. These are new additions, and I hope there will be more. I can't imagine a family paying $250 a night per room -- and $100 for the car -- in Manhattan.
In fact, if the Marriot is a hit (and I think it will be) the TA should think about ditching that ugly building at 370 Jay St, which is right next to it, by selling it to a hotel developer. The Brooklyn District Attorney is in new office space over the Marriot. The TA could get new office space over a hotel next door.
[In fact, if the Marriot is a hit (and I think it will be) the TA should think about ditching that ugly building at 370 Jay St, which is right next to it, by selling it to a hotel developer. The Brooklyn District Attorney is in new office space over the Marriot. The TA could get new office space over a hotel next door. ]
Hey, I got an even better idea. The TA oughta buy some old Heritage sleeping cars from Amtrak, park them on the N&R express tracks in Manhattan south of 34th, and go into the hotel business!!
With your logic "Why should anybody pay, hell the trains & buses will be running anyway".
Personally, I believe in supporting mass transit, through my fares, my taxes, or whatever. I don't break the law to get free rides, and I probably wouldn't have the patience to dream up new (perfectly legal) tricks to outsmart the Metrocard either.
I only mean to point out that very few people -- including most of us, I'm sure -- pay more, or accept less, than they legally have to, for anything.
Maybe it's a driver parking at a meter that still has time on it. Legal, but still a freebie the government never intended.
The nickel fare nearly destroyed the subway, but for all those decades I'll bet not one straphanger stuffed extra change into the meter in the name of "supporting the system."
The fact is, people won't give up any more of their money -- especially to the government -- than they have to. If they did, the subway would have a "suggested donation" like a museum, instead of a fare.
If the MTA makes it legally and technically possible to get free rides in a variety of ways they didn't intend to, you can bet some people will, while many other people will bear the burden and feel cheated.
That's why it's up to the government to make laws that force people to pay their "fare" share -- instead of leaving that decision to the whim of the individual.
Even if they do read Kant.
I am all in favor of supporting Mass Transit. I would be willing to pay higher taxes if the "Suggested Fare" were possible, though I can assure you I would, according to the Suggested fare law, never pay more that I thought the ride was worth and that would be relative to how much I thought I was paying in taxes.
And I might point out that I would never take a parking space if there was time left on the meter. THAT'S CHEATING! I would drive to a spot 50 miles away before a took one cent of the city's money that way! I think that the city should form a special task force of Gulliani Style police to sadisticly enforce that law! I mean cheating like that is more than likely to undermine the very fabric of society; even civilization!
Chris, you're too much. I wonder if you really believe this stuff or you are trying to get a rise out of other people! You mean to tell me you wouldn't use THAT parking space with time on the meter even if that was the only spot on the block? As for your pal Guiliani, if you listen to the man close enough, you will see he wants more & more power for himself. Hmmm, doesn't a dictator operate like that?
While doing a good deed to help someone in need is certainly satisfying, making it a practice to swipe someone in for free each time you leave the system could be trouble.
Recall that when the police cracked down on fare-beating, the crime rate robberies, assaults and other more serious crimes in the subways tumbled. Simply put, once the "free rides" ended, crime fell.
If many customers made it a practice to swipe someone in as they left, eventually people would end up waiting around subway entrances for a "courtesy swipe". Chances are, those who could afford to spend the most time waiting around for a freebie would be those with the least legitimate need to be on the train.
Remember that for each person you courtesy swipe onto the system, another rider may exit without their wallet, or may not exit at all.
EYE used to see people sucking tokens out of the turnstiles to get a "free ride", was it the TAs' intention to give the second customer a free ride ? EYE think not.
Talk about a bad attitude. If you are so quick to assume that everyone is a criminal, why don't you at least be fair about it. The politicians are people too, you know.
Listen Folks,
I don't mean to clash so harshly with some of you. I am very passionate about my views because I believe in them. I believe that my point of view can help to make specific points known about the system. My only intention is to make for good symposium in the hopes that I might enlighten the way we look at the system as a whole. Some of you have posted that you would not have though of some of my ideas had I not brought them up. At least now they are out there welcoming response from the transit community.
Nothing Personal to anyone.
Chris. C.
OK, spill it. How cute was the person who gave you the warm and fuzzy feeling? 8-)
You did bring up an important possibility though, including a scenario where supposedly unfortunate people ask exiting people to use their unlimited Metrocard to let them in because the former "lost theirs".
does anyone out here know when the next transit museum tour of abandoned stations is? if so, do you know what stations they will be covering? also, does anyone know if any of these tours ever go to the following places, and if not, if there is any way to see them for photography purposes:
14th st side platforms
ninth ave brooklyn lower level
worth st. station (just north of brooklyn bridge)
thanks for any information anyone can provide.
Other than the Day One on the IRT tour scheduled periodically this summer, there aren't any other abandonded station tours scheduled.
[ 14th st side platforms ]
2 summers ago, there was major resonstuction at 14th St / Union Square and a large portion of the street was torn up. You were able to see the side downtown platform from the street, along with some of the eagle '14' plaques hanging in the station. Not having been there in a while, I don't know if the construction eliminated the platforms or not.
[ ninth ave brooklyn lower level ]
None of the tours ever visited this station. It is not legally accessible to passengers; the stairs down to the lower level have fencing around them.
[ worth st. station (just north of brooklyn bridge) ]
This past winder, there WAS a tour that visited the downtown platform. It has not yet been repeated.
--Mark
dont get me wrong, but anyone from new york does not have the balls to down the almond joys.they are 38 years old and are still great performers.they just dont compare to anything new york has. they aggragate more then 60,000 mdbf roughly what nycta does and that only because the cars in new york had to be totally rebuilt where as the almond joys had a slight overhaul in there long 38 year career in the early 80s. like i said im not downing nycta for the type of cars or the system they run , i go up at least once a month to do some elavated railfanning and i usually enjoy myself especially on the redbirds.
A subway car is a machine. Machines need to be replaced periodically. When a subway car is 38 years old, that machine should be replaced for better or worse with another machine. I have ridden the cars, I like them but it's time to say "Goodbye" . My only complaint about them was that they were extremely NOISY. Noisy like NYCT's beloved R10's.. Great cars, but they can't last forever. Us rail fans will miss them, but the average rider who just sees an old worn out car he/she has to ride in every day because they have to go to work deserves modern cars as we approach the new milennium.
dont get me wrong, but anyone from new york does not
have the balls to down the almond joys.they are 38
years old and are still great performers.they just
dont compare to anything new york has. they
aggragate more then 60,000 mdbf roughly what nycta
does and that only because the cars in new york had
to be totally rebuilt where as the almond joys had a
slight overhaul in there long 38 year career in the
early 80s. like i said im not downing nycta for the
type of cars or the system they run , i go up at
least once a month to do some elavated railfanning
and i usually enjoy myself especially on the
redbirds.
i love what the nycta is doing with the system , but
i also dont think that people who are fans of the
system dont have the right to down septa and its
rapid transit system ( O.K. YOU CAN DOWN SEPTAS
MANAGEMENT - HAY EVERYONE ELSE DOES ). THE ALMOND
JOYS ARE STILL FAST COMFORTABLE AND GOOD LOOKING
ESPECIALLY COMPARED TO THE NEW CARS despite the lack
of air conditioning. they accumulate more then
60,000 mdbf. they cannot compare to new yorks
equipment even though they get comparable mdbf's and
that only after they nearly all broke down shutting
the system down and being totally rebuilt. in the 38
year career of the almond joys they were given a
slight overhaul inthe early 80's and have given
consisten service since the first one was delivered
in mid 1960. your are right the almond joys just
don't compare.
the almond joys are great cars and havent nearly shut down down the system down like the cars in new york in the early 80's.the almond joys have given consistent service since the first car was delievered in mid 1960. they have only been overhaul just slighty and still giving good service accumulating over 60,000 mdbf's. dont take me wrong im not downing the new york city transt authority, but i dont think anyone should talk about the rapid transit cars or the system.
the almond joys are great cars and havent nearly
shut down down the system down like the cars in new
york in the early 80's.the almond joys have given
consistent service since the first car was
delievered in mid 1960. they have only been overhaul
just slighty and still giving good service
accumulating over 60,000 mdbf's. dont take me wrong
im not downing the new york city transt authority,
but i dont think anyone should talk about the rapid
transit cars or the system.
Sounds like a plan to me. I won't talk about the 'Almond Joys' or Septa, if you don't.
I was amazed to hear that only one train at a time can go through the 14th St tunnel. Why did they build two tracks?
My question is, does this cause delays in rush hour service (ie. do trains end up waiting at the entrance to the tunnel for other trains to get out). If so, how long? And does this mean that eliminating the problem will lead to faster trips?
They started one train at a time shortly after there was a major flood in the Manhattan bound tube a few years ago. The tubes are being renovated but I honestly don't know when or if the "Absolute Block" will be lifted. This presents a major problem when the WillyB gets shut down next year & additional service is operated on the L. There are plans in the works, with the signs already posted for a 45 to 50 MPH speed in the tube. "But our trains don't go that fast" you ask. True. Maybe downhill they will but if I have a red signal in that tube that is on time and I'm going 50 MPH and if it decides not to clear for me , I won't be able to stop without getting tripped. No motorman in his right mind is going to approach a red signal at that speed: maybe it didn't clear on time because there is a train ahead. I'm not about to find out, I'll go the speed at which I can stop, irregardless of the posted speed. Finally, uphill your speed dies down to about 20 MPH if you have a good train.
You'd be surprised at how fast those trains can go downhill through those tunnels. I've seen #4 trains hit 50 mph in the Joralemon St. tunnel, and even BMT standards used to get a full head of steam in the 14th St. tunnel. As I recall, their motors would whine away at A flat above middle C in that tunnel. That's pretty fast, considering that usually, you'd hear a D or maybe an E above middle C at speed.
The SilverBirds on the #4 line are five car "families" with a transverse cab at each end. They were originaly single units with no transverse cabs. My question stems from the conversions of the cab's to transverse. The transverse cab was converted from both the #1 end and #2 end, at the end of the five car units the transverse cab can either be a #1 end or a #2 end.
My question: Why did the TA do this?
It might have made no difference which end was converted to a transverse cab. I was just wondering if the TA had a reason for not using the same # end for all transverse cab's.
Thanks
Being a BMT-IND motorman, who never worked in the IRT or operated an IRT car, I can only venture a guess: logically speaking the transverse cab should be a #1 cab. There are more circuit breakers there at the motomans disposal & the handbrake would be located there. If you say a #2 cab is the transverse, then those who converted the car was just plain dumb.
There are definitely #2 ends as transverse cabs on the SilverBirds (R-62's). Another Conductor pointed this out to me, and the only thing we could figure is, they did not bother to turn the cars around. I know this is not an easy task, but not impossible.
"Dumb" sounds to frightening, I was hopeing there might have been a logical reason
Turning the cars around would be the easy part. The time involved would be to disconnect the drawbars & cables & to reequip all controls into the #1 cab which was originally stripped. My using the word dumb was rather strong. But one would think the job would have been done right in the first place. But in order to get the work done as fast as possible, no care was obviously made to turn the cabs around. This creates one problem if the motorman has an emergency brake application while on the road: because of a handbrake possibly being in the rear of his operating motor, he will be required before he descends to the roadbed in order to secure train, to go all the way back to the opposite end of the car to apply the handbrake , fighting the crowds if the car is crowded. After he comes back the process is reversed. Obviously the 6 P's weren't followed: Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. The cars were paid for by the government to be single cars. They were mutilated, & the taxpayers got duped. They should have remained single. Hopefully, they'll change their mind about mating the 62A's. If they do mate them, the #1 cabs will be transverse. Losing 5 cars if 1 car is bad is crazy.
Just out of curiousity,
What is a yard key? It's not a reverse key, I know that?
What is it for and how does it look like?
I heard it was used to reverse dirrection of subway trains, but then
wouldn't the reverse key be used to do that? They so call it a REVERSE key.
What is the difference in detail please?
I am not sure about the subways but streetcars have a switching position that allows only 5 mph opertion in the yards.
Does the yard key allow only slow speed operation in the yards by yard crews and the regular keys are for service operators?
does anybody know what abandoned subway station was used b y Billy Batson to change into captain marvel?
When I was younger at the time when the new subway cars on the BMT line(J,M,Z,L) were introduced in the late 80's I conducted a little test of my own out of curosity. One day I bought along a allen key set and stuck in the hole where train crews could modify the destination and letter of a subway car. I was amazed to find out that when I turned the allen key, I saw an abundant number of diferrent locations that the J train did not go to. Most of destinations were along the "Sea Beach" and "West End" lines in Brooklyn. Also I saw the symbols for the "R" which was embedded in a brown diamond shape which meant for rush hours or express. So up to now, I'm let wondering if the trains on the BMT where refurbished from old or if they were actually new but had these other destinations put as an extra. I pretty lost when it comes to subway cars fo the past and their car numbers(R46, R42, etc.)
-GarfieldA
I know for a fact that all the subway cars on the J Z M L are all rebuilt from older cars back in the 80s
i remember the way they originally looked back then
they look pretty much the same except the interior is painted differntly and there is more stainless steel on the inside
The R-40M (#4450-4549) and R-42 (#4550-4949) are rebuilt equipment. They were built in the late 1960's and operated throughout the IND/BMT. Just before they were rebuilt they operated on the B,D,K,R (when it was still the RR with it's north term. at Ditmars Blvd.) as well as the BMT Eastern Division. In the late 1980's (before they were rebuilt) we still had a bunch of them on the D line. I belive we had 4696-4807 and all of the R-40M's. They were transferred when the R-68A's started arriving and went into service in the D line. Also prior to rebuilding, the R-40M and R-42 originally had one-piece route/destination signs. These cars alway had A/C, but the slant R-40's (4150-4349) were retrofitted with A/C when they were rebuilt. The rush hour "R" sign you saw is the old service that operated during rush hours between 95th Street Bklyn and Chambers Street, Manhattan. The R-42's were transferred to the BMT Eastern division because all newer IND/BMT equipment (R-44,46,68,68A) are 75 feet long and cannot operate in some tight places on those lines.
An addendum to Wayne's good synopsis .... the card were originally built by St Louis Car Company. When the R-42s were delivered, they were the first all air-conditioned fleet of cars ordered. Until this order, a set of cars would have normally been assigned to relatively few lines supported by the same shops. The disbursement of the R-42s was politically motivated - every politician wanted some for their consituents. So when the R-42s were first placed on lines, it wasn't uncommon to see mixed consists of R-32s & R-38s (& R-40Ms) with the A/C R-42s. The older destination signs (into the 70s) had virtually EVERY lettered line as a result.
--Mark
R-42s originally did not have all possible bulkhead route signs, although I'm sure they did have all possible destination combinations. Back in those days, the R-40s and R-42s had one roll sign on each side which featured the letter designation in the middle and destinations on either side. For the D train, for example, you would see "205th St. Bronx / D / Coney Island". Later, these cars received roller curtains with the essentially the same letter/destination arrangement used today, except that all the information was on the same curtain.
I seem to recall that nearly all the slant R-40s and some R-42s were initially assigned to the E and F lines. It seemed that those two routes were always getting the newest equipment. The R-38s debuted on those routes, too.
BTW, some R-42s were initially assigned to the Canarsie line in 1969 when the last of the BMT standards were retired. The chase sequence in The French Connection gives a pretty good illustration of how those cars looked when they were new.
The only mixed sets I ever saw were R-42s coupled to R-32s on the D line, although there are photos on this website of other combinations. That seemed to be the thing to do in the early 70s.
Even though you & others are accustomed to see a certain model car on a given line, all IRT cars & all 60 ft. BMT-IND cars (R32,38,40,42) have a complete set of roll signs for their entire division. This gives operational flexibility if a line needs to borrow a train from someone else for any reason.
My wife just called. She says she's going to take the subway up to 14th St on her lunch hour using her unlimited ride Metrocard, and buy an inflatible kiddie pool at the Toys-R-Us there. While we do much of our shopping on foot on our lunch hour in Manhattan, in the past we would have been reluctant to spend $3.00 on transportation to grab a $15.00 item. In fact, I can almost guaranttee we would have driven our car all the way down Bay Parkway to Ceasar's Bay to buy it at the Toys-R-Us there. My wife is as much of a loophole seeker as Chris C (she thinks he's right), so she really responds to incentives. One less auto trip, one more transit trip. Preliminary evidence says it works.
E.t., al.,
At one of the "private" bus co they experienced (Wed 7/8):
- 6,928 local Unlim riders
- 95 express Unlim riders
- vs. 75K for the whole day
Disclaimer - I don't work for the TA or any of its divisions.
Mr t__:^)
I don't know how it works, but I can only assume that the TA gathers computerized statistics on ridership via the swiping of metrocards; volume at specific stations and lines at specific hours, that sort of thing.
Might riders who have reached their usual destination exit and then for a moment reenter the system (in effect, exit, enter then exit again) in order to "pad" the TA's statistics with the effect of influencing service along their own line and/or stations????
Sorry to be such a trouble maker.
Any thoughts, comments, ideas???????????
Most riders are too much in a hurry to even contemplate doing this. And besides, most people aren't clear if they'll be charged another fare. Who'd want to do that for another fare?
--Mark
Noone will do it for another fare. That's why we have the unlimited ride metrocard. Hip and savy New Yorkers would be willing to take an extra couple of seconds if they thought that their favorite subway line would get a littel extra attention from the TA.
Is it just a New York thing that you keep coming up with ways to scam the Transit Authority? Letting strangers ride for free, padding ridership statistics.... Do you have a day job or do you just sit around thinking "how can I screw the MTA today"? Just curious. :-)
I applaud the spirited discussion on the thread of honesty in using Metrocards. But I'm appalled at the effort to dishonestly circumvent the system. In a way, its a kind of financial "graffiti" aimed at anonymously disrespecting the values of society. In one case, by defacing public and private property. In this case, by defrauding the public.
Shame on you. Each individual is responsible to pay for what he or she uses. If I use the subway, I come with moeny and expect to pay. This does not make me a fool. The other approach makes its proponents thieves.
There is a difference between honest and dishonest behavior and bypassing payment simply is dishonest. The idea that a visitor will think fondly of New York because someone lets him or her use someone elses Metrocard for free is rediculous. What the visitor will realize is that the city morale stinks. If you go to another city, would you be expecting to find someone to give you a card to dishonestly use their transit system free or would you plan on finding out what the cost is and paying it?
Based on what has been written, I recommend immediate change to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) electronic system: You buy a card for a certain amount of money. Maybe in New York you could add 10-15% to the value to encourage people to buy the card. In BART, cards are passed through scanners on entering and leaving. When you leave, the amount corresponding to the fare is subtracted and the results printed on the card. You see what you have left. No unlimited-use tickets. You want to give your ticket to someone? They'll have to keep it to get out of the system. It works. So make whatever changes may be needed to eliminate the unlimited-use approach. And might as well develop a fare structure, as BART has, that has the fare dependent on the distance traveled. Makes sense to me. What do you think?
Just a detail on my prior posting. Yes, eliminate unlimited use on the subways. But retain free transfers between buses and subways only on those specific bus lines that are feeders to the subways. This would include certain lines in Brooklyn, Queens abd the Bronx but probably none in Manhattan. Do other subway systems in the world offer what is a free return trip, if done by bus? Maybe there should be a day pass (is there one?) at, say, 4 times the one-way fare, that would allow unlimited use that day. But continual use on a monthly pass - NO. People are wrongly being trained to except something for nothing. This goes for free auto travel across the Manhattan., Brooklyn and Williamsburg Bridges. They take money to maintain (and perhaps if their users paid a toll for their upkeep, the MB and WB wouldn't be in as bad a shape as they are now).
Let's not keep alive the false view that somehow, with low or no income, the MTA can keep its system going, including paying train operators and conductors, maintaining the infrastructure and buying and repairing subway cars.
Mike Rothenberg
Distance-based fares are not going to work in New York. As has been pointed out before, that sort of fare structure might be all right when the riders from the remote, higher-fare stations are suburban commuters with higher income. An example is the Washington Metro. On the New York subway, by contrast, the stations near the end of the lines tend to serve lower-income riders, while the upper-income Manhattan residents (and suburban rail commuters) tend to have shorter trips.
The focus on income vs. distance was useful. But are Manhattan residents high income? I think there are high and low income residents. The high income residents may not take the subway anayway but the low income residents would probably pay lower-than-average fares under what I advocate. As far as the outer areas of surrounding boroughs, I think, using Queens as an example, that the neighborhoods east, and further away from, the ends of the subway lines are generally more prosperous than the ones closer in to Manhattan, along the lines. So these more prosperous ones would pay the higher fares.
If you have data that support your, and refute my, views, could you post them? Thanks.
Manhattan residents of course do come from different income levels, but as a general rule (yes, with exceptions) they tend to have higher incomes than do residents of the outer boroughs. Plus you also have to add suburban commuters in the mix, most of whom will take the subway in Manhattan only. Distance-based fares therefore could be seen as favoring the higher income Manhattan residents. You'd hear stories about how millionaire investment bankers from the Upper East Side pay less than do their office cleaning staff from Brooklyn and Queens. Now that's not to say that things necessarily will work out that way, but perceptions count.
Who's values???, Who's society??? You assume everyone does and should think like you. The Governor was elected by the people and he has signed off on this unlimited metrocard deal. I believe that it shows a lack of values to be wastefull and anyone who neglects to use any system to its fullest potential within the confines of the law is either wastefull or lazy or both.
I suppose that your "High Moral Code" would prevent you from taking a parking space if there was still time on the meter! Remember, that's stealing! Or if you were waiting at the platform and realized that you forgot your wallet and hand to run back home, you would pay again to enter the subway! If George Pataki and the TA didn't want people to take advantage of the Unlimited Metrocard, then why even bother impimenting it? The way I see it, "Unlimited after 18minutes" Means just that in the eyes of the Law, the TA, the State, and God! And none of the above have any right to criticize how I or so many other average citizens use our cards within the confines of the system.
It is shocking to me that so many people out there have nothing better to do that to sit around judging the perfectly legal actions of others. Do none of you have day jobs???
The Governor may have been elected by the people, but I believe the law, or whatever measure he signed, allowing unlimited use transit passes was wrong. My poinion is based on the type of behavior you proudly seem to be a proponent of. If all New Yorkers followed your approach, there soon would be a transit crisis due to drastically-reduced revenues coupled with unchanging (maybe increased) transit service expenses. If you were a train operator or conductor, or bus driver, you would expect to get your paycheck. To whom will you protest if your paycheck got cut in half, or less? And what you you be protesting about, and what would it propose as a way to resolve the serious financial problem that caused the MTA to cut your pay? I imagine it would be "raise the fare". Would it be "fire me" to cut expenses? Probably not.
I suggest you give serious thought to the financial implications of what you advocate. As well as to the moral and ethical - yes, I say without shame moral and ethical - example you are setting for others, especially young people in need of good role models displying good, ethical behavior. Are you going to say that you would proudly tell young peoople to do what you have advocated here? Ad give them the idea that (it's not restricted only to train fares) that this is a philosophy they should use throught their life? What were you taught?
As far as not having anything else better to do, on a weekday, than read and post things to this site, I'd like to note that you posted your message on a Friday, too. Meaning you had the time to read and post it. Do you know where anyone reading or posting messages to this forum lives? What time zone they are in? What hours or days they work? I don't know yours. Why is it any of my business? So don't draw nasty conclusions about anyone else and try to limit your comments, without flamage, to the issues discussed. That's what readers want to read.
What an unbelievable accusation. Do you have nothing better to do than to sit around judging the morals of average citizens acting within the law??? Are you sponsored by Jerry Farwell???
Perhaps you don't realize what your postings are saying, but they advocate stealing a service - using something that you know costs money to provide, but taking the self-righteous position that it is OK to do so. Instead of trying to defend, with a kind of smugness, this position, you ought to contemplate the kind of values you believe in which, if followed by all New Yorkers, would result in total anarchy resulting from no one wanting to pay their fair share, or anything, for goods and services, both from the private and public sectors.
Do you work for a living? If so, where do you think your employer gets the money to pay you, of not from incomre received for the goods or services that the company provides. If its customers all had your view, they would order and recieve products, not pay, and you'ld find yourself out of a job at some time.
Why is the idea of promoting the idea "if you buy the service, you have to pay for it" so repubgnant to you?
Chris, Mark, Mike,
There are threads & sub-threads & sub-sub threads here that I have looked at ... EYE want address "restriction of free use of Unlim MC and stats:
- I wouldn't restrict the Unlim MC use right now or in the near future, lets see if it gets more folks off the road FIRST. The TA & the Gov might have to deal with financial issues sooner then they thought (ridership, capacity, abuse, etc.)
Abuse may cost them in two ways: Reduced sales (Chris and others giving away the store), cash outlays (the "privates" get paid by the TA everytime someone dips the card on our system).
- Stats: Chris your "favorite" station is unlikely to receive any recognition due to your (and others) action. The activity is recorded by line (1,2,3,A,B,C or bus route). I may be a little off on the subway stats (never seen them), because there is a sub-route stat, so someone who's seen this PLEASE educate me, thanks. There is also lots of other data, but it's lumped so you can't tell where it came from. (where or where are all those step-up fares occuring) It's very fustrating !!!
Disclaimer - EYE don't work for the TA or any of its divisions.
Mr t__:^)
So all those out there that can’t wait to get rid of those Budd cars (M-3’s, Almond Joy’s, etc.). What do you sacrifice for your perceived comforts of the new M-4’s? Slower acceleration (and longer running times) and a conductor (safety). But ultimately, all those high priced fancy gadgets that add many thousands of dollars to the price of an RT car will be but a dream also over time. After the warranty period is over, and SEPTA maintenance kicks in, how many of those sought after "nice to have" options will be working? Case in point, the CTA, of which I’m a daily rider, has 100% of its RT fleet equipped with AC. How many times a week do you think I ride home from work in a "sweat box"? With windows that DO NOT open.
What most of us fail to realize, the goal of SEPTA, or any other transit authority, is to get you from point A to point B, quickly, safely, in clean equipment and at a low cost. When the public purse is being tapped for transit equipment, a Ford will get over the road as well as a Cadillac. The Ford may not have as many creature comforts as the Caddy, however, you can purchase more Fords with your money and provide MORE TRAINS. But, frequency of service is another soapbox I will not get into at this time.
What everybody has been crying about are 38 year old, beaten to death, 1960's cars. Back in 1960, when they were being delivered, the "fans" cried about the "wonderful Brill's on the Elevated". Brills that were 52 and 38 years old respectivly.
OH, yeah, one of the "complaints" about the new cars was that they were "slower" than the cars that were being replaced.
The more that changes, the more that stays that same.
How could anyone have said in 1960 that the "new" Budd cars were slower than the Brills (both sets) they replaced? The running time from Bridge-Pratt to 69th St. went from 45 minutes, with the "old" Brill cars, to 38 minutes, with the "new" Budd's.
When you do the math, who would complain?
Secondly, a stainless steel car DOES NOT RUST. I will admit that other mechnical parts need to be replaced, but SEPTA never performed any mid-life overhaul.
The only "problems" with the M-3 is that they don't have A/C or they can't be OPTO.
The Budds served well, and I hate to see them go, but at some point they will indeed have to be retired. I'm not so sure I accept the SEPTA explanation which centers around the need for air-conditioned cars on the line. I do think that the M-4's and other modern rail cars have some many gadgets and doo-dads that only contribute to the expense but are often allowed to break and are not repaired. It makes one wonder why the fancy stuff is really needed on the cars to begin with.
Just a point of fact, though - is there any reason the Budds couldn't be operated by one person? I think, if the door switches are set correctly, that they could be operated from the motorman's cab. The only problems would be at the island platform stops - 69th (possible), 34th, 30th, Spring Garden and Bridge-Pratt (possible), where the motorman could not operate the doors from his/her cab. Of course, PATCO operators do this all the time with the assistance of mirrors.
All the average pasenger (who is not a rail-fan) knows is that the doors open, he gets on, hopefully gets a seat, & gets off at his stop. He wants a quiet comftorable ride. Working Air-conditioning is probably the #1 request of todays transit passenger, the #2 request is a quiet car. The new cars on the Market-Frankford will satisfy that need. Quick acceleration?: they don't like it if they fall on their butt & get hurt when the train starts. Slower acceleration eventhough it will increase running times=possible less injuries. Less injuries=less lawsuits.
To all concerned,
I think Bill is right on the money. A terminal-to-terminal running time difference of a couple of minutes really will not affect most passengers since they will get off in Center City in most cases. A minute's faster ride on a car delivered while JFK was in the White House as opposed to a new car with a quieter ride and air conditioning? I'll give you one guess as to what will increase El ridership.
Also, not to disparage the CTA, but the B-IV cars running on the Broad Street Subway here in Philly (whose windows do not open) are over a decade old now and I have yet to ride one without its A/C in working order. Same is true for our fleet of subway-surface cars. (Incidentally, both of these types were built by Kawasaki.) SEPTA's maintenance folks seem to be able to handle A/C.
By the way, the technical term for a rapid shake when the train starts is known as "jerk". (No kidding.) I know there's some kind of formula for measuring jerk, but I don't have it handy. All I can say is my wife always complains that nobody ever thought of a woman wearing high heels on her way to work when they designed certain (to remain nameless) rapid transit systems!
I agree. It appears that reliable AC is a feature of both the subway-
surface and Broad St cars. They are also kept remarkably clean given the daily abuse they get. There is something to be said for the maintenance forces at Elmwood, Woodland and Fern Rock. The same can be said for those denizens at Frankford and 69th St who have kept the Budd cars going this long.
YOUR RIGHT NEW CARS WILL NORMALLY RAISE RIDERSHIP BUT IF YOU HAVE TROUBLESOME CARS SUCH AS THE NEW M-4S BREAKING DOWN IT WILL DISCOURAGE A RIDEHIP INCREASE. AT LEAST THE ALMOND JOYS THE PEOPLE CAN RELY ON DESPITE ITS LACK OF AIR CONDITIONING.
What problems have the M-4 cars had, specifically? I know about the problems completing the contract, but how are these unreliable?
Isn't there a rather significant problem with the M-3 traction motor mountings that requires frequent and costly inspections? This seems to be glossed over in discussions of the retirement of the M-3s.
Nothing I have seen in articles in the Inquirer, etc., has reported anything but happiness on the part of Joe Commuter at the sight of the new cars.
There have been some break-in and "teething" problems on the M-4's, and to some extent this is expected as the cars move from "on paper" to "in service". If SEPTA had been operating over the past 40 days, with a few hot ones in that period, the AC would have been better appreciated by riders.
This same mindset occurred in the early 60's, I am told, when the Budds first arrived on the Market-Frankford line, and there was talk (and little else) about the Broad St fleet being replaced. Many purists apparently thought it wasn't time, and a number of things happened such that the replacement didn't happen. This worked until about '78 when the cars started going down like crazy. Admittedly, a large portion of the fleet was 50 years old at the time, and well beyond their servicable lives, but then the call came to scrap the fleet and buy new cars. Of course, it takes time to do that, and the fleet had to hang on until '83-'84 when the Kawasakis arrived. As much as we like the Budds, I'd prefer not to wait until the proverbial last minute to pull the plug. Personally, I think they have maybe 5 years left in them, but why push it?
I think Bobw is right about "pushing it" to the last minute - better to replace the fleet while time is still on your side!
Although I wasn't a Philadelphian at the time, friends of mine have nothing but horror stories related to the last days of the Broad Street fleet prior to the large Kawasaki purchase. I've even been told by more than one person that SEPTA had trouble meeting the rush hour vehicle requirement on the Broad Street Line, and in fact didn't meet it on several occasions. Of course, one regular Broad Street user told me that it must be remembered that the stations themselves were also in sorry shape until the general rehab work in the 1980's.
As to the M-3 "Almond Joy" cars - from what I understand the previous poster is correct. Not only do they lack some modern amenities, but supposedly EVERY car's traction motor mounts must be checked DAILY since the wreck at 30th Street during the early 1990's. From what I understand, this wreck happened after a motor fell off the car while the train was traversing a switch. I don't know about you, but this leads me to welcome replacement equipment.
Jack, let's re-visit those brave days of yesteryear, such as '79-80 when the Broad St fleet was going down like crazy. I can recall the nadir of service when 26 (count 'em!) cars, out of a total required for peak-hour service of (I believe) 75. And this was AFTER express service was suspended and all trains were 5-car locals. Things got very hairy very fast.
I hear a lot of problems about the M-4's brakes, in addition to experiencing them!
The only thing SEPTA-related that is seemingly newsworthy was our recenlty resolved strike. A few weeks ago there was an article in the City section about the reconstruction of the West Philly El but didn't even mention the fact that 220 new cars were on order(not even in a caption for a picture of one!!!)
Joe Commuter, as far as I know, has mixed feelings towards them, from realative indifference to pleasent surprise. No one I talk to really hates them, but they say they don't see what all the fuss is about.
Maybe it's time to get technical....
I agree. The only problem I really have with SEPTA's 5+ fleet is really with those "Almond Joys"(4 bumps a pop) and the B-IV's and the fact that in 20 rides a week you'll find a car with non-functioning doors on 12.
The trolleys are remarkably well kept, very little "scratchitii", always cool in the summer and realatively quiet, but the "jerk" factor is beyond belief! Especially in the subway.
Actually, all PATCO stations are island stations. Since the driver is on the left, he can check the platform easily. Recently PATCO trains at night have run through Philadelphia in both directions on one track to allow construction to be done on the alternate track. The driver gets out of his seat, walks over to the door on the right side and uses a key near the door to open it. He then closes the door, removes the key and walks back to his seat.
On the MFSE I have seen the same maneuver with a new train during night construction when the train ran on the wrong track. To open the door at 15th St. when the train is wrong-way running and there is no video equipment to provide a picture in the cab, the driver has to get out and use a key to open and close the door. (Normally, for use by new trains at the island platform stations, there is a video camera to provide a signal to the TV screen in the motorman's cab.)
Washington, DC, has easier one-person operation because the cab occupies the entire front section so the driver can look out the left or the right window as needed.
The only late night experience I've had in a while(before the unpleasantness) was on an M-4 and the doors can be opened without the mototorman leaving the cab.
But when the Market St. El gets replaced next year(before, the construction was supposed to have already commenced!) I'm positive that they won't be shutting down the ENTIRE line. So they will using(probably) only one track so things should be interesting.
A couple of points of clarification:
1. PATCO uses a single track from the crossover east of 12th-13th into 15th-16th terminal during the midday hours. This allows lay-ups (I don't know if PATCO uses this term) to be stored on one track with regular service on the other. Thus, trains are using the off-side doors at least in one direction. In these cases, the operators use the platform mirrors. Since 12th-13th is not overly busy in the midday and the normal consist is 2-car trains during this period, this operation does not seem to be a problem.
2. The Market St el replacement will maintain weekday service and shut down trains for long weekends, roughly 8 PM Fri-5 AM Mon, similar to when the Frankford end was being rehabbed. I don't think the sequencing has progressed to the point where thought has been given to keep the el operating over busy weekends, such as special events, Christmas shopping season, etc. From what I've heard, service will be bussed between 69th and 30th/34th (trains would run westbound to 34th, dump their loads, change ends, crossover west of 30th, then go back into eastbound service). This could change also, I'm sure.
Have the new compressed natural gas buses arrived? if so, does anyone know which depots they have been assigned thanks.
MDH,
Well that depends on WHICH CNG buses you're talking about.
- LI Bus has some Novas
- The NYC "privates" have some GM/TMC, i.e. Command & Triboro
- I think Liberty has some, but don't quote me.
- Our filling station WORKS, as of this week
- There is a new order of Novas comming this Fall.
Mr t__:^)
nj transit just start using them this week
in regard to your question i overheard a bus operator in bklyn saying that there are 30 cng buses assigned to the jackie gleason depot and 19 are out of service due to defects and mechanical problems
SCOTT....
I've ridden some on the B69 out of the Gleason. I appreciate the lack of fumes. Too bad if they don't work.
Does anyone know the specs of the new Orions and the RTS?
How many feet, tonage ect?
The new Orions seem larger and more powerful, if so by how much?
I don't remember the weights of buses, but all NYCT buses are 40 feet long and 102 inches wide. The one exception is the arrival of New Flyer Articulated in 1997 & 1998 which are 60 feet long by 102 inches wide. The newest Orions are the same 40 feet long by 102 inches wide, but they do have a more powerful engine. Actually all NYCT buses purchased since 1994 have the Detroit Diesel Series 50 4 cylinder diesel engine. These buses are noticably quicker than the buses with the older Detroit Diesel 6V92 6 cylinder engines. Both engines are turbocharged and all NYCT buses since 1990 have DDEC electronic fuel injection.
A couple of addenda: NYCT has an order in for 180 MCI MC102DLW3s. They are 45' x 102". Also, 5 or 10 Orions from the first order and 10 RTSs (9140-9149) are equipped with Cummins engines.
Are they testing a hybrid bus with Electric traction motors, an egnine running a generator, batteries and regenrative braking?
Zeek, We, the "privates" had ONE a couple of years ago. It was one of those small jobs, so we couldn't do carry much of anybody with it. I'm not sure how many of the "seven" actually had it. I could probally look thru Mass Transit or something and pick out who made it.
Mr t__:^)
There has been a lot of talk about the need for shorter headways, and more express service, especially off peak.
Let's say you have a line like the F, which runs every five minutes on peak and every 10 minutes during midday, evening, and weekend hours. How hard would it be to do this: during off-peak hours, you divide the train in half, then run half trains OPTO with rush hour headways. You have the same number of train cars, the same number of stations, the same number of on-board personnel as today, but double the frequency of service. True, train operators earn more than conductors, who would have to be promoted, and someone with skills would have to uncouple and recouple the trains. Some half-length cabs might have to be modified, and so might the couplers for easier use. But for double the service, this does not seem too much to ask.
I know there are some safety objections to OPTO. But if a conductor can look down half a train in two directions during the crowded peak hours, why can't a train operator look half a train down the platform in one direction off peak? Moreover, if the number of transit workers would not go down, and some would get promotions, perhaps the "safety" concerns would disappear. Conductor could become an entry level, split shift, rush hour only job. There would be relatively few conductors, and they would be promoted to train operator or bus operator if qualified relatively quickly. There would be more train operators, and they would be evenly distributed around the clock.
There is nothing worse than two 10 minute waits for trains, one for a transfer, on the way home. Off peak OPTO and split trains could cut the headways at a modest additional cost.
Right arm. Some of us will remember when CTA essentially offered that deal on the Evanston line . This was the genesis of cars 1-50 which were equipped with fareboxes and essentially were elevated high platform PCC's. In any event the union bought the one man but no mass layoff idea preserving at that time good headways on a lightly traveled line.
It's a totally logical idea, which is why it doesn't have a snowball's chance of being implemented. It's not enough that staff cuts will be avoided and many promotions will be made available. The unions will demand that the split trains have conductors, thereby significant'y increasing required staffing.
It's a totally logical idea, which is why it doesn't have a snowball's chance of being implemented. It's not enough that staff cuts will be avoided and many promotions will be made available. The unions will demand that the split trains have conductors, thereby significantly increasing required staffing.
This idea is too logical to be accepted by any of the operating agencies.
The CTA, who introduced OPTO on its heavily traveled Red & Blue Lines last year, could take a lesson from this book. CTA, on the other hand, went in the opposite direction. The number of trains remained the same, however, the running time increased. So, where there was 3 minute headways during the rush hour, there are now four and five minute headways.
It almost makes one wonder if CTA wants any passengers at all.
I guess the CTA example (use OPTO to cut costs not increase service) is the fear. If you go OPTO to increase service, the workers are unaffected (a bit more work for the train operator balanced by higher wages), the taxpayers are unaffected, and the riders win. If you go OPTO to cut costs, the workers lose (fewer jobs) the riders are unaffected (except for a debateable safety risk and a slight delay) and the taxpayers win. Hence, no deal.
However, the CTA has a NO-LAYOFF clause. SOOOOOO they had to re-assign displaced workers and offer generous "buy-outs" to workers who were over fifty (experienced operators who have could have served to public at least another ten years). These buy-outs will ultimately add to the CTA's money woes. However, the management that came up with this grand scheme will be long gone and the problem will have to be dealt with by another set of buearucrats.
Buy the way Larry, are you available for the top position at the CTA. We here in Chicago could use a forward thinker like you. The only further qualification you would need is to contribute to the machine of King Richard (Daley). As it seems this is the only attribute one needs for become the GM or whatever they are called these days.
Gee, here in NYC you only have to be a relative of a big contributor to the machine, not a direct contributor yourself. No wonder Chicago has a bigger reputation for corruption than we do.
Sounds like a good idea. I'll be interested to see what all the TA workers on this board think of it.
Personally, I've often been irritated when, after I wait forever for an express train late at night, one arrives with what looks like about 27 empty cars. I've thought to my self that a couple of shorter trains would be much better.
I was under the impression that most, if not all, lines run shorter trains during the late hours.
I don't know the particulars. I have seen lots of short trains at night.
But I've also been aboard some long trains, I'm thinking at least 8 cars, late at night -- I think particularly on the A line -- and they stayed nearly empty for many, many stops. Halving the number of cars and halving the headways would have been much better.
A one-bunch "A" at night (four cars) would be just fine,
provided there was no more than say a ten-minute headway
between them. Ditto for lines like "E", "F", "G" (may already
have 1 1/2 bunch at night) and "2", "4" etc.
Wayne
The A train should have only 8 (32/38 model) cars and 6 (44 model) cars.
The C should remain at 8 (32/38 model) cars.
The D, E, F should remain the same.
The B should be reduce to 6 (68's model) cars.
You can't have 6 R44's! They're 4 to a bunch. The "G" train has
6 car trains because they have oddball "even-only" two-to-a-bunch
cars along with the 4-to-a-bunch. These were only delivered with
the R46 and the R44-SI. Unit number 6204-6258 (R46) and 424-468 (SI).
Correct me if I'm wrong but R44 either has 4 or 8 cars.
Wayne.
Wayne, are you correcting me? If so, I'm unaware of the physical limitation of the train. Question? Why are the 44's design for only four and 8 cars? Why not 3, 5, 6,7,
Chris,
The R-44s are permanently arranged in four-car sets using drawbars. The R-46s are the same way, except for the previously mentioned two-car sets that are made only of even-numbered (cab) cars. FYI, the R-68A fleet, built as single units, is presently being mated into permanent four-car sets. These changes were/are being made for maintenance efficiency (fewer couplers, etc., to repair).
David
As others have said it seems like a good idea.
Running 3/4 empty trains all night begs for muggings, etc.
But it ain't going to happen ... why did the TA stop doing it ?
1. The cost (staff) to uncouple the trains, extra guys in the tower
1a. Safety - if U do it in a pass area another train might run into the operator
1b. It might delay service (if a train gets stuck in the middle of this process, especially across the tracks)
2. Don't fix it if it ain't broke, i.e. it causes a lot of problems
The LIRR does it all the time, maybe they could TEACH the TA howto, i'm talking here mainly about switching between 2 tracks.
Disclaimer - I don't work for the LIRR, & never have
Mr t__:^)
My question for thoses who may know, what is NYtransits policy concerning conductors responsibilty on a train in passenger service. Exactly, if a conductor realizes a train operator has trip a red signal or has overshot a platform, what is the conductor to do?
Open his brake valve and call Command.
How would a conductor know that a train operator had passed a red signal? They are always red by the time the conductor passes them, and it seems like it would be pretty dangerous for the conductor to be hanging his head out the window, looking at signals...
A conductor would never know if a train has passed a signal illegally, unless they and the train operator were taken out of service for not reporting the incident to control center. As for over shooting a station and conductor is not at the indication board THEN they would have to put train in to emergency and key open doors that are abreast of station platform. And always control is to be notified of the situation.
While the crew operates as a team train operator is responsible for safe operation of train movement. the Conductor is responsible for overall safe operation. the T/O moves the train but the Conductor assures that the t/O is operating safely(proper starts and stops) erratic opeartion is to be questioned by the conductor and reported.
But if a train trips a red signal wouldn't an observant conductor know by the sound of the air brakes escaping or by watching the air pressure gauge in his cab? I know this would not apply if a red signal was rolled over at a slow speed over the rail joint.
What I was wanting to know was if sometimes the conductor and T/O may look out for each other and not comply with this rule?
Before the Union Square crash in 1991, the conductor was aware that the (intoxicated) train operator was acting eratically, but for some reason he didn't take action. It's not hard to understand why a conductor might be reluctant to act when the problem involves something like erratic operation. There can be an element of judgment involved, in deciding whether the operation really qualifies as such, and a conductor presumably would be concerned about making false accusations.
Are there any remnants of the St. Louis Car Company? I believe I once
saw a book written about it? Please help.
No.
Yes, there were at least a couple of books written about the St. Louis Car Company. One very good book that was written was titled "From Horsecars to Streamliners, an illustrated history of the St. Louis Car Company. It was published back in 1978 by Transport History Press and written by A.R. Lind. Lots of very good B&W photos, plus photos from the SLCC library. The book had an SLCC catalog of nicely rendered trolleys and elevated cars from circa 1900 and a listing of every job order the SLCC ever had from the 1890's to 1974.
Lots of good text on the NYC subway car orders, and how it both kept SLCC alive during the 50's and 60's, to the ill fated R-44 order which helped spell the SLCC's demise.
Don't know if it is still available.
I heard they were aquirred by General Steel Castings who built trucks after production stopped. What happened to them?
I have heard that Bombardier (SP?) holds all of the St. Louis, Pullman and perhapps the Budd patents Is it true? I know they manufacture the Disney Monorail equipment. When Disney Opened Epcot they placed the single largest order for mass transit equipment ever in North America. Does that record still stand?
I saw this on a poster at the West 4th Street Station yesterday. MTA is apparently allowing the public to view the new cars and give feedback. Something that I'm sure several people on this list would be happy to provide.
It's taking place at the 207th St. Train Yard.
3961 10th Ave.
between West 211th and West 212th Streets.
Friday July 10, 1998
from 3pm to 8pm
I gave the info to our News Director here at WCBS Newsradio-88. Hopefully we'll be able to cover it. Unfortunately, I can't go... it's back to Boston for me this evening :-) [However I did get to ride the <5> Dyre Ave. Thru Express while here! Coool!]
To John B, e.t. al.,
A couple of times I said that Wash D.C. has a "Smart Card" transit system in place. John, who uses the system, said he hadn't seen it.
I found the "Mass Transit" article from July 1997 that caused me to have my opinion:
"Smart Cards - Debunking the Myths" by Michael G. Dinning"
"The Washington Metro SmartTrip ..."
"The contactless GoCard, developed by Cubic, was DEMONSTRATED in Washington D.C. on buses, in rail stations and parking facilities. It WILL BE the foundation for a complete stored-value ticketing system designed for multiple agency card acceptance, account resolution, and fare policy implementation." I also saw a photo of a Washington station including turnstiles in a Cubic newsletter, but I didn't save it.
Elsewhere in this article there is another interesting item that I have previously said probally has something to do with the basis for the TA's interest in Smart cards:
"A demonstration of Samart cards in retail stores in MANHATTAN's Upper West Side is planned for later this year by Citibank, Chase, Visa, & Mastercard, using both the Visa Cash card & the Mondex card."
Mr t__:^)
I apologize that I made my statement that there is no contactless system in Washington so sweeping. There was none in the Metro stations I used while I was there, so I felt confident that such a system was not in general use. However, I did not account for the possibility of an experimental or test program where such a cardless system would be used in particular stations and on particular bus lines.
Also confusing is that a "smart card" is not always the same as a contactless system. The media and the financial industry tend to call any card which can be used in multiple agencies or establishments (such as a welfare identification that is actually used to pay for "food stamp" goods, or a transit farecard which can also be used to buy goods and services in certain stores) a "smart card" whether it has to be swiped through a machine or not.
The GO card system, whch is some sort of contactless fare card, is all over the Metro. I think it is at every stop. I do not know if it is used anywhere else (busses, commuter rail, movie theaters, whatever). But its in the Metro.
It was there well before I left DC in summer 96. Never saw a soul use it though.
As you may have read earlier, I don't believe it is fair that senior citizens can get an unlimited ride Metrocard valid at rush hours for half price, although I do not object to an off peak fare for the elderly or anyone else.
How about a half fare (or one-third fare) card for those under 18, valid only during off-peak hours? How about $21 for the under 18 unlimited 30 day card (off peak only) if you don't take transit to school, and $12 with one peak hour trip per day allowed if you do? Perhaps the card could only be valid when traveling with an adult -- ie. after an adult unlimited fare or pay per fare Metrocard is swiped through, up to three child metrocards may be swiped though at half price.
By the way, not that this would affect who ends up getting what discount, but in 1990 (census of population data) 70 percent of NYC residents over age 65 where white-Nonhispanic, and nearly all are eligible to vote. And 70 percent of those who were under 18 were NOT white non-Hispanic, none of them are eligible to vote, and many of their parents are immigrants thus are also not eligible to vote.
Larry, EYE like your idea ...
This would go a little way to make up for the Unlim cards' negitive benifit, i.e. the "value" card is good for 4 customers.
School kids are issued a unique MC, why not SELL them to others at the same store that sells Sr/Disabl, we could call it the E-Z-Pass store, nope that name has been used already.
I'm (and I bet a lot of you) for anything that will bring the TA more PAYING, sorry Chris, customers to the system.
Express fare increase .... a couple of years ago the TA wanted to do it. They calculated that the "privates" and TA Express operation was loosing more money then the local service. Well, there was an election just around the corner and (Larry) guess who was going to be most effected, you got it, those Queens WASP voters. And who said your vote don't count ?
Mr t__:^)
Last night I decided to ride along the J line from Manhattan way after sun down. I saw that crews have now installed new station lights which are now in operation. This style is much better than the now conventional flourescent. A plus side to this is that the bulbs are now protected with what looks like a hard plastic shell unlike flourescent lighting which is bare. As for the brightness, it's strong enough to fully shine the center track and possibly the street below which lacks efficient lighting.
-GarfieldA
Hello everybody. I have just returned from a college visit
that lasted two weeks in which I was unable to keep up with
the message board. Can anyone update me on events
that have occured in the last two weeks? Have there been any
additions to the site?
Thanks
Tom
All the old articles are still available. To see the most recent 1,000 articles, click on "see more recent articles" on the main page. To see articles 1 thru 7,000, clock on "see more older articles".
-Dave
SEPTA strike is OVER
Service will start Saturday morning
FULL service by Monday morning rush
Part Timers UNresolved
Glory Be! The SEPTA strike is over! I saw it on the news on TV about 7:00 to-night. I know a lot of people who will be very happy, not only Steve Brookens. Wonder how many pieces will be on the street Sat.
morning. A former bus driver told me it is like a ghost town the first few days and it is easy to run ahead of schedule. Maybe the free rides for the next few days will bring out the people!
It's on the SEPTA Website (www.septa.com). Like a bolt from the blue. As of Wednesday, it looked like 36 more days.
(Help from the spirits of Merritt Taylor and Thomas Mitten?)
Yes, after 40 days and 40 nights, the flood is over, and the animals can leave the ark...! Service starts early Sat AM and rides are free through Tue. Already, fare increases and service cuts have been denied. The part-time issue will go to binding arbitration.
Peace for another three years? Now we've got to get used to riding the service again. Hopefully, most riders will return. Only time will tell.
Hopefully it will create a little peace over here on the BBS. The last several weeks have been a little crazy here due to the strike. A lot of opinions concerning labor, almond joys and the visit by the Seahag! Hopefully we can all get back to normal now and debate and exchage ideas over some new stuff!
Last summer August to be exact I was up in Hornell New York visiting family and in the local paper GEC Althom was being heralded for receiving the contract for NYCTA subway cars to be built in Hornell. This past April I was back in Hornell and looked around the former Morrison Knudsen plant which is now GEC Althom and saw no new subway cars being contructed. There were Chicago CTA cars being rebuilt..
I wonder if the R143's are built up in Plattsburg?
What knid of coaches does the LIRR have today
-916 MU electrics (744 M1s, 172 M3s);
-Approximately 150 diesel coaches that will be scrapped in the next year or so as 134 new bi-level, push-pull diesel coaches (C2s and C3s) enter service;
-10 prototype bi-level coaches (C1s) now used inside a pair of FL9 locos on a daily round trip from/top Port Jefferson (Trains 605 and 660).
C2 ???????
Since when is the TA into the railfan business? Sure, the Transit Museum, ERA, and Railway Preservation Corporation have done trips. Now, the TA is doing its own trip? Amazing! I saw the ERA Bulletin for the trip, but there's no order form. Do I have to call them up? 6 of the 9 R110s will operate; one 3 car set is supposedly being used for parts.Any word on this? Is the R143 a good thing? The TA could have kept cars at 67 ft if they had positioned the trucks the way the AB Standards had them. Then, they could operate on the Eastern Division.
Cheers,
A Dedicated Transit Museum Volunteer
RTO has done this in the past; there were two (or three) D-Type trips a few years back to raise money for the March of Dimes.
--Mark
When the City of New York began buying rapid transit equipment when the IND subway was first being built, it was determined to label the orders as "R" contracts (for 'Revenue,' in case someone wasn't aware of that). But when the City started to operate surface lines, was there a similar designation used for bus and trolley coach contracts?
I think the first City-owned bus lines were in Manhattan and Staten Island, but I'm not certain. (I don't have much interest in rubber tires on asphalt; I'm just curious about this.)
Thanks for the info if anyone can supply it.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
I don'
t know for sure, but my guess is that the bus orders do not get the "R" prefix. There may be something for internal use, but the buses are just have their model numbers from the manufacturer and of course their fleet numbers. I think this is because subway cars are pretty much custom built - actually I would say they're totally custom jobs, therefore the manufacturer wouldn't need to give it a model designation. With buses they are many feature that are specified by the customer, but the bus is still a particular model and that model would be found another agency, but it may have different options - such as seating arrangement, engine, transmission, destination sign type, etc. In NYC, buses seem to be referred to by their fleet number series. For instance if someone mentions 4300, I know they referring to a 1986 GMC RTS model 06. We even do this for buses that have been withdrwn from service. EXAMPLE: the previous NYCTA 4300's were 1969 GMC T6H-5305A. I would like to know how it's done internally.
Thanks for the comments. I didn't mean to suggest that I thought 'R-' was used for bus or trolley coach orders; I wondered if 'S-' for
'surface' or 'B- ' for 'bus or 'TC' for 'trolley coach' or some other letters or system might have been used.
For instance, if the Mack bus contract from 1955 or so was the fifteenth City bus contract, might it have been, in New York City nomenclature, an 'S-15,' regardless of what the manufacturer called it? That wouldn't be much different than talking about subway car contracts or early IND R-types, which, except for manufacturer, don't differ very much--are there major differences, for example, between R-7-A and R-9 cars?
Still wondering.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
When the problems with the Grummans erupted, I remember them being called "B-88", even though the manufacturer's model number is 870
I can't believe it how crazy are the M,J,Z lines have the wirdest line schedual. My plan is for the M,J,Z and a new O train. The M train will still be local and run from Metropolitan Avenue to Coney Island on the B line. The J line will run from Jamaica to . The Z train will run from Jamaica to 21 Street Queensboro. Now for the O train it will run from 179 Street to Metropolitan Avenue. The M,O trains will be local except when the M hits Brooklyn. The O will be local in Queens and Manhattan. The Z will be express in Queens and Manhattan. The J train will be express but be the new Brighton Local while the D,Q be the Brighton Express. Now all these lines will be Full time. Now there might be a whole slew of changes. Like the J,Z,O and M will never again be on the Willamsburg bridge. It will be all underground from there to Myrtle Avenue there will be 4 tracks for full time express runs and there will still be 4 tracks on the elevated or will remain underground for the J to express to Jamaica. This will be an excellent line I hope that you agree
Chris. J . Rivera
Hi Chris
Yes, the Eastern Division sure has its quirks. May I suggest you
go out to the Joe Korner (http://www.quuxuum.org/~joekor
for a little more history about subway lines that might have been,
especially in western and northern Brooklyn.
Personally I think that nothing beats Broadway Junction/AA/Eastern
Parkway and the whole "L" line in terms of being "different".
Maybe you and I ought to get together and take a ride on the "L"
or "J" or "M" or all three one day.
Wayne
T me the JMZ are sooo much better than the L train
i work in the wall street area and in the afternoon i take the JMZ instead of takin the 4 to union square to take the L
it cuts 20 minutes off my commute even though i still have to transfer for the L at Eastern Pkwy for two more stops
In the morning though i cant even think about taking the JMZ cuz the trains are spaced to far apart and the M is still a shuttle to Myrtle ave
Ok, the "L" is a grind for commuters, but nowhere else are there
stations as attractive as those on the "L".
Aesthetics is EVERYTHING! Plus my beloved Slant R40's....
Give me an "L" train anytime!
Wayne
Those slanted trains are a terror if you have to move from one car to another while the train is moving!!!!!
It feels like your going to get sucked out through the sides of the train when you are walkin between cars
I **** NEVER EVER EVER **** cross between the "straight" ends of
an R40 or an R40M THERE ARE NO HANDHOLDS THERE. However, years
of practice, some of it (foolishly) spent riding out between "A"
ends of Slant R40's has taught me how to cross between these safely.
Use the big bars between cars and step carefully and you're OK -
just don't do it while the train's rounding a curve or going greater
than say, 20 MPH. Prudence is a virtue.
Love those Slant R40's on the "L" train!
Wayne
Common sense is a virtue, too. I would add one thing: If you're riding on an elevated structure in the middle of a rainstorm, wait until the train stops at a station before moving from one car to another. I resorted to that once while riding a B train of slant R-40s on the West End.
P. S. If you think the slant R-40s are tricky now, you should have tried moving between them when they were new. Back then, they didn't have any of that ugly hardware on the A ends - no stirrups, no nothing.
Watch out! Sometime in 1999, the Williamsburg Bridge will be shut to the BMT Jamaica line, which means J/Z and M trains will be turned at Marcy and/or Myrtle.
This should last for six months.
Also, note that the 14th Street BMT Tunnel still has only one fan for exhaust working. If the problem isn't fixed by the time the Williamsburg Bridge is out, L service will not be able to handle the flow from the diverted J/Z and M riders.
Right now, only one L train at a time is allowed into the tube because of this problem.
I still don't quite get it. Exactly why should a busted fan restrict L service in this tunnel? What kind of unsafe conditions are we talking about here?
This afternoon at chambers/WTC I saw an unusual sight...a set of R46 cars running the E line as opposed to the R32's. Have there been some car reassignments?
-Michael
P.S. tonight while passing beneath an elevated line on the cross bronx expressway, I could have sworn I saw R40 Slants. Is this possible? The cars were definately B division, and I'm pos. I saw slant fronts. Could they be on the D?
I could see your claim of R-46s on the E, because they occasionally run on that line (a few years back, the E was mostly R-46, anyway). But R-40s on an elevated line in the Bronx could not be. The only B divsion line in the Bronx (which is the D and rush hour B) is underground. All the other lines are IRT. You must have mistaken them for something else (in this case, either R-62s or Redbirds).
BTW--What were you doing looking at elevated trains while driving? That's how accidents happen, by taking your eyes off the road for even a split second, whether it be looking at an elevated train, or a woman walking on 5th Avenue with just her bra on . . . . . . . (Seinfeld moment).
On Saturday, 7/11/1998 I was riding the 4th Ave line and noticed many R32 trains on the R line. Is it because the E is running on the R line that there are tons of "wrong" cars on each line.
They are putting door sensors in R32's (my buddy Pat K is hard
at work in CI shop making sure all my toys are safe) so I guess
that's why the R46's are on the "E". Funny, weren't the R46's on
the "E" originallly?
Wayne
As a matter of fact, the R-46s did indeed spend a lot of time on the E line. If I'm not mistaken, the E line was one of their initial assignments.
Not so funny if you ask me. I board at Queens Plaza each night to go home. The extra work to see WHAT train it is (via looking at the signs) is a pain compared to just hoping on the R46 and avoiding the R32's....Heck I'm a NY'ker I got to complain about it!
Now, now! :-) There is nothing wrong with a good old R32 EXCEPT
THOSE DOPEY DIGITAL SIGNS ON THE CAR ENDS! Why didn't they leave
well enough alone!?! Heck, I have pretty good distance vision and I
STILL cant make out half the time what those signs say. Is it
"C"? Is it "G"? Is it "O" (sic!)????? Only its conductor knows for sure. And forget about it if dirt happens to collect BEHIND the
sign's glass (which it invariably does). Nobody EVER cleans that!
I miss the bright, colored roll signs that the R32's had. Who
came up with this bright idea anyway?
Thanks for letting me share!
Wayne *(still looking for that elusive "O" train)* (really was a "Q")
I don't know whose idea it was to replace the colored signs, but I agree, they are quite illegible. I usually squint as the train pulls in and attempt to read them. I never succeed (or, alternatively, conclude that the O train is arriving), and end up resorting to the roll signs along the sides of the train.
It wouldn't be so bad if most of the Eighth Avenue fleet didn't consist of almost identical cars. (Yes, I can tell the difference between an R-32 and an R-38, but by that time I can see the side signs as well.)
Dave, I'm pretty new to the study of different types of subway rolling stock, contract numbers, etc., and I'm more familiar with IRT cars, so ...
Could you or somebody else explain the major/ most obvious differences between R-32's and R-38's?
The R-32 / R-38 differences were more significant before overhaul than they are now. The most obvious difference is the outer skin. The R-38 has smooth sides on the upper half of the body and corrugated sides on the bottom half. R-32s have totally corrugated sides. The R-38s had a thin blue stripe and Stainless steel doors while the R-32s had no stripe and blue doors. The R-32s had fluorescent light diffusers which were seperate from the advertising signs. The R-32As and R-38s has diffusers which held transluscent advertising signs. The R-32s were also the last B division car to be equiped with SMEE brakes and the R-38s were the first to be equiped with RT-2 brakes.
Thanks for the identifying info! My B Division trips will be that much more interesting now.
You know, it would be nice to have a complete listing/matrix of similarities and differences for the various contrats. Kind of the same way the Audubon and Peterson field guides describe the "field marks" that identify and distinguish separate species of birds, plants, etc.
Hmmm... Peterson's Field Guide to New York City Subway Cars. I know I'd carry it with me. "Destined to be a trainspotting classic," raves the New York Times book review.
It could even get more detailed, to include specific information on individual cars, such as "odd couples" among the married pairs, those used in movies, those that have survived wrecks, those with reversed door chimes (like R-62A 1996) etc., etc. In short, the kind of info that regularly appears in posts on this board anecdotally -- but arranged in organized form.
If anybody knows whether such a thing exists, I'd love to know about it. Otherwise maybe we should write it.
A number of good books detailing the subway cars exist but nothing like you're speaking of. Perhaps we need to put it together on the web site. Any volunteers?:)
-Dave
The 38's are half ridge, while the 32's are all ridges!
Another difference? Look at the headlights/markers lights on the "A" end.
R-32s are seperated headlights/markers.
R-38s are one unit.
R32 - vs - R38:
Other difference are less obvious than the corrugation on the outside:
The unit numbers:
R32 = 3348 and 3350 thru 3949; R38 = 3950 thru 4149
Interiors are different: R32 has flourescent light inside hard
plastic shades; R38 has backlit advertising panels: Speaker grills
are in different places too.
R32 and R38 handholds differ: R32 come straight out and go across
R38 have "curly bars" that go out, curve up then go across; also
different handholds at car end seats;
Signs in front are different: R32 has little square sign that is
impossible to read; R38 is bigger, has a frame around it; also
has "NYCT" red logo on each car "A" end.
R32 built by BUDD company, delivered 1964 and 1965
R32 built by ST LOUIS CAR company, delivered 1966 and 1967.
As this wasnt confusing enough there are ten R32's running around
on the "A" line masquerading as R38's - they call them R32GE.
3594-5, 3880-81, 3894-5, 3936-7 and two others I haven't seen yet.
THEY DONT HAVE A/C. Actually they look like they do, but they don't.
That's a whole other story.
Wayne
I'm with you. Those pixel signs on the R-32s are very difficult, if not impossible, to read. The only line where this may cause confusion would be the 8th Ave. line between 42nd St and WTC, as R-32s are used on both the C and E lines. The A line is a no-brainer, as you won't mistake a train of R-38s on the express track for anything else. On second thought, R-32s or R-38s on the D wouldn't be such a bad idea for those of us who love to look out the storm door window.
That's really the only downer about the R-32s. I liked them better when they were new and had the blue doors. BTW, tomorrow (7/21) will mark 33 years since my first subway ride in New York - on an N of shiny new R-32s.
I actually like the R-32s from a comfort perspective, since their seats are much better than the newer bucket seats.
Now when I have my bike on the subway, I prefer the R44, R46, and R68.
Why? You can place the bike by the storm door (in the non-transverse cab cars) and it is out of the way. With the R32, R38, R40, R40M, R42 there is no real place to put one's bike. Not good!
This is kind of odd. First, we heard that door sensors are being installed on the R32's, and thats why R46's are running on the E line. Now that may be true, but now we are hearing that the R46's are still on the E, and that the R32's are running on the R instead. This sounds like a swap, possibly permanent if you ask me.-Nick
The R Line is using R46 *and* R32 cars (at least as of this am 7/14/1998
The idea of running R-32s on the R is nothing new. I remember seeing them on then-RR in the late 70s - back when the R-16s, R-32s, and R-38s received those color-coded route signs installed in the destination slot. Interestingly, some R-32s retained their original route roll signs, too.
IMHO, mass transit is a public service & necessity As history has shown throughout the US the capital investment required to achieve rush hour capacity WILL bankrupt the company as the volume off peak is insufficient to retire the funded debt. Over thirty years ago it was pointed out that the farebox of NYCTA barely covered wages. ALL other expenses were funded by some manner of tax allocation. Therefore, by my reasoning, the fare structure is entirely political or arbitrary--that is it bears little if any relation to the actual costs of providing the service. Even those figures may be suspect because often costs are shifted among government entities to satisfy political orders. I.E. just who is paying to pretend to repair the Manh. Br., and how can you honorably allocate these costs?
Stats are wonderful but I have watched drivers on my local bus system overcount pass using riders inflating the ridership figures presumably in order to safeguard their jobs. AC Transit's overall ridership has fallen by almost 20% over the last decade.
Oh yes--about pass usage etc. some years ago I was told that the fine print on Southern Pacific monthly tickets on the San Fran.--San Jose line explicitly allowed usage by family domestics.
On exit swipe which facilitates distance pricing. THIS IS EVIL. Zone pricing within a single city limit is anathema IMHO. Here in the Bay Area the BART,which manages to build lightly patronized extensions at astronomical cost, prices rides in very political ways. $1.10--the minimum fare is good for only a few miles within SF but the entire length of the new line to Dublin--three times the distance. In New York terms imagine that Far Rockaway to Jay was as cheap as WTC to 125th, but WTC to either 207th or 205 was double. And to add insult because we have many different transit mismanagements, we have the glory of paying extra fares to change systems--as was the case before the Metrocard only worse.
This afternoon at chambers/WTC I saw an unusual sight...a set of R46 cars running the E line as opposed to the R32's. Have there been some car reassignments?
-Michael
P.S. tonight while passing beneath an elevated line on the cross bronx expressway, I could have sworn I saw R40 Slants. Is this possible? The cars were definately B division, and I'm pos. I saw slant fronts. Could they be on the D?
You did not see slants on any el in the Bronx. The D is under ground when it crosses 'over' the X-Bronx expressway. While there has been no official re-assignment of the R-46s, the R-32s are being modified with a safety improvement to the door conrols. Since many are out of service for this mod., the E-line has been supplimented by R-46s.
What about the possibility that B division cars were run down the middle track of the Jerome Av el (which connects with the IND yard further up)? Now it would have to pass through Burnside Av (the only exp. station) to pass over the Cross Bronx, but since that center track is not normally used, could the space between platforms be wide enough? I heard that someone took a train led by an R-10 car down this track, and that a tower man stopped it before it got too far. And another clearance problem I'm told about is the signals, which are placed closer to the center of the track than on B div., and also through spans, which aren't wide enough. Does anyone know about this? I always wanted to see them do something like this.
A B division car would strike the platform at an A division station (Burnside Ave middle track included). There are 3 els that can be seen from the X-Bronx Expway and none would have B-Division equipment.
Does the Cross-Bronx travel under railroad tracks?
I did some research regarding the August 28, 1991, 14th Street incident. The five cars involved were 1440, 1439, 1437, 1436 and 1435. (I could not get their order in the consist) Cars 1439, 1436 and 1435 are still officially listed as being "out of service" due to collision and are likely to be repaired. Cars 1437 and 1440 are listed as "Revenue Inactive/Scrap Pending" and will not be repaired. Parts of both are sitting in Concoure Yard. The survivor of the incident, car 1438, is running in place of car 1435 in the 5-car link 1431-1432-1433-1434-1438. I hope this helps to clear the confusion from past postings on the subject.
So where is 1435,36, and 39? They are certainly not at Concourse Yard. Years back, you could see all the cars from the accident. Now, only parts of 1437 and 40 remain. They should have gone to scrap already. 1435, 36, and 39 are definitely not running on the 4. They are useless considering all R62s on the line run in 5 car sets. I really have to wonder where they are, if they haven't been scrapped. Any ideas? And what about 1438? It should be renumbered 1435 since it is in a consecutive 5 cars set....
FYI - the order in which the cars were operating on Aug.28, 1991
was as follows:
First car: 1437, cut in half, end smashed
Second car: 1439, scratches and minor dents
Third car: 1440, huge gash in side, almost cut in two, damage to ends
Fourth car: 1436, damage at ends
Fifth car: 1435, damage at forward end.
Don't have info on the remaining five cars.
Wayne
A while back i saw cars 1432,1438,1433,1431 coupled together and running the 4 line at nevins st.
Oh, they are an odd bunch, aren't they? 1437, 1440 gone off to
subway car heaven, and 1435, 1436 and 1439 mouldering up in the
Concourse yard...
Looks like they converted 1438 into what would have been the "5"
car in this group.
For more info see Steve's post re: this subject from July 12 1998
Drinking and driving a subway train do not mix.
Wayne
IS THERE A RESON WHY SO MANY R TRAINS ARE NOW RUNNING ON THE E LINE, WHILE THE OLDER E TRAINS ARE OPERATING ON THE R? IS IT BECAUSE OF THE INSTALLATION OF THOSE DOOR SENSORS?
???????????????
The only relevant thing I know about that is the fact that 'E' trains have been re-routed to the 'N/R' line, I believe because of the Queens Blvd. connection thing.
I asked someone about that. The trackworker told me they are doing work in the 53rd street tunnel (Which serves the E & F line.)
There are three "midtown" tunnels for subways to Queens:
53 -- E & F
60 -- N & R (the N turns off in Queens)
63 -- S Shuttle at present (WAS B/Q/)
Read all about it on the
NYC Transit Web Site!
You know, I think the question was actually why are the R "trains" (R-46's -- the actual trains) running on the E line and why are E "trains" (R-32's -- the actual trains) running on the R. The question about the E train was pretty much answered, but what about R-32s on the R?
That is exactly what I'm wondering too, Bootsy.-Nick
If you think about it for a second you'll realize that if they take equipment from one line they have to substitute something for it.
Cap'n Bludd C/r C/f
I'm a New Yorker who has been living in Florida for the past 6 years.
I will be visiting NY in August and would love to know if there are any fantrips or Nostalgia Specials on the horizon.
I'm a New Yorker who has been living in Florida for the past 6 years.
I will be visiting NY in August and would love to know if there are any fantrips or Nostalgia Specials on the horizon in the NY area.
'Smatter of fact, yes. On August 1, the New York Division, Electric Railroaders' Association will charter a train of 1100-series Metro-North cars for a trip on the Harlem and Hudson Lines. Details can be found at:
http://members.aol.com/rob110178/era/home.html
Enjoy your vacation!
David
Does anyone know are there any trips/events coming up between June 25th and the begining of agust? I am going up there and would love to attend a NYC subway event or tour a yard, Anything really as long as it have to do with NYC Subway Transit.
Thanks
Tom
August 1st: ACMU(1100s) Metro-North fantrip on Hudson and Harlem Lines, leaves GCT 10am. $45 per person. I don't have the phone number here at work.
July 25th: There's a train ride (the flyer does not say fantrip) aboard the New Technology Train R-110B to benefit the March of Dimes. The train is expected to run in the "BMT Southern District" (usually the Brighton, Culver, West End and/or Sea Beach Lines).
Date: Saturday July 25th, 1998
Departs: 34th St and 6th Avenue at 9:30am
Cost: $25.00 for adults, $5.00 for children
For more information, (and I'd presume, to reserve your spot), call the District #4 General Superintendent Office at (718) 714-3903.
--Mark
I REALLY THINK THE J-Z LINE ARRANGEMENT IS STUPID.THE PROPOSED SERVICE IF POSSIBLE SHOULD BE LIKE THIS. BOTH J-Z TRAINS START FROM JAMAICA CENTER WITH BOTH SKIP STOP TO EASTERN PARKWAY. THEN THE J RUNS LOCAL TO MARCY WHERAS THE Z RUNS EXPRESS TO MARCY. THEN THE J CONTINUES DOWN THE NASSAU STREET LINE TO CONNECT WITH THE WEST END LINE EXPRESS TO BAY PARKWAY. THE Z WOULD RUN THROUGH THE NASSAU STREET LINE EXPRESS TO BECOME A BRIGHTON EXPRESS. THE M WOULD RUN ONLY TO BROAD STREET OR QUITE POSSIBLE TO NINTH AVENUE ON THE B. IF THIS IS POSSIBLE PLEASE EXPRESS YOUR OPIOUON IF IT IS NOT PLEASE EXPLAIN. THANK YOU.
You can't get that many trains through the Montigue tunnel at rush hour. The limit with current signals, I'm told, is 25. Right now you get 10 Ns, 9, Rs, and 6 Ms. The J and Z have to stop at Broad St, before they get to the tunnel. Some R trains stop at Whitehall and turn around. And the crawl through DeKalb, Lawrence, and Court is slow, slow, slow.
Larry's post seems to explain why that proposal might not work
HOWEVER - I do agree that some service improvements are in order:
1. Restore weekend service to Broad and Fulton Streets.
2. Restore midday "M" service to Brooklyn - at least as far south
as Ninth Avenue. Not being able to reach the Nassau Street
line from Pacific Street in midday is a real pain.
3. Consider reopening the Essex Street/Broadway-Lafayette connection
to SOME sort of rush-hour service or rush/midday service.
Maybe the "Z" can go there.
4. Consider some sort of rush-hour through service to Canarsie
(possibly coupled with 3 above as "K" service?)
Wayne
With regard to #1, from what I've heard there is a seldom-stated reason why there's no weekend J service to Broad Street. Closing the station on weekends for some reason means that a tower doesn't have to be staffed. I can't vouch for the accuracy of that, however.
Reopening the Essex Street - Broadway/Lafayette connection (the former K route) does seem to make sense. As far as I know there aren't any capacity problems with that routing, at least once the Williamsburgh Bridge work is complete. True, the K was a failure, but that was a long time ago and there may have been other reasons for its failure. It might be worth a reconsideration.
NOW TO GET BACK TO THE CAPACITY OF THE MONTAGUE STREET TUNNEL. ONCE THE MANHATTEN BRIDGE WORK IS DONE THE N TRAINS COULD BE DIVERTED VIA BRIDGE ALL THE J OR Z TRAINS TO USE THE TUNNEL. ALSO IS THERE ANY TALK ON RESTORING WEEKDAY MIDDAY EXPRESS SERVICE ON THE 7 LINE.
Don't count on the Manhattan Bridge. The city and MTA have taken a patch and pray approach to running heavy vehicles over a 100 year old suspension bridge. The plan is to close the 6th Avenue tracks when the 7th Avenue tracks open. Some people believe both sides will someday be open at once. I believe that someday both sides will be closed at once. The MTA wanted a connection to Rutgers tunnel, but only on one side (the Brooklyn side so as not to disturb Manahttan), so Brooklyn service would have to be cut, but not by as much. No one paid attention even to that suggestion.
A more realistic proposed subway service would have the entire Manhattan Bridge out. Would you spread the pain, or do neighborhood triage to keep some areas economically viable?
Don't count on the south side of the Manhattan Bridge opening any time soon. In some areas west of the Manhattan anchorage, there's a wide gaping hole with no track or beams at all!
--Mark
How about weekend service through this connection.
That would justify an M extension beyond just a shuttle. More people come from/go to 6th Av than Nassau St. off hours.
While riding an R-33 2 train today i noticed that the car i was in, 9212, was coupled with 9115. Arent the R-33's supposed to be married pairs. What happened to 9114 and 9213? And what ever happened to the remainig R62's (1430's) involved in the union Square mishap?
A LONG LONG LONG time ago, in the late 1960's, car 9213 was destroyed
in a fire. Sometime after that, car 9114 was also lost to fire.
I have orange marks on both of them going back to Book One, circa
1969. These two make up the original "Odd Couple".
By the way, check out any line running R32's - there are "odd
couples" all over the place. Almost all units are accounted for.
The reason for this is that when Morrison-Knudsen was rebuilding them,
they found that some units in the pair needed more work than others.
As the units were repaired, they were sent back. If the "husband"
car was ready and the "wife" was not, OR VICE VERSA - the "husband"
car was "remarried" to an available "wife" car - OR VICE VERSA.
Please visit http://www.nycsubway.org/cars/r32 for a nearly-complete
list of all the R32 "odd couples". There are two other "odd couples"
among the R42 cars, two among the Slant R40's and one "shotgun
marriage" between an R40M and an R42.
Wayne
In the spirit of "odd couples", maybe one of the cars in each such pair can be referred to as Felix and the other Oscar. You'd have the "Hmmaahhhh!", or a close approximation of it, already available via the horn in the Felix car.
Just a thought (yuk-yuk) - I couldn't resist. You could even play poker in the Oscar car, minus the cigar smoke.
Yesh! I loves it! The "odd numbered" car would be the Felix car,
immaculate, spotless, you could even eat off the floor, no scratchitti, no litter and the "even numbered" car would be the
Oscar car, filthy, of course, litter all round, spilled food and
drink everywhere, newspapers &c, lots of scratchitti AND even some
real graffitti (for period authenticity).
Here's the ODD SQUAD as it stands (there are others:)
3548-3593 3776-3617 3628-3669 (widows & widower) 3862-3521
3420-3645 3470-3919 3650-3767 3558-3421 3348 (YES!)-3549
3918-3601 3600-3503 3502-3905 3382-3831 3740-3419
3530-3741 3658-3471 3830-3531 and... 3444-3777. (so far)
Wayne (You Broke my Rigoletto!)
with some help from (Col.) Claire Frost, Bayonne 07002 NJ.
Are you kidding? There is an R32 #3348!?! I've heard somewhere that this odd ball is the result of receiving parts from a long departed R10. I wonder! I thought I saw 3548 and 3549 together a while back... Speaking of oddities, I saw a light #2 train consisted of R33s yesterday. There was one problem.... A male car was missing his wife! Car 9064 was spotted travelling at the end of the train with the blind end as the north motor. The car had two orange lanterns at its end. What was this all about? And why would someone decide to divorce a married pair? It wasn't at 207 St Shop. Someone please clarify this. It's also more difficult for the train operator to operate the train from the second car behind a car with no controls.
Yes, Constantine, there IS a 3348. Her (his?) photo is on its way
to you. She (he) used to be #3659; during the rebuild, they wound
up short an even-numbered car (possibly due to the health problems
of #3620), so they rebuilt her as a "male" unit, now she's a HE.
Photo taken May 30 1998 at Sutphin Blvd. on the "E". "His" new mate
is #3549.
One infamous incident of operating a train "blind" resulted in
tragedy - on May 20, 1970, a motorman was operating his "GG" train
of R-40M's from the third car. This train had been taken out of
service with mechanical problems and was waiting to leave the Roosevelt Avenue station. Meanwhile, another "GG" train of R-16s had just pulled in on the express track. The motormen of the R-16 and the R-40M pulled out at the same time BUT the R-16 switched back to the
local track! The R-40M somehow passed the red signal. The nose
of car #4501 pushed into the side of car #6304 (the fifth car of the train) and derailed it. The forward end of this car then struck the concrete divider between the two tracks and sheared it almost in half lengthwise. Damage went from just left of the front storm door
down the entire left side to just past the third door. Two people died and dozens were injured; the accident happened at 7:45AM.
Check your mailbox!
Wayne
I read about that GG disaster. It seems that the brakes were bled on the first two cars, and when the crewman up front who was keeping an eye out for the motorman tried to pull the emergency brake cord, nothing happened. Maybe that explains why the train didn't stop when it passed over the trip arm (assuming the trip arm was indeed up).
Since the city is unwilling or unable to stop people from smoking or playing radios on the train. (I have encounterd one or the other 6 days in a row now) What are the ins and outs of taking matters into our own hands?
(Ins and outs of a citizens' arrest)? I expect that the bullet would enter into your chest and exit out your back.
Quietly, and with as little fanfare as possible, move to another car.
I eschew confrontation in situations such as these.
Inform the crew.
Cap'n Bludd C/r C/f
Does anyone out there know what happened to the two abandoned 1925 vintage SIRTOA cars that were left on the old tracks near the West Shore Expressway at Victory Blvd. on Staten Island? That section of track has now been rehabilitated for freight use once again. Freight service is not operational yet, but a modern railroad crossing has been installed at South Avenue near Chelsea Road.
Don't tell me those cars are rotting out there. They should be at the seashore trolley museum. Any new information would be helpful since I have a bahn net-
HTTP://www.nycsubway.org/bahn/sirt1949.zip
They are GONE. Those cars may have been out there since 1973 at least, that being the year the R-44s came to the SIRTOA. There has been nothing in the Staten Island Advance about the cars disposition, so who knows what happened to them.
My understanding is that nearly all the cars in the new subway car order will be IRT cars, to replace the Redbirds. Only a few cars will be IND/BMT cars, to allow more service on the Queens line when the 63rd St tunnel opens. At the time the order was placed, ridership was lower than today.
As it happens, the MDBF for the Redbirds is still high, and would be higher if the worst 2/3 of them were retired and the best 1/3 were retained. Meanwhile, ridership is up, but the IRT tracks are close to capacity at peak hour, so more trains won't allow much of an increase in service. Service also can't be added on the BMT southern division, due to the Manhattan Bridge problem. If there were more B division cars, however, service could be added on the IND in the Bronx, Manhattan, Brooklyn and (after the 63rd) Queens.
In retrospect, should the order have included more B division cars and fewer A division cars? Is it too late to change? Could cars be added?
The order for the B division hasn't been placed yet, although you are correct in that the number of cars in the B division order will be less than the A division. Also, remember that the original order of R-142s was supposed to be 700 or so cars, but NYC Transit managed to get a better deal for less money. I'd like to hope that current and projected ridership needs will be considered when the order is finally placed. Also, the relative age of the B division fleet is newer than that of the A division, so not as many cars would be needed anyway.
--Mark
New B Division cars probably will replace the R40 and R42 cars. Their reliability record is the worst in the Division and the cars don't appear too popular with riders (remember the outcry when some were used on the Q?) The R32 and R38 cars are older but haven't yet been scheduled for replacement - it's entirely possible that some will hit the half-century mark in service.
RUMOUR HAS IT that there will be 216 new R143's... to go into service
on the "L" and "M" lines. These won't completely replace the R40 and
R42 cars, rather will augment them. "L" gets the "L"ion's share, with
R40 (only 46 units) going to "N". R42's may get spread around here
and there. Note I am just reporting something I have already read
elsewhere. Not due to happen until 2001.
JUST DON'T GET RID OF MY SLANT R40'S!
Wayne
You really like those slant R-40s, don't you? I personally never disliked them myself; I remember when they were new and plying the E and F lines and thought they looked, shall we say, unusual. One humorous incident happened once at 34th St.-6th Ave sometime in 1968. We were waiting for an uptown D when an F train of brand new R-40s pulled in. It had to be the first time I had ever seen them. My mother said, "Look, an F train." "How can you tell?", I asked, having grown accustomed to looking for the letter marking to the left and above the storm door and not seeing one. "See the big 'F' on the right with the magenta background?" (only she didn't say magenta, not in Lithuanian, anyway) Well, duh! Even my sister liked those cars! A few weeks later, we rode an F of R-40s from 34th to 42nd just for that reason. Next time I see her, I'll have to remind her.
Back to the subject at hand: are there any plans to hand-pick and retain any of the Redbirds? Depending on how many of them were prematurely scrapped, there would have to be ~1200 of them still around (300 or so R-29s, 500 married pair R-33s, 39 WF R-33s, and 424 or so R-36s).
And, speaking of the R-32s, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they stick around for 50 years. They might even set a longevity record while they're at it - I believe the record is held by a handful of Gibbs Hi-Vs which served for 54 years. Seashore's 3352 is not one of them, however; it was one of the first Hi-Vs to be retired.
Oh, those redbirds! Only ones to grace my scrappe list are as follows:
8884 (crash)
9152, 9153 (crash and burn)
8980, 8981 (crash and singe)
9131 (unknown)
9213 (burned)
9114 (burned too)
9224 (unknown)
Plus: the R36 that took a hit in the 70's (the tunnel incident)
and the one that took the shot in the rear from an R21 near Utica
back in 1981. No numbers on those.
My first encounter with an R40 came on August 3, 1968 -
as we rode an "F" from 179th Street to Queens Plaza during one
of our many all-day subway jaunts. No A/C but what a thrill!
Car numbers were 4160 and 4161.
Wayne
The R-143 order isn't going to replace all of the R-40Ms and R-42s - there are about 550 of them .... the R-143 order is supposed to be 100 cars, but now I hear it may be 200, plus or minus .....
--Mark
As you might imagine, the order for the R-142s is in place. The price which was negotiated was based on the number of cars ordered. Any changes if permitted would involve substantial penalties.
The R-143 contract is for 108 cars but there is an option clause for up to 100 more.
I thought that the only order that had been placed thus far was for the R-142 (A division). I've been wrong before, though.
As for the IRT being close to capacity at peak hour, I recommend you wait for the 1/9 tomorrow around 5:30. Chances are you'll have a nice, long wait for a local. (The 1/9 trains that run express on the local track don't count, since they're filling up unused capacity in front of them.)
Did you know this? SEPTA service resumed midnight Saturday after the Toothless Wonder apparently got his way with SEPTA's higher up's. Bob Brady(a state senator) and his "shuttle diplomacy" managed to help also. As a treatr for the thousands stranded and inconvenienced by the strike, service on ALL SEPTA routes(ALL of them) is free until 7/14. So ride your butts off, Philly. SEPTA's back.
I was on the L train yesterday, and the train was composed of 4 R-42 cars and 6 R-40M cars. Are mixed consists commonplace on the L, and if so does anyone know why?
-Michael
I didn't know that the L or any BMT Eastern Division line was even using 10-car trains.
Station platforms on the Eastern Division won't accommodate 10-car trains; 8 is the maximum. Back in the good old days, 6-car trains of BMT standards was the norm on the Canarsie, Jamaica, and Myrtle Ave. lines.
The K can be a 8 car train from Canarsie to 179th Street and Jamaica.
how would you route that train Canarsie to 179 st. via the L to bway junction via the J to Essex st up 6 av to rock ctr via the F to queens
From Canarsie via the flyover after Atlantic (connects with "J")
then over the Williamsburg Bridge to Essex St - THEN up the
Chrystie St. connection to Broadway-Lafayette, then up the 6th
Avenue Local and on to Jamaica via the "F" route.
You are correct in your description.
Wayne
Your talking the proposed K route?
There's a connection b/t L and J routes at the Broadway East NY area. Then somewhere after bowery street, there's a connection b/t J & B,D tracks (christie St.). Connection with the F tracks can be done after Broadway Lafayette or West 4th Street.
There were 8-car BMT-standard trains, at least on the Jamaica line.
Couldn't be. They run 8 cars there. Mixed consists run on the J Z M & L. Don't know whty. Don't like it. As a motorman, they don't operate as smooth as when you have a solid train. Mixing must make it easier for East New York Yard.
R42 and R40M are "kissing cousins" as far as compatibility is
concerned. This happens all the time. Here are samples taken from
my June 28 1998 "L" voyage:
(L) s/bound from AA 1035am
4528-4529; 4456-4457; 4924-4925; 4462-4463. (6 R40M, 2 R42)
(L) s/bound @Sutter 1024am
4928-4929; 4510-4511; 4728-4729; 4496-4497. (split decision!)
(L) s/bound @BJunction 1104am
4892-4893; 4710-4711; 4506-4507; 4862-4863. (75-25 R42)
You won't see such hanky-panky with the Slant R40's.
I could go on like so: but FYI
R40M = 4450 thru 4549
R42 = 4550 thru 4949.
*** LOVE THAT "L" TRAIN! ***
WAYNE
Besides the fact that the M,J/Z & L all use 8-car consists, what is the big deal. The 40Ms and 42s are compatible and look very similar. It's also done frequently on the C with 32s and 38s. The LIRR mixes M-1s and M-3s all the time and no one seams to care or notice. In that case, the M-3s have significantly more horsepower than the M-1s.
We are a UK television production company gathering material about the New York subway. We are keen to talk with anyone who has experiences to relate about using the system. We are initially seeking the off-beat, the surreal and the unususal rather than descriptions of how it works or how it was developed which we have already.
The aim is to build up a set of engaging human stories that will throw
a new light on this remarkable transportation system.
We are also trying to contact writers and artists who have used the subway as a subject for their work or who have stories to tell.
Rosie Perez, the movie star, directed a series for HBO called "Subway Stories." It was an anthology of stories, and they were more about people and the events in their lives which occurred in the subway rather than being about the subway itself.
I suppose that one of the things most people (except those of us who frequent SubTalk) find unusual is the number of people who love the subway not as a transportation system, but as a hobby. In fact, NYC Transit's TV program "Transit Transit", about a year ago, devoted a program to just this subject. They videoed the people who rode the Spring 1997 Nostalgia Train ride to Coney Island. I don't know what's in your travel budget, but you could do the same thing. You'll find LOTS of people more than wiling to talk about why they like it, and find an unusual story or two. And I'm sure NYC Transit would be very heppy to have its system portrayed in a positive light.
--Mark
I don't think Ms. Sloan will get too many stories of the type she wants on this board. We actually like trains as trains, not as a backdrop for tearful, humorous, or terrifying human interest stories.
We haven't met long-lost relatives/spouses/mortal enemies/a sympathetic artist/a one-night's lover from Tuscany/a beautiful sexually active virgin emigree from Russia/etc while riding a train at rush hour/midnight/after an argument/after a party/while suffering from amnesia/etc.
Though I once heard about a kid who jumped down some steps and hit his head on a low-hanging I-beam. And my mother's worst nightmare is being stuck on the Manhattan Bridge on an old un-airconditioned train during rush hour when it's 100 degrees outside. And once on a date, some weird guy pulled out some pornography and rubbed his pants in front of me and the girl. And sometimes there is a car with the lights not working, and you can always get a seat in one of those. And one New Year's Eve we made it to a party before Midnight after seeing a Broadway show because the party was at Prospect Park station on the Brighton Line. The next year the party was at Cortelyou Road and we missed Midnight at the party. And I once saw the Garbage Train pull through 49 St. And I once got a Turkish 1-something coin instead of a token from the token guy (when I was about 14) and used it immediately. And my brother has an intense dislike of the Times Square station and won't tell me why (but not the 6th Avenue or 8th Avenue 42 St. stations). But these are all weirder than they are interesting.
> We haven't met...a beautiful sexually active virgin
> emigree from Russia
Speak for yourself :-)
Just kidding!
Dave
[ We haven't met long-lost relatives/spouses/mortal enemies/a sympathetic artist/a one-night's lover from Tuscany/a beautiful sexually active virgin emigree from Russia/etc while riding a train at rush hour/midnight/after an argument/after a party/while suffering from amnesia/etc. ]
You don't ride the D train on the right day ... :)
--Mark
Then there was this Puerto Rican kid trying to sell a whip one Saturday afternoon on the Canarsie - BMT standards to boot. He approached a number of people in the car, myself included, and asked, "You wanna buy a whip? Two dollahs."
And, of course, there were two guys riding on the Canarsie, BMT standards once again (not the same trip). As the train pulled into 6th Ave., one of them turned to his friend and hollered, "Hey, Ron! Next stop, Havana!"
And I personally never liked the E train because I always felt it was mislabeled as an 8th Ave. Express when it ran local in Manhattan. I also didn't care for the BMT standards because they didn't have any route or destination signs on their end bulkheads.
On the other hand, I loved the R-1/9s with their moaning, groaning traction motors, as well as the R-10s, which will always be synonimous with arguably the best route in the entire system, the A train. My Jeep's license plates don't say 8AVEXP for nothing.
There one main reason why the E is local in Manhattan. It switches into the local track after 50th Street. There's no way to get to the express tracks, except after 42nd Street.
Actually, there is. See the track map on this site for details. If you take the "main" route leading to the 42nd Street lower level from 50th Street, there is a left turnout to the express track prior to that track diving under. E trains actually did that many years ago.
Notice how the "Stories Wanted" person has completely disapppeared...
She was using us, I tell you, using us train fellas as if we were mere pawns for her desired twisted tales of extraordinary sexual or violent or nut-case excitement in the truly underground yet incredibly commonplace... NEW YORK SUUBWAAAYYYYYY......... [bring up the Star Trek music, please; okay, fade, fade, CUT -- now strike the set; Okay thank you people...]
At one time, E trains ran express in Manhattan during rush hours and continued onto Brooklyn, running out to Euclid Ave., Lefferts Blvd, or the Rockaways. They would switch over to the express track using the turnout described by Todd; that turnout is still there. It's just past the switch to the local track which the E has always used. During a brief period in the early 70s, they even used the lower level at 42nd St. during rush hours. I remember seeing signs to that effect. They began terminating at WTC on a permanent basis, running local in Manhattan at all times, in 1976 or thereabouts, and the CC took over the rush hour service to Brooklyn.
Now, this whole business about the E train began in 1967. We had just moved to Jersey and began commuting to NYC on Saturdays by bus to Port Authority. I was all of 10 going on 11. By then, I knew that a single letter meant express and a double letter meant local, and that express trains ran on the inside tracks of a four-track line. On this first Saturday, an E train of R-1/9s arrived first, and we piled in. Now, those of you who remember the R-1/9s know that the side route signs for the E read, "E/8th Ave. Express". Well, all was fine at first, but when our train stopped at 23rd St. and I saw that it was a local stop, that did it. I thought, how can they call the E an express when it was running local? (I didn't know anything else about it back then) From that time, I would wait for an A train no matter how long it took. I avoided taking the E at all costs. I even went so far as to write on my Hagstrom's subway map, "E stops here" next to 23rd St.-8th Ave.
Fast forward a few months to the spring of 1968. We were in Kew Gardens and had to get back to Port Authority. At Union Turnpike, an E of R-1/9s pulled in on the local track, as it normally did, and I started getting suspicious. Not again, I thought, as we boarded. Well, of course, the next stop was 75th Ave., a local stop. Man, was I pissed! I thought, I'll be damned if this stupid train runs local all the way to Manhattan. So you can imagine my surprise when our train switched over to the express track right after leaving 75th Ave. Remember, this was my first experience on the Queens line; I knew nothing about it. OK, I figured, this might be fun. Once we left Continental Ave., let me tell you, that train moved! We reached Queens Plaza in no time, and I wasn't mad anymore.
I still waited for my A train at 42nd every Saturday, no matter what, and even though I no longer dislike the E train, I still won't take it along 8th Ave. Once an express addict, always an express addict.
A-MEN!
I returned to the city in 1982 after an 18-year absence (occasional visits), and I have been convinced for some time that the TA has changed the train schedules with an eye towards discouraging riders from changing to the express as soon as possible after getting on at a local station, and vice versa.
However, see my contribution to "IND station tile colors" on this web site.
Bob Sklar
This business of local riders changing to an express at the next express stop has been going on since Day One. The IND was built to discourage this practice by having a bare minimum of local-only stations south of 59th St., and no express stops between 59th and 125th. Heck, even the BMT Bradway line doesn't offer much of an express ride, having 5 local-only stations and no more than 2 in a row. It's still fun - that is, when the express tracks are in use.
does there exist a physical connection between new york city subway tracks and those belonging to amtrak and the other commuter railroads?
in other words - are there tracks somewhere that will get you from the rail system to the subway, or vice versa? i guess i suspect the answer is no, and even if there are such connections, the cars themselves can't move from one system to another because they make contact with the third rail differently.
any ideas?
There was a connection between the Dyre Av line and the New Haven tracks, but it was severed when the bridge was removed. There is still a connection between the 3, L and LIRR Bay Ridge branch in East NY, and this same branch with the BMT 39th St yard in Sunset Park (When the Williamsburg Bridge is closed, this becomes the only connection between the J, L M & Z to the rest of the system. (Trains have to be hauled with locomotives)
According to the track maps on this site, the connection between the LIRR Bay Ridge branch and the L line has been removed. (so the J, M, and Z are isolated when the Willamsburgh bridge is closed, since they cannot clear along the Brooklyn IRT).
The connection between the New York Cross Harbor, the alive and well freight railroad floating cars from NJ to Brooklyn, and the Culver line still exists at 9th avenue. So it's physically conceivable that a train could exit the BMT at 9th Avenue onto the NYCH, where it could meander over to the freight-only LIRR Bay Bridge branch, operated by an outfit called New York and Atlantic Railroad. Once on the LIRR one could wander up to Sunnyside Yard and into Amtrak territory.
This would involve a lot of 5-10 mph running, reverse moves, manually thrown switches, and a very roundabout routing. I would imagine that a load of scrap in a MOW train leaving the 9th avenue station would take something like 4 hours to make it to Sunnyside Yard, if you could dream up a reason to haul it up there. Once there, of course, neither Amtrak nor LIRR would even consider letting anything like that onto their mains.
There are compatibility problems other than 3rd rail takeoffs, too. But there are rail connections through. Hopefully there will be more freight moving over some of those lines in the near future, too.
When the work on the Arthur Kill lift bridge (north of the Goethals Bridge) is completed, there will be a connection between the SIR and the Raritan Valley line of the NJT at Cranford juction. There will also be connections to Conrail on the NJ side. I don't know if this line connects with Amtrak on the NJ side.
The SIRR connection mentioned crosses the NEC on an overhead bridge (SIRR above). This is on the 6 track section of the NEC. There was once an interchange track between the WB SIRT and the NB outide track on the NEC (NE corner of crossing). The track on a sharp curve was covered over a few years ago by ashphalt for a parking lot. You can still see it from the NEC.
The tracks connecting the Dyre Ave line to Amtrak existed all this time until the bridge was removed? I thought the tracks were removed at some point south of E 180th St. quite a long time ago.
The ramp to the North East Corridor was in place recently. The tracks from Dyre Av ended (and still ends) at the Cross Bronx Expwy.
I don't really know when was the last time there was an actual track connection to the old New Haven Line. My guess would have to be sometime in the 1960s. The TA should have kept the connection. This was a great place to deliver new cars (like the R142s) without going over the BMT and IND. Would anyone care to shed light on this?
Do all the cars that are delivered to the system need to go through Coney Island anyways? I have the impression that that would be the place where final assembly/inspection would happen for any car, be in BMT/IND or IRT. Thus the connection to the system off the NEC would not be so useful.
Keeping the connection is not really free. Amtrak is not interested in old sidings that are connected to their main - highspeed lines and would not be really interested in inspecting/maintaining the turnout. That would also be true on the NYCTA side, but it would not be a switch on a high speed track so that would be cheaper. Plus, there are signalling requirements for such a connection.
There have been connections from time to time but as of now, all connections are officially severed. There is a legal problem that results from such connections. According to the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) any railroad which has a connection to a Class I railroad must operate under FRA rules. Therefore if the TA had a connection to Conrail or the LIRR, it would have to operate under FRA regulation, making many TA rules illegal and new work-rules would be in direct conflict with TA labor contracts.
I thought there's still a connection with the LIRR within the Linden shops (separate from the now-removed connection with the L).
Aren't FRA rules an issue only if the connection is used for revenue service?
Can you give more info on this connection, Pete. I don't see how it can be.
The track that goes into the shops is connected to the IRT El and the Canarsie Line. The NY&A/LIRR connection was VIA a connection to the Canarsie Line and switchback maneuvers...
[Ben-Zion Y. Cassouto wrote:
Can you give more info on this connection, Pete. I don't see how it can be.
The track that goes into the shops is connected to the IRT El and the Canarsie Line. The NY&A/LIRR connection was VIA
a connection to the Canarsie Line and switchback maneuvers... ]
Ben (and everyone) below is the most current map showing the Linden yard and the BMT and IRT connections:
Cheers,
Peter Dougherty
Publisher
Tracks of the New York City Subway book
Well done, Pete. I see your yard mapping is gaining momentum...
The most notable connection was the one at Atlantic Ave. from the IRT to the LIRR. It was used by August Belmont (who also served on the LIRR top brass) to take guests from the basement of the Belmont Hotel to Belmont Park on his private subway car, the Mineola. Supposedly, one can still trace an alignment from one of the LIRR bumper posts to one of the IRT tracks.
BTW, the lower level at Grand Central was designed to tie in with the Lexington Ave. line. In fact, only a knock-away wall is all that separates the tracks.
A few weeks ago, I was able to see the abandoned city hall station, thanks to the information put on subtalk a few months ago. For those who don't know how to do this, it's simple. The downtown 6 trains last stop is the current city hall station. It then goes in a turn-around to become an uptown 6 train. In this turn around is where the old city hall station is. It has been closed for 53 years, yet it is still lit up nicely (they must replace the bulbs...which is surprising!), and isn't in bad shape for a station of its age. All you have to do is ask the controlmen (the office is right before the tunnel that goes to the turn-around) and ask permission to see the old station. The people there were very happy to permit me to do this.
Thanks to everyone who posts information on here, especially "secrets" like these. I would probably not have known the MTA permitted this if it wasn't for this board. And also, big thanks goes out to David Pirnmann for running this site, it means so much to me.-Nick
Nick, if you want a more up-close-and-personal tour of the old City Hall station, it's included on the NYC Transit Museum's tour of abandoned stations. They run it every month or so, and you get to wander about the 91st St. stop (1,2,3,9 line), 18th St. (4,5,6), and City Hall, among other interesting explorations.
It's called Day One on the IRT (because all the stops were part of the original 1904 IRT subway line), and it's WELL worth it.
BTW, the old City Hall station will soon be even more easily viewed, as it will be opened to the general public as a museum.
Thanks for the info, Tony. I'll have to get on a tour one of these days.-Nick
When will the station open as a museum?
Will this mean the current Transit Museum in Brooklyn will close?
[When will the station open as a museum?
Will this mean the current Transit Museum in Brooklyn will close?]
Plans are for the old City Hall station to be a branch of the current Transit Museum, not a replacement.
As far as I know, there is still no firm opening date. It was supposed to have opened in late 1997, but that never came to pass. Staff turmoil at the Transit Museum may have been the leading cause for the delays.
Just looking for some clarification...was this person actually able to get off the train inside City Hall Station (and if so, how), or was he just able to ride through when the 6 turned around?
The City Hall loop has been revenue trackage for some time now. While train crews may "remind" you that Brooklyn Bridge is the last stop, they are supposedly required to let you ride around the loop if you wish. Some crews are not as cooperative as others. If confronted, simply say that you know that the loop is revenue track, that you would like to ride around, and would the operator please call Command to confirm that it is OK. This works most times. If it doesn't, just get off and wait for the next train, and hopefully, the next train will be a Redbird *grin*.
You can't get off the train at City Hall (the train doesn't stop there; it just loops through). Transit Museum tours are the only way to visit the station proper. Last I heard, making this a public-access Museum site were on hold, due to funding and having to deal with ADA requirements.
Todd is right, I could only ride around the loop, not get off. Technically, I could get off (the train doors can open and I could hop on the track), but that isn't allowed.
As for the crews permission, ask the controlmen at the command center, which is right before the tunnel thats the turnaround. I asked permission from them, and they were more than happy to let me go through. They said if there was a crew problem, then tell them to see the command center.
As for a redbird vs. an R62, you can only see well through a redbird. Should an R62 approach the station, simply wait for the next train or two. When I saw the old city hall station (2 PM on a Wednesday) there was a "2 rebird, 2 R62" pattern.-Nick
To BusBuffs,
I'm interested in buses & I need your help. If you happen to have the latest copy of NYCT bus electronic desination reading list. Please post it on the subtalk but when you put the messsage in, please include your e-mail address so I can contact you to receive the information.
Thank you,
Mike
an electrician with NYCT told me the other day that they are building EDR and I have noticed "Reserve EDR rooms" at stations. What are they?
I think they are glorified breaker boxes but if they are neede know, how was the power distributed before they felt they needed EDR rooms.
Why do they need main and reserve?
Steve (Trainmaster7), Wayne W- your input is appreciated!
I've never heard about EDR rooms !!!
I'm going for the record!!!
So far I have used my unlimited week metrocard 27 times (not all on myself) and I still have almost 2 days left on it.
Does the clock on the card run till the minute I bought it + 7 days??? or is there some kind of midnight thing going on???
Next I will see what I can't achieve with the 30 day card!!!
Now wait a minute: are those unlinked trips? Bus to bus and bus to subway transfers were already free as part of one trip, so that doesn't count. One could argue that subway to subway transfers outside the system are merely an extension of this, or a replacement for costly rebuilding of stations to accomodate interior transfers.
How will the TA measure ridership to make it comparable with the past, and with other transit systems? Will a bus transfer now count as two rides, or just one? Or will it count as one with pay per ride, and two with unlimited ride?
I don't know, but I believe they will automatically add 50 more rides a week for every unlimited card sold to Chris C.
IMHO, rides should be counted at the turnstile/farebox, and revenue at the token booth. Rides should be counted regardless of whether it was pay-per-ride, transfer, or unlimited. That's the only way to get a count of ridership. Tying it into revenue clouds the issue and hides the real amount of people riding the system.
I checked the data on the Federal Transit Administration website, and the tables provide data for "unlinked trips." But I don't know what unlinked trips means. In England, I'm told, pitted olives are the ones WITH the pits. Does unlinked trips mean trips which are not a part of other trips,
Each day ends at midnight. Supposing you came to my booth at 11:45pm and waited till 11:55pm to swipe, you'd have 5 minutes for day 1. The policy:each day ends at midnight whether it is daily (When available), weekly or 30 day. Another reminder: the monthly pass is really a 30 day pass. If the month has 31 days start another 30 day pass.
(adapted from official material for station agents)
I see.
Does the TA anticipate crowds at midnight????
Chris, et. al.,
The Unlim MC doesn't have any $$$ on it & is NOT counted as a fare paid, i.e. the stats are recorded differently:
- Cash, tokens & VALUE MC are shown as fare paid (3.00, 1.50, .75)
- Unlim MC is a trip/ride, similar to a transfer but recorded in a different way.
So I guess every Unlim MC dip is unconnected, i.e. the stats make no distinction between a TRANSFER vs. reverse trip.
A lot of data is there in the system but most is lumpped or combined in some way. It makes it fustrating for IS to try a make some useful output from it.
NOTE TO Chris C. .........
That monthly card should have a 126 dip (system limit) EYE would like to C U prove or disprove this !
P.S. Like Cinderella Midnight is you witching hour, so complete you trips before then.
Mr t__:^)
I agree with those who say the card should expire at 3 a.m. That's when your circadian rhythms say the middle of the night is, not midnight.
I dont' know as much about trolleys as I do about subways but is it safe to findingle with the trolley poles on a trolleys(trackless or otherwise)?
Back in April I was driving down some SPhilly E/W street and saw a trackless trolley right on Delaware Ave. with the driver findingling with the poles. Could he have been fried or is the wire connected to the pole insulated?
Also, can you get fried if you walk on the tracks in front of a trolley(theorectically)?
And, since the M-3's are Almond Joys, can the B-IV's be Mounds?
(Almond Joy's got nuts-Mounds don't!)
Hmmmm.
Well, first things first. The "wire" is a rope. The ROPE does not conduct electricity... so it's OK to touch it. That's how operators have been changing ends on trolleys since the end of the horse car. Just don't touch the POLE while grounded. On regular (rail) trolley lines, you'll see people working on line cars, which have wooden (insulated) platforms. Just don't step on the metal roof of the car, which is a quick path to ground! Note that trackless trolleys have two poles: one to collect the electricity and the other return-to-ground (substitutes for the rail in this case).
Secondly, walking in front of a trolley can be dangerous to your health, for many reasons, but getting "fried" should not be your primary worry.
Third, well, I'll leave that to someone more in tune with confectionary.
On trolley coaches (aka trackless trolleys), the pole on the "door" side (the right side when viewed from the rear) is the negative pole and must ALWAYS be put on the negative wire first. If you don't do this, you run the risk of a shock as the coach is UNGROUNDED!.
For the uninformed, the wire closest to the curb is always the negative wire.
I haven't been to Penn in a long time, but at the area where the NJ Transit trains come in, is it equipped to handle trains that use pantographs and third rails?
I took a quick look this morning on my way to work. The best answer I can give is: some tracks are, and some aren't. Tacks 1 through 12 handle NJT and Amtrak. From what I remember Track 10 had a 3rd rail but Track 11 didn't. The rest of the tracks I could see had trains on them so I couldn't look. Who knows if the 3rd rails on these tracks are powered?
The LIRR uses tracks 13-21. Tracks up to Track 16 can be accessed from the main Amtrak/NJT Level. Therefore-by doing some math, it seems that tracks 13 thru 16 have both 3rd rail and caternary.(17-21 just have 3rd rail)
LIRR uses tracks 13 thru 21, so naturally these tracks have 3d rail. Tracks 11 and 12 are also equipped w/3d rail but not used by LIRR except in an emergency situation. Some low side tracks (I think 5, 6, and 7) are equipped with 3d rail for Amtrak Empire Service trains. All 21 tracks are equipped with AC power (catenary).
[All 21 tracks are equipped with AC power (catenary).]
Is the catenary still live on the LIRR-only tracks?
Yes. Catenary is alive on all Penn Sta tracls.
In other words, Empire Corridor trains run on 3rd rail until they reach the west side, then continue on diesel power until it joins with Metro North? Sounds kind of inefficient to me. Why didn't they just lay 3rd rail for the entire distance?
This is a guess, but:
Some of the dual-modes are designed with limited cooling abilities for the transformers that convert the power from the third rail to whatever is being fed into the traction motors. In other words, when being operated off the third rail, the cooling equipment for the transformers is inadequate. This is done to reduce weight/space in the locomotive - fitting all the dual mode equipment into the locomotive is a bit tricky.
This is ok, however, since the dual modes are designed to operate off of the diesel whenever they can - ie when not in a station or urban tunnel - and only off the third rail when you cannot run the diesel.
Since there is no reason that they *have* to operate off the third rail along the West side, they operate in diesel mode. So why put in a third rail.
Also, many (all??) dual modes have limited power in third rail mode. This may be due simply to the limited current the 3rd rail can deliver. So once again, operate in 3rd rail mode only when you *have* to.
I believe that all the 3rd rail current in the NYC area is +660- v DC.
The N Y Central underrunning current may be of a higher amperage because of the locomotives would draw a more concentrated amperage than a string or less of MU car traction motors.
We would have to check some specs to compare the NY Central Class "S" and "T" motors to the original PRR and later LIRR DD1's. I am guessing, but I believe that NY Central amperage was higher. Hence, the PRR went to 13,000 v AC to have larger and more powerful motors
as on the NYNH&H. However the 600 V DC was and is adequate for the LIRR MU motors. The NY Subways are probably lower in amperage than
the LIRR and there may be a differnce in amperage between the old IRT and BMT/IND Division Amperages. There were dfferences even within the IRT elevated and subway divisions. There were probably several variations in the NY City trolley (Companies) operational current which were all in the 600 v DC range.
Does anyone know what amp ratings are for the third rails on Metro-North, NYC subway, and LIRR are?
On the third rail, I would not think it makes any difference (or much) in how many places the train picks up current, ie MU vs. locomotive. If a train pulls in 500 amps at one location or 100 amps at each of 5 locations, it is still pulling 500 amps through the third rail from whereever the power enters the rail to the train. So I think the MU vs locomotive power issue is not limited by the 3rd rail.
On the other hand, there has to be a limit to the internal wiring of the locomotive. At 600 V, drawing enough current to power a train through only 2 (?) pickups, 1 (?) set of controls, and 4 traction motors is no piece of cake. This is probably what limits dual-mode's power in 3rd rail mode.
For those of you who miss the 23 trolley, SEPTA will be running a special PCC on the tracks of the 23 on Sunday, July 26 at 1:00 PM.
You must be pre-registered and the cost is 15.00
Meet at the Bethlehem Loop behind the Borders Bookstore on Germantown Ave. at the terminus of the 23 tracks.
Jack will be there, will you?
How do you pre-register?
The SEPTA rapid transit, trolley, and bus system has been up and running for three weekday rush hours so far. And to encourage the return of riders, SEPTA is not charging fares! So, for those who reside in the City of Not-So-Brotherly Strikers, what has the ridership been like since restoration?
Yes, somewhat.
SEPTA spokesman Stephan Rosenfeld gave a long winded oratory about how SEPTA's post-strike ridership was high for a July weekend and such, but he and others admitted that the ridership is down, though not as much as expected. Rush hour for the past two weekdays has also been above expected after the ignominious strike. Let's see if it's that way tomorrow when SEPTA begins charging fares again. You have 5 hours, 23 minutes and 10 seconds to get a free ride.
5.22.59, 5.22.58, 5.22.57..........
It seems that riders are slowly returning, but it's hard to say since we're in vacation season. When the free rides end tomorrow, it will be a better indication (if you want another free day, the Fridays in July will also be fareless on the system).
If you believe the TV, radio and newspapers, the riders have either flocked back or cautiously stayed away. I haven't been back (I will tomorrow) but I've seen a few crowded buses in Center City. Again, it's hard to tell.
The so-called experts predict that at least 5% of the ridership will permanently stay away. This is based on past strikes. Whether it pans out, who knows. Ridership was increasing slightly before the strike, so maybe it will level off.
I was just at 69th St. and was at the customer service office. As I was leaving, I saw a scale model of an N-5 car for the NHSL. I noticed it had no 3rd rail and was curious. I looked at the top to see a red pantograph. Is this the same N-5 here, people? I think not.
Also, my son asked me this question and I should ask you, what's the real difference between heavy rail and light rail(is it beyond the size of cars and number of passengers)?
And for you M-4 fans, I wonder if anyone agrees with me if I said that the horn on the M-4's sounds like an animal being tortured.
Was it changed for some legitamite reason?
In theory, the difference between light and heavy rail is that heavy rail operates in grade-separated (elevated or subway) or at least private right-of-way, and the floor of the train is high to line up with station platforms, while light rail runs in streets (and were once called streetcars or trolleys) and has the floor (so-called "low-floor" railcars or buses) or at least the entrance near ground level (as on buses) to accomodate boarding from the street.
In reality, while the low-entrance/high-entrance distinction almost always holds up, the street-running quality of light rail does not always ring true. Some newer light rail systems run in at-grade private right of way outside downtown and on the streets downtown (Portland's MAX, Baltimore's Light Rail Line, Dallas' DART, Denver's system), while many older "streetcar" networks run in streets outside downtown and in subways downtown (Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco), and yet others seem more like heavy rail and never operate in the street (St. Louis' MetroLink).
...And there is the Norristown Line, which has characteristics of each but is more akin to light rail, operation-wise (single cars for most of the day, operators collect fares, closely-spaced stops).
The reason the model N-5 has a pantograph is that, when the cars were tested at the factory, no third rail was in place, thus they had to be outfitted with temporary pantographs to collect current. I've seen pictures of the Broad St K-cars at the plant as well as NYC R-62/62A cars with similar add-ons.
When trains get overhauled how does the MTA substitute for the missing trains? Does it bring old trains out of retirement? around 1990 the r33's were overhauled but they acccount for a little less than half or IRT service. whats the protocol for makin up for trains getting a serious overhaul?
Obviously, an entire fleet is not overhauled at the same time. At the peak, no more than 40 R-46s were out for overhaul at any given time. Usually in this manner.
8 - in transit to overhaul
16 - In various stages of production.
8 - in transit back from overhaul.
8 - Acceptance & testing.
In this way, less than 10% of the fleet was out of service at any time.
As a fan, I can recall having the TA back up a large number of Flushing Line trains east of Shea Stadium to haul the maximum number of baseball fans back toward Manhattan after a Mets game. It was almost rush hour service after the game was over.
Does the TA do anything similar at the end of a Yankee game, ie. back line up several 4, D and B trains on the express tracks, then roll them through the stadium when the game is over? Or do you have to wait 10 to 12 minutes for a 4 or D, then (if you live on the Upper East Side or Upper West Side, which is who George cares about) wait again to switch to a local?
And what is the protocal for Shea?
One of the casualties of surrendering the subways to the TA was the loss of Yankee Stadium specials. Prior to the TA, there was "S Special" service which ran express from 161 Street after a game to 34th Street/Sixth Avenue. I don't think it ran northbound, but it might have. This was probably a reason for the storage track above 167th Street (the Concourse is rather wide at that point) and the crossovers on the Manhattan end of the 161st Street Station.
If the City were still running the subways, there probably would be expresses on the Flushing Line to Shea for maybe two hours before a game and for an hour or two after. But the TA record seems to show a belief that except in very unusual circumstances, no one except rush-hour riders should have expresses, as we can all see when we look at Lexington, Fourth Avenue, Broadway, Queens Boulevard (which have all lost their night express service).
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
I beleive that as late as 1979, some 'D' trains ran from 161 Street down to 2nd Avenue-Houston Street after Yankee games.
That won't do. The games go so late these days, you don't want to take an hour to get home when its over. No wonder George is mad.
Since the stadium is so controversial, why doesn't the TA announce additional subway service after the game for night games between now and the end of the season? And advertize heavily to capture the the relevant market -- affluent young adults on the east and west sides of Manhattan.
So back up the 4s on the express track, and the Concourse/8th Avenue Locals on the express track or at the 167th St yard, then run them through as fast as they fill until the stadium clears.
This would get George over the 3 million mark. Of course he can always get back under it by raising ticket prices, already the second highest in baseball.
My opinion is that it doesn't matter what type of service the TA provides. George is simply set on moving the Yankees out of the Bronx. We probably shouldn't venture into his reasons for this. But if Rudolph continue to get his nose brown George may stay. He (Rudolph) may prove to be good for NYC after all.
There used to be Flushing express service to Manhattan after Mets games on weekends, at least. I rode such a train after my first visit to Shea Stadium in 1970, and while I would go to Shea once a year after that for the next few years, I never saw or rode another Manhattan-bound express after those games.
I don't know the particulars, but as a Yankees fan who always takes the subway, it still seems to me that there are more trains available after a game. I never seem to wait very long for one.
But I suppose with thousands of fans packed into the station, there's no reason we should wait at all.
In New York good subway service after a baseball game may be important, but I remember seeing the opera performances in Vienna scheduled so everyone could make the last streetcar home and the Berlin subways running extra trains from the opera station (from otherwise disused tracks) after the opera finished! The old S-Bahn station at the Berlin Olympic Stadium was rebuilt this year with extra tracks for special trains to and from soccer games and concerts.
Outside Chicago, there is an outdoor concert venue called Ravinia Park (or just Ravinia to most people), where the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and similar groups perform throughout the summer in the evenings. There is a Metra station right at Ravinia's gates, and Metra runs special limited-stop trains to the concerts which arrive about an hour before the performance and leave right after they end. This is in addition to having the regular trains stop at Ravinia Park station, which they usually don't do.
Would someone be kind enough to explain to me the particulars of the Manhattan Bridge situation?
Are the southern tracks due to be renovated anytime soon?
when were they last used?
are the northern tracks due for rehab soon?
jordan
Back in the early 1980s, when the deterioration of the bridge became apparent, engineers told the city that it would have to be replaced. The federal government all but suggested replacement. But that would require years of public review and lawsuits, and the diversion of funds from other priorities. So Ed Koch hired other engineers, who told him the bridge could be fixed in a couple of years. So that's what they decided to do, in the Mid-1980s. They have been fixing and finding more problems ever since. Several hundred million dollars later, the city continues to patch the bridge. But since two administrations have passed, the decision could be considered a political success.
The MTA is a state agency, but the city owns the bridge. The city would probably like the trains off the bridge, but does not want to pay to move them. City DOT released a report which recommended replacing the subway with express buses. The MTA would probably like the subways to be moved, but needs to money to make investments in the suburbs. The have released reports which say the bridge should be fixed faster, but just in case a connection should be made to the Rutgers tunnel (one side only) so service can be maintained for one neighborhood, presumably the most politically influential.
Moreoer, if the subway service is simply lost, cutting the number of rush hour train from much of Brooklyn in half and adding 10 minutes to their travel time, no one important would be affected. In theory, the south side tracks will be fixed in 2001, then the north side tracks will be shut down. The entire bridge will, in theory, be fixed in 2003. After that, who knows? But if the Giuliani administration is out of office before an economic disaster occurs, the political success will continue.
[Moreoer, if the subway service is simply lost, cutting the number of rush hour train from much of Brooklyn in half and adding 10 minutes to their travel time, no one important would be affected.]
What??? A complete loss of bridge service would be a catastrophe, affecting tens if not hundreds of thousands of riders. Do you remember a couple of years ago, when service was shut down for a few months during mid-day hours? That was a major disruption even though rush hours weren't affected.
If the people who would be affected were considered important, the bridge would have been fixed or replaced by now, rather than partially inoperable for (at a minimum) 18 years. Haven't seen any howls of protest on the front page of the newspapers, have you?
The only way anyone will ever care is if everyone living south of Eastern Parkway who owns a car and takes the subway decides that if this is the way its going to be, we're going to drive into Manhattan and drive around until we find a parking space. All on the same day. Then, the people who do matter will notice.
I think the city and state are going to bite the bullet on this one and repair the bridge. The alternative of replacing the service with subway tunnel construction is much more expensive. As for the DOT recomending express buses as a solution, what are they smoking? I take an express bus (x8) into the city every day from Staten Island. The express bus service is generally good. But if my little island of 400,000 people generates tons of bus traffic on the Gowanus, then how could any reasonable person expect buses to replace subway service used by many more passengers. And by the way, I still don't understand why so many of my neighbors drive solo into Manhattan, and then complain on the way home about how backed up Hylan Blvd has become. I love owning a car, but would never punish myself with that long commute in it.
If the bridge can be fixed permanently (or as permanent as permanent can be) it will be fixed -- by 2003 at the earliest. The city's capital budget for the next decade is basically the East River Bridges and schools -- catching up with deferred maintenance, no improvement.
But the history scares me. The bridge keeps cracking and rusting as fast as they fix it. Who's to say whatever stiffeners they are installing won't just move the stress and cause cracks elsewhere? To me, the bridge is a sword hanging over Brooklyn's head.
From what I've heard, new signals will allow 40 trains per hour per track. If that's the case, the three tunnel could carry all the trains required at peak, if there were more connections. Not that connections are cheap, but at one time new connections were built routinely.
Let's understand one, simply thing. When the Manhattan Bridge was completed in 1909, in NO way, shape or form did the planners forsee 24 hour a day all-stell heavy rail running on the structure. Why, in 1909, no subway lines even existed to tie into the bridge!!!
The PROBLEM with the Manhattan is the tracks are on the OUTSIDE EDGES of the span, so when a train passes on one side, the other side dives or raises a few inches. After 90 years of constant strees, what do you expect?
The Williamsburg is in the same ballpark as the Manhattan, except that the single pair of tracks are in the center of the span, giving less sway to the 1903-era structure.
Too bad the TA just didn't damn well create a bond in the 50s for twin tunnels from DeKalb interlocking to Houston/IND and BMT/Broadway. Shame, shame.
[ Let's understand one, simply thing. When the Manhattan Bridge was completed in 1909, in NO way, shape or form did the planners forsee 24 hour a day all-stell heavy rail running on the structure. Why, in 1909, no subway lines even existed to tie into the bridge!!! ]
The south side was built to accommodate the yet-unfinished BMT 4th avenue subway as part of the Dual Contracts, wasn't it?
--Mark
My understanding is the bridge was already designed and under construction when the Dual Contract system was settled on, and the tracks were then added. I've also read that the 60th Street tunnel was built because engineers were concerned that the Queensboro Bridge couldn't bear the strain of the trains. Dual mistakes. The Queensborough is built like a brick, well you know. The Manattan Bridge is hanging by a thread.
Again, the Duals weren't signed until 1913, that's four years after the Manhattan opened. The Manhattan was started just after the Williamsburg, in 1903/1904. At that time, the IRT was the only ballplayer. The BRT later proposed a massive four or six track el down Flatbush Avenue Extension at the Duals time, possibly 1914. However, the Sea Beach/4th Avenue was already, or close to completion.
The Queensboro could indeed support the weight of all-steel equipment, I'd bet even the Triplex (D-Type) would be able to roll over it.
The tracks on the Manhattan Bridge were installed when the bridge was built. However, since there were no subway lines to tie into, the tracks were used by streetcars. Subway service began in 1915.
I can see two factors which have contributed to the bridge's deterioration: the track placement, which should have been in the center a la Williamsburg, and the fact that the south side tracks were used much less than the north side tracks prior to 1967. This has caused excessive flexing, especially on the north side. Granted, the Chrystie St. connection helped balance things out, but the damage had already been done.
The north side tracks were rebuilt along with the rest of that side of the bridge during the mid-to-late 80s. Apparently, the entire south side was in worse shape than was originally thought, hence the reason those tracks have been out of service during this entire decade.
The consensus opinion seems to be that tunnel connections to Cranberry and Rutgers should be undertaken, and I couldn't agree more. Put it this way: I'd hate to be on a train in the middle of the bridge at the moment when the center span let go.
(The consensus seems to be that connections to the Rutgers and Cranberry Tunnels should be made).
That is not the consensus at the MTA, since such connections would presumably be state-funded. State funds are needed by more deserving parts of the state. Instead, according to the MTA, the city should use city funds to "just fix the bridge." And if the bridge will continue to be unreliable and at-risk after being "fixed?" Sell your house and move out of Brooklyn. Its a game of chicken. PS, the City Council cut city capital funds to the TA by $100 million next year, compared with the Mayor's budget.
Note that we are building a Third Water tunnel because some people are afraid of what might happen if one of the existing water tunnels fails. There has been no sign of such a failure. No other community in the country has a back-up aquaduct. Meanwhile, the Manhattan Bridge already has failed, and this has already reduced service, and the history shows it cannot be relied upon long term. Yet a contingency investment is not even on the drawing boards.
I'm not sure that the 3rd water tunnel is such a banannas idea, but this is not the proper forum for that debate.
And, in reference to Steve B's post, I would not lose too much sleep about the bridge falling down. It might be closed, but I don't think that its going to fall with people on it anytime soon... They have a pretty big margin of error in mind when they declare a bridge "safe."
There seem to be some people here who know a lot about structural engineering (cf the discussion of the ironwork supporting the Culver line). Do those folks have any insight on the "flexing" issue? I doubt that "balancing" the load would have helped. On the other hand, it does sound like putting the tracks in the middle would. No sign that the city would consider doing that?
I've wondered for many years why the Manhattan Bridge "balancing" couldn't be taken care of by having one side Manhattan-bound and the other Brooklyn-bound. Is there enough space in the lower-level roadway for four tracks?
This could be an ideal time to do the construction since the Broadway connection is out of service indefinitely. The current Brooklyn-bound Chrystie track (B-3) could be swung out a bit to curve into the Manhattan-bound Broadway track (H-2) and a bit of excavating could have the current track A-3/B-3 connect into track H-2 into Canal Street lower level. This whole project leaves the outer tracks (H-1 and B-4/A-4) as they are and reverses the two inner tracks.
The Brooklyn end wouldn't need very much realignment--the descending H-2 at Myrtle Avenue would be abandoned, but there wouldn't need to be a lot of additional work.
Just a thought (the problem with it is that it might make sense, so wouldn't be done).
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
I'm confused. Currently the south side tracks are out of commission. If the construction you suggest were to take place today, there would be service to both Sixth Avenue and Broadway from Brooklyn -- but no service back to Brooklyn! I'm sure some of those Brooklyn residents would like to get home in the evening, and I'm not sure where all those trains would go once they end up in Manhattan, nor where to find new trains for the next day's service out of Brooklyn.
Oh, and the Broadway express station at Canal Street is also torn up, so only Sixth Avenue service would be able to get through anyway.
Considering the amount of work needed to bring the Manhattan Bridge up to speed, fixing the Canal St express station is going to be a cakewalk.
I know the south side is torn up--I'm talking about a long-term solution to a bad problem. But right now, even with only 6th Avenue operating, the H tracks and the whole Brooklyn side could be prepared for a fast changeover, just as they did over a weekend when Chrystie opened.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Why is the Manhattan Bridge so important for the Broadway lines? Don't all the line remerge back into Brooklyn? How does this help reduce backups?
Maybe the MTA should build another tunnel, connected it into a newly built route in Brooklyn and Queens.
The importance of the Manhattan Bridge (or something equivalent) can be shown very easily, using a Sea Beach/4/N train's stops:
1956: 59th, 36th, Pacific, Canal, 14th, 34th, 42nd (7 stops)
1998: 59th, 53rd, 45th, 36th, 25th, Prospect, 9th, Union, Pacific, DeKalb, Lawrence, Court, Whitehall, Rector, Cortlandt, City Hall, Canal, Prince, 8th, 14th, 23rd, 28th, 34th, 42nd (24 stops)
And when you add the TA's refusal to try any kind of seating material other than hard plastic, sliding back and forth 48 times is a lot worse than the 14 when Brooklynites had Fourth Avenue and Broadway express service 24 hours a day. Rattan wasn't as slippery and the rattan seats at least had spring in them which helped make the ride a bit more comfortable except when a spring poked through.
It would be interesting to know what the ridership has become in recent years on the Sea Beach and Fourth Avenue (Broadway might be worth looking at, too) since the TA improved the service by reducing everything to locals. (Late nights would be especially interesting to know about.)
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Comparing the current MTA schedules to those in the 1969, most BMT southern division riders have lost 5-10 minutes each way, each day. And, as ridership recovers, the trains are getting crowded but with both the two remaining bridge tracks and the Montigue Tunnel at capacity, there is no way to add more trains. The loss of the two final bridge tracks would mean disaster. Can't believe that Subtalkers are the only ones to complain, but it seems that way.
I stand in the Court Street station often, never notice congestion there. Sometimes, I don't see one train in that station nearly 5 or 10 minutes. And when I do, most of the time, it's the M, than the R, and at last the N.
IS THE MTA EVEN CONSIDERING OR STUDYING TO BUILD A TUNNEL TO REPLACE THE MANHATTAN BRIDGE TRACKS?
THIS HAS TO BE DONE!
The MTA did a study which concluded that it didn't have to do anything, and that it is the city's responsibility to fix the bridge. The citys' Department of Transportation did a study (announced but never released -- the commissioner resigned) which said the subways have to come off the bridge, and maybe we can do without them, but otherwise its the MTA's problem.
The Department of City Planning is doing another study.
A new East River tunnel would most likely cost $1 Billion+, maybe cheaper if done pre-fab, as the 63rd Street tunnel was. Any engineers out there with more info?
John, please, I have very sensitive ears.
BTW, the Caps Lock key is on the left side of your keyboard.
Thanks.
The Broadway Line is in horrible condition! Why? People aren't complaining!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We pay more for worse serve!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Isn't that a shame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Broadway Line is in horrible condition! Why? People aren't complaining!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We pay more for worse service!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Isn't that a shame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wasn't the Manhattan Bridge Designed and built as a railway bridge?
Just to set the record straight...
By consensus, I was referring to all of us who frequent Subtalk. I get the impression that most of us, if not all of us, agree that a Cranberry/Rutgers connection would be the way to go. Put it this way: I haven't heard any negative feedback from anyone about this.
I apologize if I misled anyone. Kudos to David P. for setting up Subtalk. You da man!!
I don't see any use of running the J over the Manhattan Bridge.
[ I've also read that the 60th Street tunnel was built because engineers were concerned that the Queensboro Bridge couldn't bear the strain of the trains.]
I've also heard the tunnel was built because it was thought that the grade required to get to the bridge out of the tunnel would be too steep for rush hour trains to negotiate.
--Mark
No. the Dual Contracts were not signed until 1913, four years after the Manhattan opened.
It is incomprehensible to me that the "customers" of the MTA have put up with this situation this long. If only 10% of the affected riders would voice their complaints (calling/writing representatives), I’m sure the administration, and then the MTA would act to end this deplorable situation.
Two points. Are the people in Brooklyn so complacent that they accept this as a way of life? Secondly, do the people affected really know they are the victims of a deplorable situation?
Allowing this situation to go on for so long, it begs the question of "Does the MTA really want passengers"?
Your very right! Many times when the trains are delayed, I don't hear one single complaint from a passenger. Also, when waiting for a train. While this is true now, it wasn't before. Many times passengers would get into heated arguements with the motorman and conductor. Sometimes, it would involve hitting (punching, slapping or kicking) a TA staff worker.
This problem might be stemming from fear of possible arrest from Guiliani police!
> Sometimes, it would involve hitting (punching, slapping or
> kicking) a TA staff worker. This problem might be stemming
> from fear of possible arrest from Guiliani police!
Well I don't know where you're from but that sort of behavior was classified as assault & battery long before Guiliani came around.
No, I can’t agree that this stems from fear of the NYC’s men in Blue. I think what we have seen over the time period since the re-construction, rebuilding, or whatever this is billed, is that people have become immune. I see this in Chicago all the time. It seems to the informed rider, as I consider myself, that the CTA does everything in its power to discourage riders, but the people keep coming back. I think in this hectic world many just feel they can’t do anything to change the transit bureaucracy.
I disagree. If enough people would call in or write to report service inequities, management would soon have to listen. A letter, copying your alderman, from just 5% of those riders who don’t think that the service is up to par would generate results. Remember the old adage, "The squeaky wheel gets the oil". But, it seems the people today accept just about anything. Look at what they expect of our politicians.
I give you the challenge someone gave to me. Kvetch, kvetch, he said, if you are upset, why don't you run for office yourself. I figured I'd find out what is involved. So I went down to the NYC Board of Elections and asked what is required to get on a ballot for a state or local office.
After telling me to get lost, the guy finally said look --- it requires thousands of signatures, which have to be collected in one month, and only insiders know when that month starts. Moreover, there are all these rules so that each signatture can be challenged in court on any little detail, and the burden of proff is on you. Meanwhile, those nominated by the clubhouse get on the ballot automatically without having to go through the signature process. So, he said, unless I have a lot of connections forget it. If I'm serious, I'd better have hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire political professional and lawyers.
Don't the Democrats and Republicans fight it out? For Mayor and Governor, but other than that they have a deal to protect incumbents and the replacements put up by incumbents. So the Vampire State is about as much of a democracy as Mexico was -- BEFORE the reforms.
I've called and written them all. But I can't pay them tens of thousands in campaign contributions like the Greater New York Hospital Association, so it doesn't matter. Is Chicago any better? Why do you think average people overwhelmingly support term limits?
When the CTA announced this last round of service cuts, about 800 effected riders got together at lunch time to march from CTA headquarters to King Richard's office. There was such a scare at City Hall, that they closed to doors on the group of marchers.
This got play in the press. If the group would have staged another march, then another, the press coverage should have started to embarrass the Mayor and CTA chief. However, the group gave up too soon.
Politicians hate to be embarrassed, but they really hate to be embarrassed in an election year.
Where was the original Times Square/42 Street Station located?
Was it the present Times Square Shuttle Station or the present Seventh Avenue/Times Square Station? I am curious about this and also about how they changed the trackage and stations at Times Square when the Dual Contract lines were built.
The original 42nd Street station was roughly where the shuttle is today. The tracks ran down the west side, across the present-day shutle tracks, and down the east side. You can still see old staircases and some tilework for parts of the original station on the north side of the shuttle tracks (there may still be some on the south side, too).
--mhg
The present shuttle station at Times Square IS the original 1904 mainline station. And, yes, it was built as a local stop; the IRT grossly underestimated the traffic potential in that area. Not surprisingly, Times Square became the second busiest station on the original mainline, next to Brooklyn Bridge. According to Brian Cudahy in Under the Sidewalks of New York, a number of theater owners unsuccessfully petitioned the IRT to install crossover switches near the station so that express trains could stop there. Belmont's concession was to instruct conductors to announce the station as Times Square, not Broadway and 42nd St. You can still see both references - "Times Square" and "42" on the station wall of the original uptown side just before the stairs leading to the street. On top of that, you can still see where the original ROW went if you peer through the darkness from the western end of the shuttle platform.
Believe it or not, when the Dual Contract lines were being built, word got out that Times Square was going to be a LOCAL stop once again! Luckily, the mistake of 1904 was not repeated, thanks to the intervention of local storekeepers and theater owners.
It was the current shuttle station that was the original TS station of 1904. The alignment can still be seen to the east of the station where the curves northward still have slots left in the walls then built to accomodate the "New" 7th avenue subway.
The track 4 shuttle is still connected from the 7th ave line over the removable footbridge. Shuttle equipment for tracks 1 and 3 enter from the Lexington Ave end of the system. Crossovers still connect 1 to 2 to 3. Track 2 was replaced by an expanded wide platform.
An underpass existed at TS for pedestrians. It's memory is encased in the glass roundels in the floor to let light in. This was eventually replaced by the BMT connection underneath.
Marian Swerdlow set aside her doctoral thesis in Sociology for Columbia University to become one of the first females to work as a subway operative in August 1982. Although she took the job primarily because she needed the money, she came with a strong interest in union activities. The focus of this book is her involvement in the small reform movement that was taking place in the TWU Local 100 in the eighties. This takes place against the backdrop of a New York City in fiscal crisis and the subway system in its worst shape in decades.
Ms. Swerdlow describes her experiences as a conductor on the "A" division, operating mainly out of Woodlawn terminal. You won't learn too much about the technical operations of subways, but you will learn all about scheduling, crew assignments, emergency rerouting and the like. There is a very nice glossary at the end of the book. (Did you know that an R.C.I. is a Road Car Inspector, a mechanic who is sent to trains having trouble on the road; and that "Reading your Iron" is a motorman's skill at detecting which way a turnout is set by looking at the points?)
This is not the most literary book you'll read and Ms. Swerdlow's dysfunctional relationships with men get a bit tedious. Although she represents the union worker's point of view, it is not a simplistic condemnation of management; rahter, an interesting insider look at many complex issues that directly effect the way our little toy trains run.
Serdlow, Marian, "Underground Woman: My Four Years as a New York City Subway Conductor", 1998, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 262 pages.
Does anyone know the exact address of the Franklin Avenue Station in Newark? I need to go in that area and I need to know the cross street on Franklin Avenue where the station is. Thank you!
I don't have a map handy - but I do know that the station is adjacent to the Newark - Bellleville boundary, near the north end orf Branch Brook Park. Heller Parkway, the next to last stop, is close by (within 1/4 mile).
The station is not really *on* Franklin Avenue, but is actually kind of hidden.
There's a Burger King on the corner of Heller Parkway and Franklin. Behind it is a gas station. There's a small cobble-stoned street called Ropes Place at the gas station, and a convenience store across from it. That street is where the station is.
I would like to find out the regulations for advertisement in the subways and the companies who own billboards or other type of advertisement in subways.
Not sure offhand who handles New York subway advertising, but the London Underground is handled by TDI (www.tdimedia.com)
-Dave
Does anyone know if there are any chat rooms dedicated to transit topics? Thank you
I will be in midtown next week & want to explore Grand Central. I am looking for suggestions on what sites within the Terminal I should check out. I don't want to go into any unauthorized areas, but would like to know if there any interesting things to see, such as the mythical 3rd level :) Thanks
On Wed July 22 at 12:30 PM there is a walking tour of GCT. It meets at the upper level information booth. It is free and is a weekly event. It lasts about an hour.
On the upper level near track 40 are some diagrams of the terminal and some drawings showing the layout of the new food courts and shops. The terminal is near the end of a major rehabilitation. Also, at track 40, go down the ramp to the platform and look back. You will see the upper level loop tracks. These 5 (38-42) converge behind the Oyster Bar kitchen and fan out to tracks 1-3 on the Lexington side. A similar layout on the lower level exists but cannot be seen.
In a few months ? the north end access project will open. It is a public walkway on track slots 31 and 22 to the north. Four exists will take one to the street. They are visible only as walled construction sites at Madison/47 and Park/48. The other two are on Park at 45/46 in the walkways there. On the lower level platforms (107) are new stairs going down to a cross passage for the same system. This is the mysterious lower level.
Have fun.
Thanks for the info.
From what I've read, most of the subway tunnels are cast iron. Doesn't that mean they will eventually rust through, start to leak, and have to be abandoned?
You're worried that they'll eventually start to leak? Have you ever been to the abandoned N platform at Canal Street? (When the TA had the "exhibit" of the boat in the trackway a few years ago, was I the only one who misinterpreted it at first?)
Have you seen Chambers Street BMT lately?
That's not a leak, that's a HEMORRHAGE!
How they allow this situation to persist is beyond me. Hopefully
there'll be a solution when they fix up Foley Square.
Wayne
I don't think Chambers Street BMT EVER looked good, even back to its opening day.
--Mark
Most of the cut-and-cover tunnels were built of concrete, with a steel framework of girders and I-beams. The river tunnels which were built using the shield method were lined with iron rings and finished with concrete. The Joralemon St. tunnel was the first of such tunnels, and hasn't deflated yet despite a dire prediction that it would do so which was made when it opened. The Harlem River tunnels, as well as the 63rd St. tunnel were built by the sunken tube method.
The original Contract One line was generously waterproofed; they may have skimped on this feature on later lines. Apparently, the water source affecting the Lenox branch wasn't properly diverted when that branch was built.
Don't hold me to specifics, but either tomorow, Tuesday, or Wednesday, NYCT will unveil a plan to renovate all stations by 2002.
Does anyone know if there is going to be a "Lo-V"
fan trip again this fall?
Thanks
New Bus maps are out in the style of the subway maps. The front resembles "The Map", and the map itself is the beige color instead of white. So far, I've seen Broolyn, Queens and Manhattan
Since I haven't seen them, I certainly can't offer an opinion. But I am amazed that the subway and bus maps have been changed. It seems to me that what the had one year ago was as perfect as they could get. The 5 bus maps had finally been computer-drawn and were extremely clear. The subway map was about as definitive and clear as it could get, though a tourist's map explanation was the only thing that I thought could be added.
So just when they are perfect, the MTA decides to supercede the NYCT division and print its own rail map containing everything that rides on steel in Southern New York State. Now the subway part no longer seems definitive. It would have been better to leave the old maps the way they were and print a commuter rail folding map as a 7th map to complement the other 6 (5 bus maps and 1 subway map).
There's a not-so-old saying: NO GOOD DEED (6 perfect maps) GOES UNPUNISHED (replace them just as they form a perfect computer-generated set).
Amen to everything you wrote. The all-MTA map is a nice idea, but it should have been done separately. They could put a better NJTransit map on the back, or long-distance buses, or whatever.
What they should do is make the Subway/Commuter map the NY Regional Transportation Guide like it was before it replaced the subway maps. Then, "The Map" for NYC should have the subway on one side, and the ebtire bus system on the other. With the subways deemphasized (shown as thin dotted black lines, and the station names removed like on current bus maps), they could use thinner lines for the bus routes routes, and it WOULD be readable. Just like all the major streets are on the 5 boro map (and these are mostly the ones that have the bus routes on them.
I had our Graphics Dept. produce a base map with the size of the metro area counties adjusted by the number working in them (1990 census). It's interesting to look at. Manhattan is huge, and acts like a black hole, because I had to stretch everthing around it to maintain approximate positions and shapes.
My thought was this "cartogram" could be used to put the subway system and the commuter railroads on the same map, since Manhattan and the other boroughs are so large relative to the far out suburbs. The positions of the counties are designed with the routes of the commuter railroads and highways in mind. Unfortuantely, this is not something I can do myself, so I have to sit in the queue.
Is it likely that SEPTA will ever run any commuter rail fantrips, or
nostalgia trains, using the old Reading Railroad Blueliners, or
Pennsylvania Railroad MP54's? I really miss those old trains, and I'm
hoping to someday see a nostalgia railfan trip planned for
Philadelphia in the near future. Also, Are there any books available
about Philadelphia's commuter rail system? I have seen books on New
Jersey Transit's rail operations, and Chicago's Metra. I'm hoping to
see a book come out on the history of Philadelphia's commuter rail
operations, that would cover the Pennsylvania/Reading Railroad and
Penn Central years, up to the present SEPTA.
Tim, there is a book out on the "Electric Trains of Reading Terminal" or some such title. It is a good history of the Reading side if you can get past the grammar and typos. There is no such book on the Pennsy side, but the PRR Heritage group (NRHS?) has put out a number of bulletins on the system and these are available at the SEPTA Museum Store.
Fan trips are another matter. I can only recall one a few years ago when the original Silverliners were retired. The only remaining Reading Blues on the property are in work train service and I do not believe that any MP54's still exist on SEPTA in any fashion. A number of them went to the Wilmington & Western tourist line but they couldn't be operated as MU since there are no wires on that line. I would find such a trip interesting but there's a lot of mileage to explore and photo stops/runbys would be quite limited, especially on the Amtrak-shared lines.
All,
Jason DeCesare has supplied me with a few R143 mockup pictures. They are in the new R143 page at http://www.nycsubway.org/cars/r143.html.
Enjoy!
Dave
A few questions. First, where's the track? The train's not gonna go anywhere sitting there on the floor. Second, what's the L train doing at Court Square? (Let's see -- it must have switched onto the J trackage at Broadway Junction and then followed the Chrystie Street Cut up Sixth Avenue and into Queens Plaza, and then backtracked along the G to Court Square.)
Seriously, thanks, Jason and Dave! They look pretty nice. And they're not even threatening the redbirds, so I have nothing to complain about.
> A few questions. First, where's the track?
Relax! :-) It's a mockup. I didn't see it myself but it was probably made out of cardboard and construction paper. :-) No track necessary for cardboard trains. *grin*
-Dave
In case you missed my earlier review:
It practically did look like it was made of cardboard. OK, to be fair, more like plywood. And it did show many of the new features fairly well.
I stopped in for about an hour at the viewing of "Car #0000" that night, and I was generally impressed.
--Better handholds, especially the entirely new varieties, on the end walls of the cars and running down the in the center of the ceiling.
--Three types of electronic signs, including the one with the route map, with lights for each stop that go out when you've passed that stop.
The seats are a little hard, but those of us with BMT-width cabooses will appreciate the fact that they're not indented or divided as, say, the R-62 seats are; they're really continuous benches. There is also a fold-up seat at the end of the car.
I thought the color scheme was sharp -- and will probably look sharper when it's metal instead of plywood or whatever -- although it seemed a little bland at the same time.
Actually, my favorite part of the viewing was that it was held inside the 207th St. shop, where I got to gawk at scores of loose trucks being maintained, and at lots of truckless cars up on big poles. Among them were some of the R-110A prototypes, which I must admit were already starting to look ever so slightly grungy. I saw one with the red color scheme and one with the yellow--kinda pretty.
How long will the R-142 &R-143 Mock ups be open for public display?
Is there any inequality in the number of cars ordered for former IRT lines vs former IND/BMT lines?
Are the orders for both made at the same time?
And how can you guys afford to get new trains every 10-15 years?:)
P.S.-The R-143's kinda look like the rapid transit cars Baltimore and Miami use.
In this case, yes there is an inequality (1080 cars for IRT, probably around 200 for IND/BMT divisions). The IRT order was placed in early 1997.
NYC doesn't get "(all) new trains every 10-15 years". They replace SOME trains every 10-15 years. Some of the existing fleet was brought into service in 1958. Remember, the size of the fleet is enormous. In 1995 there were about 5,800 cars in the fleet (both divisions combined). The order of 1,080 cars for the IRT is about 1/3rd of the total IRT fleet, which will replace almost all (all but around 300) of the cars that were ordered from 1958-1964 (R26, R28, R29, R33, R36 types).
In 1995 the breakdown was 2,561 for IRT, 3,240 for IND/BMT.
-Dave
Both divisions seem to be realatively the same size(a lot of the lines do share trackage) so why are there more cars for the BMT/IND(which uses trains of typically less cars than the IRT as I understand).
So you're saying that 300 Redbirds will remain in service?
Not being one to complain about that, but I'm just curious as to how much longer the TA is going to run them.
Are there any more proposed car orders after the R-142 and 143?
5,800 cars in 1995? There were 6,200 in the mid-1980s, although some of them were out getting overhauled.
My question is, is there a car shortage that constrains service? Or could the TA add rush hour trains at the lines which still have capacity, like the F in Brooklyn?
Is the MTA going to display the R-143 mockup around town?
When SEPTA announced that new cars were being order for the Frankford el, a partial mock-up was on display at major stops on the el and the BSS.
Feeling whimsical today. So here's a little subway song.
"Going Downtown" by Pianosaurus
As I ride the train
The subway rocks and I see the stops
I know like the back of my hand
There's no one sittin in front of me
So I put my feet up on the seat
And all I know is I'm goin downtown
Where I don't get pushed around
By social climbers who think they're hot stuff
Nothin's gonna stop this train and
Nothin can stop me
All I know is I'm going downtown
Where I don't get pushed around
And if you wanna see me
You're gonna have to come and get me down--
Town is where I wanna go
Mood is right and the lights are low
The cafes and clubs are puttin on shows
I wanna paint the town with its golden glow
Downtown is where I wanna be
A million miles from reality
It's only a lonely subway ride
And I'd be away from you
And all I know is I'm goin downtown
Where I don't get pushed around
By social climbers who think they're hot stuff
Nothin's gonna stop this train and
Nothin can stop me
All I know is I'm going downtown
Where I don't get pushed around
And if you wanna see me
You're gonna have to come and get me downtown
That was beautiful.
You must be on a downtown A of R-38s out of 125th St., or a downtown A out of 59th St. By the time you reach 42nd St., that train is flying! (even with R-44s)
Forget the R-38s and R-44s! BRING BACK THE R-10s FOR SOME REAL EFFECT!
I'll second the notion. Put 'em back on the A line where they belong!!
Hey all of you subway buffs,
Know any interesting legends, stories or little-known facts regarding the NYC subway system? I would love to know -- I am starting a project collecting and researching all of the above.
If you or someone you know could provide me with information I would appreciate it.
Please e-mail any tips to TAproject@juno.com.
Thanks,
ryn.
I've noticed something apparently wrong with a signal at 30th St. on the El.
If you go to the eastbound side of the platform and walk all the way down towards the infamous switch, you'll notice a signal facing the same direction as the trains on that side. Do they run trains funny late at night? Is this some prank? Is the signal alive?
And to those of you waiting with bated breath for your first(albeit late) ride on an M-4, it seems that no matter where you're going, ALL the M4's are going in the opposite direction. There are at least 7 full trains now. If you go down to 69th St. there is a primo place behind where the 101 and 102 trolleys are kept(across the street from the bus barn) that you can get a great look at the train yard, complete with shiny new M-4's.
Not being in Philadelphia, much less not being with SEPTA, I cannot be sure, but I would suspect it is not an error or a prank. Here in Chicago, there are signals that face the "wrong" way, as well as (in some but not all stations) signs facing the "wrong" way saying where trains of a certain length should stop. This is to handle situations when the trains are running on the "wrong" track because of track work or train problems. It's a rare situation, but they still need signals for those rare occasions. Actually, they need signals then more than ever, if the trains in both directions are running on one track.
That makes sense.
I can't picture the exact signal but I can recall similar signals (usually dwarfs) at 15th and 5th. Their only purpose is to give an indication of the switch points and they are located in advance of crossovers. They either burn red (for straight) or yellow/lunar (for diverge). The El's tracks are not reverse-signalled so I guess these are only used if a train had to be turned and the motorman would need to know the switch setting.
The next time you're on PATCO, take note of a similar signal on the Jersey-bound side at the north end of the 8th-Market platform. It protects a switch into the center layup track north of the station. (Seeing wayside signals on PATCO is odd since the cars have cab signals.) As a train approaches, the signal indication changes from red to lunar, lunar in this case indicating straight. A similar situation exists at Ferry Ave and, I beleive, the same is at Lindenwold.
These signals are called "reverse move signals" and are at every interlocking on every major transit system. Interlocking signals "protect" cross-over switches and turnout switches at junctions. Reverse move signals must be in place at these locations, because at these locations trains will move in any direction. Even against the current of traffic. The signals are used most often to allow a train to "turn", that is, cross from one track to another and return. In most places you will see car marker signs, those signs that tell the operator where to stop his train, that indicate when the train has "cleared" the cross-over switch. The operator will then change ends and rely on the "reverse move" signal to get the indication when to proceed.
I hope this makes sense to you. I’m trying to remember the physical characteristics of the MKT-FKD line. In the late 60’s and the 70’s I wrote the trains almost daily. That was some time ago, and I can’t rely on memory any longer.
Trust me, anything you remember from back then is probably almost exactly the same now.
There have been several threads asking for extra service. While deteriorating right of ways and unbuilt lines preclude expansion in some cases, other areas have capacity. My question is, does the TA have a rolling stock shortage? I know service was cut in the early 1990s, when ridership fell during the recession. Are more cars which are not being maintained sitting in the yards during rush hour? If so, for which division?
With maintenance being a priority these days, things have certainly gotten better than they were in the early 80s, when cracked trucks on the R-46s put a severe damper on availability, and the R-10s, R-16s, and R-27/30s were being assigned everywhere. The R-143s are supposed to prevent a possible shortage when the 63rd St. connector opens.
Since all that the 63rd Street/Queens Boulevard connection does is to replace the G with a Manhattan route, why are additional cars needed?
I could see a few extras, but are many really needed?
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
The G line is composed 78 R-46s. If the line is shortened, the G will be cut back 2-3 trains, 12 to 18 cars. The 63rd St Connection will increase the Q by 10 - 14 trains (80 - 112 cars).
If the G is supposed to become opto shouldn't that free up some equipment from 6 cars to 4 cars? and would R 68/68a be used to replace the 46's? since the G is literally being severed at Court Sq the cars can be serviced at Coney Island. How many additional trains are going to be accomodated via the 63rd st tunnel versus the 53rd street tunnel? Can the Queens blvd line handle the thoroughput? I vision 6th avenue service via the 63rd st and 8th ave via 53rd st. Is the express track D 3&4 only available to the cut west of 36 st to the new tunnel?
The connection will be tied to both the expess and local tracks on the Queens line.
First, the G is a very heavily traveled line. OPTO may not be viable during peak hours. During off peak hours, service requirements might be reduced by 26 cars.
As for the increase in service, the 63rd St. connector is expected to increase train capacity by 15 trains per hour through the Queens corridor.
Since all that the 63rd Street connector does is to replace the G service on Queens Boulevard with some new Manhattan service, how can there be possibly be any increase in service on Queens Boulevard? Aren't the IND tracks operating at capacity now? Or is E and F service going to be "improved" in TA style by being reduced by a quarter or a third so that the TA can justify the hundreds of millions of tax money uselessly spent on the tunnel itself and on the connection?
We might as well ask again if they've figured out a way to get the LIRR trains coming through 63rd (if they ever do) to handle the grade and the curve into Park Avenue at almost the same place the track fan into Grand Central starts? Or is that difficulty going to be the excuse to build the MTA's one-time proposed Madison Avenue subway (commuter only, so the Long Island suburbanites won't have to ride with those uptown and Bronx city residents) to 34th Street with the new MTA palace they wanted to build as its terminus?
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Sometimes Subtalk seems a little cynical.
The Problem, as I understand it from far away, is not the level of service along Queens Blvd. Its the level of service under the East River.
Just about everyone who rides the G gets off at Queens Plaza and transfers, creating lots of overcrowding and delays. Furthermore, do the G trains run less than full along Queens Blvd since people want to avoid the hassle of transferring at a crowded station onto a crowded train.
Lastly, I understand that the 63rd street tunnel routing onto the Queens IND will bypass several slow curves.
From what I understand, the Queens rush hour trains are quite crowded. I am not saying that the 63rd st. tunnel SHOULD have been the highest priority of the MTA, but it seems to be beneficial.
And remember that projects at this level are not controlled by MTA. This sort of thing is up to Mr D'Amato and his ilk.
I'd have to agree the tunnel is a good idea because it provides routing flexibility, will eliminate the disaster when there is a problem, and will allow more Queens trains to Manhattan. The crowding on the Queens line even affects me in Brooklyn. The F is a good train for those who board before 7:30, when rush hour trains are making their first runs from Coney Island. Board much after and you are getting on trains which have arrived from Queens and are turning around. They are always screwed up.
But they should have hooked the G into 53rd St tunnel (and north into Jay) as part of the same project, to allow it to run in a loop as a 6th Avenue local. They don't want to invest in the G because no one rides it, but no one rides it because it doesn't go to Manhattan. It would be a big deal for Greenpoint, Williamsburg, and Clinton Hill.
The true bottleneck is not the 53rd St. tunnel but rather Queens Plaza Station. Aside from being a busy transfer point, there are timers leading into the westbound station. By reducing the traffic through Queens Plaza, the service on the corridor can be increased. I too am skeptical and think the projected 15 trains per hour increase is a bit of a stretch. Then again, did anyone ever envision that EZPass would exceed the MTA's wildest predictions?
You can check out the Lower Manhattan study at www.lowermanhattanaccess.com. One of the proposal in a pre-report I saw was a "high amenity subway" for commuters. I guess we're riding the "low amenity subway."
I know that when the R-44/46's were delivered they were speed-tested on the LIRR. I want to know if those cars or any in the NYCTA fleet could survive operating on the LIRR just as well as under 8th Ave.
Although minor modifications would be necessary, R-44s and R-46s would likely do well on the LIRR. In fact, the 'softer' track-bed on the LIRR would prolong their life substantially.
Physically, any NYC Transit suibway car can operate on LIRR electrified track. The track gauge and third rail pickups are the same. LIRR track is designed for 85' cars, so shorter NYC Transit cars would have no problem on curves.
The big problems are legal. The NYCTA is not a "railroad" in the legal sense, so its cars do not have to meet FRA crash worthiness standards. The cars' ends would require upgrading to meet FRA standards. Another key item is speed controls. LIRR cars utilize a much more sophisticated speed control and signal system than does NYC Transit, and each car would require upgrading. Final item is inspections. FRA considers MU cars locomotives, and requires a detailed 60 day inspection of all components.
Weren't the R-44 cars on the SIRT converted to FRA standards?
I can tell you the glass in the windows had stickers "FRA TYPE II MATERIAL" on them when they had the big clouded window problem in the late 80's on the Staten Island Railway.
It seems the chemical used to clean the car body reacted with the window and clouded them over, no one could see out the pax windows. (This is also when the MTA Chairman rode the line and the conductor said his MTA ID wasn't good for passage on the SIR and charged him a fare).
As far as other FRA standards, I don't know of any mods to the car ends. They removed the trips and the SIR R44's don't share compressors and can operate in any configuration (A-A, or A-B-A, or A-A-B-A) but don't know if it is FRA related. They can operate backwards from the front operating position as well maybe required by FRA, but needed because the two line track was set up for reverse switching.
Isn't another problem platform loading height? I recall that LIRR and subway cars' platforms are different height off the ground. That would be one heck of a 'gap to mind'!
Wait a sec... are the rail gauges really the same?
It seems to me that the LIRR/Amtrak tracks (which uses the National Rail Gauge standard... whatever that may be) are wider than subway ones.
[Wait a sec... are the rail gauges really the same?
It seems to me that the LIRR/Amtrak tracks (which uses the National Rail Gauge standard...
whatever that may be) are wider than subway ones.]
The NYC subway uses the standard US railroad gauge (which I can never exactly remember!) So do most subway and light rail lines, except for BART and one of the Philadelphia lines, maybe one or two others.
The size of the cars may differ,but NYCT,Amtrak,and LIRR are all
"standard gauge";this refers to the distance between the inner edges
(4 feet 8-1/2 inches)of the running rails. This track gauge is used by
all major American railroads.
The gauges are the same. Four feet, 8-1/2 inches. At the Seashore Trolley Museum, I have positioned our LIRR MP-54 next to R4/R7 800-1440 next to Third Avenue Railway System 631. What a sight!
Philidelphia's system is the one with the wide gauge.
Toronto & BART also use non-standard track gauge.
Toronto's gauge is 4 feet, 10.875 inches; BART uses a 5' 6" gauge.
It is not a question of gauge. It is a question of how far does the car body extend over the trucks. Novices to this tread in NYC for example, may not believe IRT cars have the same gague as BMT-IND cars. Or for that matter: LIRR cars. They all have the same gague ie. same distance in between the left rail to the right rail. An IRT car can be ran on the IND-BMT, except because of how far the car body extends over the trucks, the cars will not reach the platform. If a BMT-IND car ever travels along the IRT, well, let's say they'll be major structural damage. Since an R44/46 car is 75 feet long & a LIRR car is longer, a subway car can "fit" on the LIRR but will certainly have a large gap from platform to car body especially on curves. Consequently, conceivably a LIRR car can run in the subway, but will fail to fit into the stations & around curves, & the end excess of the cars will strike benchwalls and collide with cars operating in the opposing direction around curves, strike pillars & beams etc. Almost 30 yrs ago when R44 clearance tests were being conducted, for example, a switch in the Queensbound direction at Fifth Ave./53rd St. had to be moved because a 75 ft. car couldn't fit around the curve, even with pieces of the benchwall being carved out. So it's all in how far the car body extends past the trucks + length of the car to determine if any railroad car would fit into a certain right of way.
Didn't they modify the curves north of Cortlandt Street-WTC to
accomodate 75-foot cars?
There were many many places, Wayne, which had to be modified to fit 75' cars. Somewhere in the photo section, there are several pictures of R1/9's cut in the middle & extended to 75' in order to check clearances throughout the BMT-IND divisions
They were not R1/9s used to build the clearance cars. XC375 and XC875 were built using IRT cars. The stretch cars are 74' 1/2" long and 54' between truck centers. The units have IRT car heights and widths except where the tunnel feelers are installed. At that point, the envelope is adjustable to accomodate any B division car shape.
In the summer of 1970,there was a test train operated over the BMT
southern division using a stretched R-1/9 numbered XC-775.At times,
there was a second stretched R-1/9,but I don't recall the number.
Motors consisted of two R27's on one end and a Flushing R-33 on the
other. The stretch cars were later replaced by two R-44 car shells.
I can find no record of car #XC775. Where is this info from.
Memory. Saw it testing the crossovers between Stillwell Av. and
Coney Island Creek,as well as along the Sea Beach Line.When not on the
road,it was kept in Coney Island Yard near the Inspection pits,making
it easily visible from passing trains.
Fischler's "The Subway"(p.95)describes how R-1 #192 was altered for this purpose.The photo in the car equipment section of this site
appears to be the same car.
Being much older now and given to lapses of memory,I could be mistaken
as to the exact car number. However,what remained of the carbody was
definitely of R-1/9 origin.
Isn't the NYCT voltage 600 and the LIRR 750 or so?
As far as the propulsion is concerned, that's not much of a problem since it was dwsigned to accommodate track voltage variations. The real problem would be with the static converters which have 'Over-Voltage Modules' which shut the units down at around 750 VDC.
Actually, the R-46 would meet the FRA standard for crash-worthyness. The A cars were built with substantial collision posts. When designed by pullman, they hoped the R-46 (type car) would also serve as a commuter rail car on other lines.
That would CERTAINLY explain why, in the "G" vs. "R" collision of
November 20, 1997 there was so little damage to either car
despite a speed of 10-15 MPH by the "G" train. This makes me
suspect that other types of car would have suffered a worse fate
than that suffered by 6202 and 5614. (correct me if I'm wrong on those
unit numbers) Remember the Williamsburg Bridge?
Wayne
Actually, the lack of damage was due to the draft gear and not the collision posts. The couplers are held in place by shear pins, 4 per end. Each one breaks at 180,000 ft/lbs. In that particular incident, 104 shearpins were broken. That's over 18 million ft/lbs, equivalent to an 6-car train hitting the other one at over 22 MPH. Shear pins work wonders - don't they?
The G/R collision was a "hard add" In the WillyB collision you had a high/low. Sometimes when we add cars together one coupler is higher than the other by inches. This could be because one wheel may be new & has more "meat" on it than the other one which may be older (wheel truing). If the couplers were at the same height on the Willy B collision, there would have been somewhat less damage, but still a lot due to the high speed. This explains why one car "climbed" into the other.
The fact that the cars coupled did not cause the incident to be classified as a "Hard Add". It was rightly classified as a collision because 1) no add was intended and 2) because of the extent of damage. 3) Injuries involved. It was purely a matter of luck that the cars added on a curve at that speed.
Of course there is the practice of making accidents seem more minor to avoid bad press: One TA PR employee had some buzzwords as I recall from one of the books:
Collision = Hard Coupling
Derailment = Misaligned Wheel
Fire = Overheated Wiring
and so on...
Sorry to open up old wounds, but when did the BMT get it's first stainless steel cars?
The first BMT Stainless Steel cars were the R-11s. They (10 of them) were built by Budd in 1949 at a cost of $121,000 per car.
Hello, people. The R11 was supposed to be an IND car for the 2nd Av Subway. However, it saw more service on the BMT than anywhere else.
The first stainless steel car was the Budd Zephyr of 1934 (an experimental train). Pictures of the Zephyr can be seen in the BMT book published by James Greller.
Of course, the first major order of stainless stell cars for the BMT (and for NYCTA) was ther R32s, which were delivered in 1964-65, 600 of them in all (built by Budd). AFAIK they are still running.
The R32s indeed are still running, and haven't even been scheduled for replacement yet. I wouldn't be surprised if they reach the 50-year mark in service.
To all you R32 fans out there -
594 out of 600 still chugging along on the "C", "E", "N", "Q", "R"
and ten of them on the "A" (oddballs, they are!) - that's a 99.0% success rate after thirty-four years. God Bless 'em, every one!
The only ones what bit the dust are:
3592 (scrapped - cause unkn)
3629 (wrecked 1971 - SEE PIC.under "R32" AND see note below)
3668 (REALLY wrecked 1972)
3620 (still in existence - retired - frame problem)
3651 (scrapped -cause unkn)
3766 (scrapped -cause unkn)
Note: pic. in R32 roster says 3628 BUT I KNOW BETTER - I was INSIDE
3628 and 3629 whilst they summered at 207 Street Shoppe - 3629 'A' end was DEE-MOLISHED. I got her sign roll (what was left of it - had to pry it out, got from "E" on) 3628 is still going, happily remarried to 3669. (Got his sign roll, too, the whole thing - my Father has it)
Wayne
Two questions:
Which R-32 split the switch north of Prospect Park
on the Franklin Shuttle and ran sideways into
the wall outside of the Malbone Street tunnel ?
The picture published in the N.Y. Times showed
the car almost folded in half.
Wasn't there an item in the N.Y.Division Bulletin
describing that TEN R-32's were shipped off NYCTS property
to be disassembled to study their frames and devise the best
method of reinforcing the rest of the fleet ?
Thanks.
What I heard was that there was a mixup during the rebuilding and simultaneous scrapping of the R-30's, and about 6 of them wound up on the wrong barge .
1) The car which split the switch was #3668.
December 1, 1972, about 7AM (give or take a few)
2) I wonder if those other ten cars became the (non a/c) R32-GE?
Wayne
They have AC equipment installed, they just never worked properly and the cost to replace the units would be prohibitive.
I have been told that the cradles that hold the compressors are
to blame for this. (Please correct me if I'm wrong) If that is all
that is wrong, why don't they either a) get new cradles -or b)
scavenge some from other scrapped cars (4664? 4259? 4260?) -or
c) wait till the R26/28/29 (redbirds) are scrapped and use those
ASSUMING THAT THEY WILL FIT.
By the way - do you have the OTHER TWO unit numbers in the R32-GE
"fleet". I have eight (3594-5; 3880-1; 3892-3; 3936-7) Haven't seen
the other two yet.
Thanks.
Wayne
I'm not quite sure why the AC is inoperative but I can find that out easily enough. All NYCT subway cars (except for the 110s) use Stone Safety or Thermoking AC units. All except the 10 R-32 GEs which use Sigma AC units. Sigma is no longer around so there are no parts available. This would mean converting, re-wiring & re-piping for either Stone Safety or Thermoking. The HVAC units out of the redbirds would be even more involved since the R-32 uses two 9-ton units/car while the redbirds use one 12-ton unit/car.
According to "Revenue & Non-Revenue Car Drawings" book, the last two R-32 GEs are 3534-35. I'll check and see if that's accurate.
You would think that if the problem is a cradle and the cars were rebuilt by GE, The R-38's would have the same cradles and associated guts and stuff to make this car operate at 100%
Yes, BUT all 196 remaining R38's are still toiling away!
(the other four are LONG LONG gone - 3990-3991; 4000-4001)
IMHO they should hold GE accountable and MAKE THEM FIX IT!
Wayne
Actually the cars were overhauled by Buffalo Transit systems (BTS) probably a defunct subsidiary of GE
This "Revenue & Non-Revenue Car Drawings" book -- where can I get it?
Actually, they are not for sale. Not officially anyway. We were giving them away for a donation to the March of Dimes. If you are interested, E-Mail me and I'll give you the details.
3934/35. But sssh. Don't tell anybody I saw those 2 cars up at 207 yd. about 9 months ago. Stripped! They must use those cars to get parts for the other 8.
So THAT'S why I never saw them!
I'll not tell a soul, just my trusty Master Scrap list.
Thanks for the info once again.
Wayne
Sorry but I believe the Zepher was aluminum - could be wrong though!!!
Zephyr from Budd Car was Stainless Steel.
Green Hornet from Pullman was aluminum.
I know that there are abandoned subway stations. Are there any substantially sized segments of subway track in Manhattan that are abandoned?
Well,
There are express tracks under Broadway from Canal Street up to 57th that are unused.
There is an abandoned lower level to the 42nd St. IND 8th Ave. line
There is a short tunnel under Canal St. connected to the express tracks under Broadway connected to the SS tracks of the Manhattan Bridge terminating at DeKalb Ave. in Brooklyn.
There are short sections of tunnel for the Second Ave. subway between 96th and 116th(I think).
An abandoned shuttle track between Bowling Green and South Ferry on the IRT.
An unused lower level at the BMT City Hall station.
An unused third track on the 1/9 line uptown(around dyckman St. and another point farther south.)
Some unused tracks around the whole Delancey-Kenmare St. area.
You'll find more in the outer boroughs. In Manhattan you find more unused stations.
Your list includes some that are abandoned (at least temporarily, such as the SS Manhattan Bridge through Canal Street). Many on the list, however, are not abandoned -- they're just restricted to non-revenue moves, such as the BMT Canal Street 'under' trackage, which is used for storage; the Canal-57th express tracks on Broadway (actually, 34th to 57th is now used for weekday [S] service to Queensbridge); Bowling Green to South Ferry (used to turn the [5] service). And then there's the track from just south of the [E] platform at 50th/8th through 42nd street lower level, which one of our SubTalk posters claimed to have visited on a revenue train some time back... so there's not too much that's truly abandoned.
But the lower level at 42nd St hasn't been used since 1981. On top of that, the stairways have been covered over. I suppose the single track could be used in an emergency if an E train could not enter 42nd due to, say, a stalled C train, and A trains were backed up on the express track. Since there is a crossover switch to the local track just before 34th St., such a reroute would be simple - for E trains, anyway. Supposedly, one of the reasons the lower level was put in was to allow E trains to enter 42nd St. even if both express and local tracks were simultaneously occupied.
I rememeber that posting about the supposed revenue visit. In any event, you couldn't mistake the lower level for the revenue platform above it. Again, there is only one track and one platform, and the northern end has or had stairways to both the uptown and downtown platforms - this is where the underpass used to be before the entire mezzanine was integrated into the paid-fare zone. I used that underpass once or twice - it felt like a twilight zone.
BTW, did you ever notice the southbound track placement between 50th and 42nd? The E platforms at 50th St. extend further south than the Central Park West platforms. Leaving 50th St., E trains climb a short grade, meeting with the 8th Ave. express and local tracks which are coming downhill, at which point they switch over to the local track. Just past this switch is a crossover switch to the express track, which rush hour E trains used to take. This track then begins to descend to the lower level. You can see this from the uptown platform.
P. S. If you love speed, a ride on a southbound A train on this stretch is a must.
Many of the tracks you list in the above message are not really abandoned, just not used by passenger trains.
For example:
>Some unused tracks around the whole Delancey-Kenmare St. area.
>express tracks under Broadway from Canal Street up to 57th
>An unused third track on the 1/9 line
These tracks and are fully operational. Work specials and extras can and do use them regularly.
>>An unused lower level at the BMT City Hall station.
Not only is this fully usable, but it is a small "yard" used for laying up N trains during the day. True, it is not used for passenger operations, but it is certainly NOT abandoned.
True abandoned tracks are very hard to find in the system. If they were on elevateds, they get torn down mightly quickly. If they are in the subway, they are usually maintained although not in use.
Abandoned tracks include lower level at 42nd St/8th Av in Manhattan, bits of the old Nassau St. Loop (J1 and J3 track), 2 of 3 tracks on the the lower level of 9th Av. in Brooklyn, bits of K1, K3 and K4 track at Atlantic Av. on the "L" train, a few bits of rail on the lower level of Gun Hill Rd. in the Bronx and the upper level of Myrtle Av. in Brooklyn. See my track map book for a complete list.
Cheers,
Peter Dougherty
Tracks of the NYC Subway
What about the track from the J at Delancy Street, the former route of the K train - I know it's no longer in revenue service, but do work trains and such still use it?
Peter Rosa asked:
>What about the track from the J at Delancy Street, the former route >of the K train - I know it's no longer in revenue service,
>but do work trains and such still use it?
Yes, it is still very much in use by non-revenue service equipment. In fact, when they ran the museum special (Nostalgia Train) through there a couple of months ago, it looked very well maintained; a LOT better than I had thought it would have been!
Cheers,
Peter Dougherty
VE3-THX
Tracks of the NYC Subway
Most of the tracks mentioned are either unused or not used in revenue service. There is one segment of track which has truely been abandoned. On the 6th Ave line, south of 2nd Ave station, there is approximately 1,000 feet of double track which has been walled off from the rest of the system.
[There is one segment of track which has truely been abandoned. On the 6th Ave line, south of 2nd Ave station, there is approximately 1,000 feet of double track which has been walled off from the rest of the system.]
This track segment was sort of a test for the never-built IND Second System. Incidentally, the stub tunnel had to be walled off because it served as a bedroom and restroom for a colony of skells.
I had to work in there back around 1983. The way it smelled, they should have nuked the place - skells and all....
One section that is a favorite of mine but is not abandoned Nyc track but Long Island Railroad is when Rockaway trains turn on to go out to the Rock on Rockaway Blvd. There still is track and third rail out there from who knows when!
That ROW goes north from Liberty Avenue as 4-tracks at least to
Atlantic Avenue. Then it becomes an embankment and is totally
overgrown with thousands and thousands of trees. It leads all
the way to Rego Park! (White-Pot Junction on the LIRR). A chunk of
it (around Union Turnpike even has an apartment house sitting on it.
It goes through Forest Park. This is the abandoned Rockaway Branch of LIRR. Quite a few of us have been clamoring for this to become the one-seat ride to JFK airport.
Wayne
Wasn't that ROW from Rego Park supposed to be used for Rockaway service from the never-used station at Roosevelt Ave as part of the IND Second System?
As for the abandoned tracks at 2nd Ave., they were supposed to continue under the East River along with two tracks turning off from the 2nd Ave. line, and meet at S. 4th St. along with a never-built Worth St. line (for which there is room at East Broadway). I don't know about the rest of you, but I find all those proposed Second System lines to be mind-boggling.
I don't believe the Broadway express tracks are considered abandoned; officially, they are "temporarily out of service". I have personally seen fresh ballast on those tracks at 8th St., and am pretty sure that they've been reballasted along the rest of that line. That leads me to believe that they will definitely be returned to service once the 63rd St. connector, as well as the don't-hold-your-breath south side tracks on the Manhattan Bridge, are opened and reopened, respectively.
I also think that there should be a distinction between abandoned track and abandoned tunnels, especially if the tunnels in question have no track. The built-but-never-used 2nd Ave. tunnels have no track or signals; the same can be said of the never-used Roosevelt Ave. station.
The Broadway express tracks sometimes are used for re-routes. I've occasionally seen trains using them at 14th Street. And don't forget that the express tracks are in regular use for the time being as far south as 34th Street, for the Queensbridge shuttle.
I have seen out-of-service N trains on the express tracks occasionally, and even rode a rerouted N once when locals were backed up all along Broadway.
I'm not surprised!
Come to think of it, that bellmouth near 63rd Drive Station -
was intended to link up with the Rockaway Branch, but to what
end I'm not sure. There's a page about IND Second System either
in this site or out at Joe's Korner
(http://www.quuxuum.org/~joekor)
Wayne
What about track 2 of the original 1904 IRT between Times Square & Grand Central?
--Mark
While not a part of the subway system, the SIR has two abandoned branches. Passenger service on the entire North Shore branch of the SIR was abandoned by it's former owner, the B&O railroad in 1953. This branch ran from the St. George ferry west to South Avenue. The stations and tracks were never removed and have fallen into dangerous disrepair since then (don't try to explore them!). The line was used for sporadic freight service until about 1986. The western end of the line is currently being re-built for freight use.
The South Beach branch was also abandoned in 1953, but the tracks are long gone. This branch ran from St. George south to roughly where Sand Lane now meets Father Capodanno Blvd. Up until a few years ago one of the stations in the cut near Fingerboard Road was more or less intact, but is now filled in with new homes. You can see evidence of the branch at McClean Avenue and Railroad Avenue where McClean Avenue passes over the weeded cut, and at Fingerboard Road and Lincoln Place, where Lincoln Place passes over the cut.
I explored the North Shore of the SIRR. I sure others have done the same. The stations are hell together by rust and weed. The platforms
contain holes big enought for a large adult to fall through. If you fall through, you fall all the way to the street. A part of the ROW is washed away. The viaduct is made of cement. It now is full of large cracks. Only one rail still has not been removed yet. The open cut is very quiet and overgrown. There are signs of vagrents. There are abandoned stations here too. Most of them are covered with green moss. The last station is Arlington located before South street. The tracks continue through the Arlington yard which is now being rebuilt to the AK bridge.
Too access this area, hop over the embankment next to the main parking lot. I never been behind the sewage treatment plant.
Any other stories about explorers on this line?
I thought the whole North Shore line was filed for abondoment. The problem was the small portion just north of St. George station that today's Staten Island Railway maintains a wye. This is the only place in the whole system they can turn cars. The article in the Staten Island Advance stated that the SIR would have to operate the trains over the wye illegaly unless that portion was sold to the city. SIR still maintains the wye and a very small portion north of it.
Nerver heard anything more about it, if B&O or who ever owns the tracks now got the abandoment or not...
B&O filed to abandon the yard in St. George, which is now the ferry parking lot, and which is proposed for a minor league stadium. It is also where the harbor tunnel would come out, if built. The city owns the north shore line.
Is the 137th st Yard on the 1/9 used at all?
Are there other underground yards in the system, used or unused?
(I find the idea of an underground yard way cool.)
Also, how about the #2 (?) track on the crosstown shuttle? Is it still there? If so, it should count as abandoned since it is isolated from the system.
>Is the 137th st Yard on the 1/9 used at all?
I've seen a few work cars in there once, but I've never seen revenue service layups. Mind you, I think I've only been through there less than a dozen times, and always mid-day, so I'm not sure.
David McCabe posted:
>Are there other underground yards in the system, used or unused?
Well, the first one that comes to mind is the 174th St. yard on the CPW lines (ABCD), just north of 168th St. This is used for revenue service layups.
Pitkin Yard on the A/C in Brooklyn is mostly underground, and all the yard leads are underground.
There are a couple of mini-yards underground: BMT City hall lower level and Brooklyn Bridge tracks 1 and S south of BB, just before the turn into the loop.
>(I find the idea of an underground yard way cool.)
Actually, i find the idea of a fully-elevated yard even cooler.
>Also, how about the #2 (?) track on the crosstown shuttle? Is it >still there? If so, it should count as abandoned since it is
>isolated from the system.
Give this man the Kewpie Doll!!
Yes, indeed, there is still rail in place, although it is completely disconnected from the rest of the system. 2 track, of course, was abandoned when the 42nd street portion of the original system was converted into a shuttle.
There is also a bit of unused rail in the abandoned stretches of the local track north of 57th St. on the Broadway BMT line. This was once intended to go all the way up to the upper west side at one point. This rail goes on for about only 400 or 500 feet.
Tracks of the NYC Subway
137th Yard on the 1/9 is indeed used for revenue layups. I was just there this past Sunday and saw a few #1 trains parked in the sidings, awaiting their call to service.
--Mark
<This was once intended to go all the way up to the upper west side at one point. This rail goes on for about only 400 or 500
feet. >>
Just trying to get my bearings here! We have local tracks to Queensboro Plaza and express tracks to 63rd St and Queensbridge. An abandoned segment would make more sense on the express tracks than on the locals???
Gerry O'Regan wrote:
[quoting me originally]
<>
Just trying to get my bearings here! We have local tracks to Queensboro Plaza and express tracks to 63rd St and
Queensbridge. An abandoned segment would make more sense on the express tracks than on the locals???
[unquote]
This is the way the tracks are configured at 57th St on the BMT today: The grey lines on the outside were the ones originally slated to go to the Upper West Side. They are abandoned and disconnected from everything else.
Cheers,
Peter Dougherty
Publisher
Tracks of the New York City Subway book
Are the tracks easily visible? I remember seeing the trackways but not the tracks.
Andrew Huie wrote:
[Are the tracks easily visible? I remember seeing the trackways but not the tracks.]
No, they are not. They are buried under years of muck and rot, but according to a track worker I communicate with regularly, there is rail there.
Cheers,
Peter Dougherty
Publisher
Tracks of the New York City Subway book
Track #2 on the crosstown shuttle is the former southbound express track on the original mainline. The rails are still there in the tunnel stretch.
Speaking of abandoned track, let's not forget the stub tracks out of Chambers St. which were connected to the south side of the Manhattan Bridge prior to 1967. You can still see where they turn off between Chambers St. and Canal St. They dead end right at the wall where the connection was severed and are now used for storage.
There is also the Prospect Park yard, south of Church Av, where the IND local tracks end. This probably isn't used for anything now, but you can see the gratings (like the ones used on sidewalks) on the trackbed just outside the portal on the ramp leading up to the Culver.
David, I'll add to Peter's comments:
- 1/9 at 137th may still be used to store & turn trains. Before the "skip stop" 137th was the start of some #1 trains (the reason for a mini yard there).
- N/R North of 57th ... I thought they still used these tracks to store/turn trains (as alt to ending in 57th station on the express track & turning there).
Mr t__:^)
On the B line in brooklyn there is a station 9th avenue..i just looked under the station...i see a under ground station below 9th avuene and tracks goin out by the grave yard..i want to know is that under ground staion still in use?? becuase i heard the F line connected there years ago..could someone send me lots of readin on this..thank you
please email it to me
The F line never ran to the lower level of 9th Ave - 39th Street. The original BMT Culver Line EL started from this point, ran parallel to 39th St to Ditmas Ave, then ran south all the way to Coney Island on the present day structure of the "F" line. The 9th Ave / Ditmas portion of the line last saw service on 5/11/1975. The structure was torn down in the mid '80s. Row houses have been built where the right of way once was. Interestingly, cross streets in that area still have faded "RXR" symbols painted into the street. The tracks going out to the "grave yard" used to lead to the start of the EL; the concrete ramp still exists, filled with junk from an automotive shop nearby. The other side is the 39th St MOW Yard - the former Manhattan bound track leads to a wye for wprk equipment to get into the yard.
I wrote a brief history on the Culver Line as part of this site's "NYC Subway Line by Line" section.
--Mark
The 137st - 1/9 yard is used to store revenue trains. Since the Lenox invert reconstruction project started, the TA has #2 service put-ins from that location.
Hey, did that environmental bill from a year or so ago pass???
Are they going to eliminate diesel burning buses in New York???
What is the attrition timetable for NYC buses??? or, what is the scedule for replaceing ALL diesel burning buses.
Would other city vehicles be included in the plan? Which ones???
% Natural Gas burning buses ???
% Unleaded ???
% Other ???
Same question for other state and city vehicles???
Chris C,
There is a big order of CNG Nova buses. The "privates" are getting a big share & they're comming this Fall. There was a recent post that talked about the several companies that are already operating CNG buses, e.g. GM/TMC. Some hybrids (like RxR engines, but small diesels & larger elect motors at wheels). I'm sure there is a "plan" to convert the 4,000 TA & 1,000 "privates".
Disclaimer: I don't work for the TA or any of its divisions.
Mr t__:^)
I know that a while ago there was a train called the K train that went over the Bway el over the williamsburg bridge into manhattan then over the 6th ave line somehow
i know it was discontinued because there werent that many passengers but i feel that it is needed now
The JMZ empty out at essex street and all the passengers transfer to the F which is the 6th ave local
why not put the K back in service?
Actually, there were TWO "K" trains - the first one was originally
known as the "KK" and it ran from 168th Street via Broadway Brookly,
then branched off after Essex Street to link up with the Houston St.
line at Broadway Lafayette. It ran local up 6th Avenue to 57th St.
Later, they pruned the service back to Eastern Parkway and dropped
a "K" from its name.
The OTHER "K" train was our good old 8th Avenue Local, formerly
known as the "AA" train. This lasted about three years until they
absorbed it into the "C" service.
As for putting the first "K" back - at least in rush hours JUST DO IT!
Run it from Canarsie using the flyover and send it up 6th Avenue
to somewhere - 57th St - 21st Queensbridge or wherever.
NB. They will probably wait until after the WB Bridge is fixed before
doing this.
Wayne
>[As for putting the first "K" back-at least in rush hours JUST DO IT!
>Run it from Canarsie using the flyover and send it up 6th Avenue
>to somewhere - 57th St - 21st Queensbridge or wherever.
Hell, I've got a better one than that...The Archer-Parsons Loop! Start on the lower level (J2 track), run into Manhattan, BJ2 track to B2 through B'way-Lafayette, AB2 at West 4th St. up to 8th Av., run local up 8th Av. then via D4 or D2 on Queens Blvd. and D2A, go back to the upper level of Archer-Parsons!
OK, it's not really practical, but it's fun to think about . What *would* make sense, though would be a nice express run once the Queens Plaza connection is complete:
Canarsie P2 track, through the J2A flyover, J2 then J3 express into manhattan from Eastern Parkway straight through. Take the BJ2 Chrystie St. cut, then B2 track 6th Av. local, through 63rd St. to either local Forest Hills or express to 179th St. or Archer-Parsons.
Cheers,
Peter Dougherty
VE3-THX
Tracks of the NYC Subway
I know it's been said before, but it's so much fun to think about that's I'll say it again. The Parsons-Archer Loop Service (why not the [P] train?!?) would have a terrific destination sign:
Parsons-Archer
to
Parsons-Archer
via BRIDGE and TUNNEL
Now that's a "K" train to be PROUD OF! (although, I hear the letter
"V" being bandied about). It really would be nice to use the
flyover once again. Nice bright Orange sign with a white "K".
(I'm sure you remember the Blue one)
I've got to read your book! Where to get it?
Wayne
(a true friend of the Canarsie Line)
I will perfer a H from 21st Street (Q) to Rockaway Park (Q). I think the F serves a good purpose at the Essex Street station. It will be a tremondous waste to round robbin a M train on that line or K train as you proposed.
Besides, anything after J is considered BMT.
<>
That's a tough statement to justify -- the K that ran as 8th Avenue Local was IND, the proposed V train would run mostly on IND track...
Also consider that there are very few "IND" trains that run exclusively on original IND track. Old maps used to say, for example, "BMT in Brooklyn," for the B,D, and F, or "IND in Queens" for the EE. Keep in mind that there are only twenty-six letters in the English Alphabet!
A: Rockaway branch
B: West End
C: All IND
D: Brighton
E: Archer Ave.
F: Culver
G: All IND
Keeping route designations separate by division (B1=BMT, J to Z) and B2=IND, A to G) doesn't make sense any more. Tim is correct about the current "mixing." It's now only the oldest generation that was around when the BMT and IND were separate, anyway. In a few years, it will only be system fans/buffs and historians for whom it will make any difference. The key is that TA (oops! NYCT/Subway) Operations should constantly be reviewing usage and population patterns, and make adjustments that best provide the users with efficient service.
Anyway with this board's proposed "P" service, Parsons-Archer to Parsons-Archer via Bridge and Tunnel, the announcement upstairs at P-A would be "Parsons-Archer next, last stop. Change on the downstairs platform for the BMT P-train to Parsons-Archer." And downstairs, the announcement would be "Parsons-Archer next, last stop. Change on the upstairs platform for the IND P-train to Parsons-Archer." See? Upstairs or downstairs, you can get to Parsons-Archer via IND or BMT by taking a P. Sorry, must be the heat wave :-)
Not only do most people these days give me a strange look when I tell them to take the BMT on Broadway, some of them even refer to it as the "yellow line" now!
Don't feel bad - even my sister gives me a funny look when I say BMT Broadway line. She refers to it as the N/R. Say what you want, but I still refer to lines by their names and not necessarily by the trains which run on them: 8th Ave., 6th Ave., 7th Ave.-Broadway, BMT Broadway, Lexington, Canarsie, etc.
The horror:
I call the 8th Ave lines the BLUE ACEs!
*Ducks from the lynch mob*
There are still a (very) few people around who refer to all IND trains as the "8th Ave. line"; it was the first one built, after all.
That's right. In fact, until they started to put new graphics on station entrances, you could still find the 8th Ave. reference even in Queens. I remember entering the Queens line at Van Wyck Blvd. in 1978, and the entrance was marked, "Queensboro-8th Ave. Independent Subway System". At the same time, the 34th St. station at 7th Ave. still had "Interborough Subway" at its entrance.
How's about a combination of BOTH "K" services on weekends: 168th St Manhattan, via 8th Av, then switch over to to the B and then BJ tracks, to the Eastern Div. As I've said, that would be more useful than serviceto Chambers St, and would replace the C to WTC. (If the Jamaica line still terminated at 168th, the train would run 168th St Manh--168th St Queens.)
I would prefer a 6 Avenue link into Brooklyn via Fulton Street. 21st Street Queens Bridge (Q) and Rockaway Park (Q). Switch off F tracks after West 4th Street (downtown) and switch off C & E tracks after Spring Street (uptown). Possibly called H train, it should be a Brooklyn and Queens Express (am rush hour to Manhattan and pm rush hour from Manhattan).
On the other hand, the C should be extended to Lefferts Blvd Queens, also terminating at Euclid Avenue Brooklyn.
This H line will greatly improve service in Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan. Reduce over crowding and service on the F line.
Service should operate Everyday from 6 AM - 9 PM.
Actually, it would be nice, esp. during the holiday season, if they would run the M train to 6th Ave. daytime during the weekends, instead of terminating at Myrtle. That would at ease at least some of the congestion at Essex.
Hi folks,
Just a short note to let everyone know that the most recent version of my track map book is now available and shipping. If you haven't checked it out, it shows every main line track, all the track numbers, most diverging route home signals, closeups of complex junctions, radio frequencies, colour signal details, whistle codes and a whole lot more.
As well, I'm still looking for recent yard track diagrams for every yard in the city. Anyone who can help me out with these will be fully credited in the next edition!
(note: even after 3 years, this is still a labour of love for me. What I charge for the book just covers my costs and postage. It's done *by* a subway fan *for* subway fans.)
Tracks of the NYC Subway
hey guys I saw the message Peter Dougherty posted about his Tracks of the New York Subway book. Just thought i would give a little plug for Peters very fine work. Any one interested in the tracks of this huge system should definitley check this book out. Keep up the good work Pete.
I second the motion by ron. I have both the orginal book and the revised edition. This is a great book for rail fans and for evry one who wants to know about the NYC subway and how ut works.
Also one question, is this the revised edition with a new cover or a brand new edition?
Charlie Muller.
[quote]
I second the motion by ron. I have both the orginal book and the revised edition. This is a great book for rail fans and for
evry one who wants to know about the NYC subway and how ut works.
Also one question, is this the revised edition with a new cover or a brand new edition?
Charlie Muller.
[unquote]
Hi Charlie, Hi Ron.
First off, thanks very much for the kind words. I always aim to please, and I'm only too happy to share my love of the subway with others. Indeed, the book currently available is the revised edition with a better (full-colour) cover.
IF I can ever get those blankety-blank accurate yard maps, I'll get cracking on the full second edition. I'm still hoping to get it done by Christmas, but I'm running into dead ends at every turn trying to get current General Signal Arangement drawings. If anyone can help out with these there's a free book and full credit in it for you!
Charlie, the only real change between the book you have and the current version--other than the cover--are lots of typos have been fixed, several drawings have been clarified, two printing errors have been fixed, and two new pages showing closeups at East New York have been added. These two pages are really nice, but not worth buying a new copy for alone. When you get the second edition (eventually) you'll appreciate them!
Cheers,
Peter Dougherty
VE3-THX
Tracks of the New York City Subway book
Peter Dougherty, thanks for the quick response. I will wait for the second edition, that you are working on now, to come out.
Charlie Muller.
Peter, i received your revised edition this year 1998. Also i have your original one which i think came out in 1996 or 97. I will wait for your new edition instead of ordering the revised edition with the new cover.
Charlie Muller.
Charlie Muller Said:
[Peter, i received your revised edition this year 1998. Also i have your original one which i think came out in 1996 or 97. I
will wait for your new edition instead of ordering the revised edition with the new cover.]
Not a problem Charlie. When the second edition rolls off the press, I'll be sure to hold onto one for you! As I said, what's out now is different by an order of magnitude from the original one. Every reprinting I do will contain one or two re-done pages showing better close-ups. Last time it was East New York. I will likely have details of the main line tracks at Stillwell Av./Coney Island in printing 1.5.5, which should run in mid-August. I may also have a couple of yards in there as well.
Cheers,
Peter Dougherty
Publisher
Tracks of the New York City Subway book
Hey, wait a minute. On the cover of the new book, is that a D train running on the express tracks?
I think it is a D train just south of Prospect Park where it would not have yet switched to the local track. The two outer tracks there are used for storage for shuttle trains or whatnot. At least I'm pretty sure that's the location of the photo.
[quote]
>I think it is a D train just south of Prospect Park where it would not have yet switched to the local track. The two outer tracks
there are used for storage for shuttle trains or whatnot. At least I'm pretty sure that's the location of the photo.<
[unquote]
You're absolutely correct. That "D" is maybe 200 feet north of its switch at that point. In fact, I took 16 pictures through there on that day, and this one was the 16th. Although the others show a better relationship between the "D" and the switch, this was by far the best photograph.
Cheers,
Peter Dougherty
Publisher
Tracks of the New York City Subway book
peter,
can u tell me these about tracks?
on the brooklyn bound tracks from the whitehall station tracks on the n/r appx. 100 feet into the hole there is a turn off to the right it is a double hole in the wall, but it is cynder blocked off entirely and it is well light... where does that tunnel go? S.I. maybe..
No. The D on the cover is just leaving Prospect Park. Immediately after that picture was taken, the train goes through the crossover onto the local tracks. In fact, the day I made that photograph the Brighton express tracks were out of service being rebuilt.
What looks like the "local" track is in fact A1 track used for storage layups of Franklin Shuttle trains, or to move shuttles as required.
Cheers,
Peter Dougherty
Publisher
Tracks of the New York City Subway book
Although the European "drive" their engines, subways, and trams, in this country we "operate" or "run" our equipment.
Minor detai you sayl, and probably technically correct, however, "driving" brings the distasteful image to my mind of either an automobile or bus.
Although the European "drive" their engines, subways, and trams, in this country we "operate" or "run" our equipment.
Minor detai you say, and probably technically correct, however, "driving" brings the distasteful image to my mind of either an automobile or bus.
Although the European "drive" their engines, subways, and trams, in this country we "operate" or "run" our equipment.
Minor detail you say, and probably technically correct, however, "driving" brings the distasteful image to my mind of either an automobile or bus.
Although the Europeans "drive" their locomotives, subways, and trams, in this country we "operate" or "run" our equipment.
Minor detail you say, and probably technically correct, however, "driving" brings the distasteful image of either an automobile or bus to my mind.
By definition, train operators OPERATE their trains.
Operate is three syllables. Drive is one. Using the word operate generates inefficiency, slows down trains, and raises costs. Can you imagine the difference in time between the tower control telling the operator to operate vs. drive, multiplied by tens of thousands of commands over a decade, added together? Its too horrible to think about.
If drive is too auto like, I recommend run or guide.
When I was growing up in the 1960’s, I had an engineer friend who worked on the Reading Railroad. He insisted that engineer’s "run" their trains. In fact, the unofficial term for being promoted to engineer was, "he went running in 1952 " (an example). I would never have hinted that Frank "drove" his train.
But, at that time the Reading Company, like its railroad neighbors, was in its twilight years. The men who operated the trains were still engineers, even if they operated MU equipment, but times were quickly changing. Engineer’s drive, instead of run, their trains today.
I guess I just get reminiscent when I think of all those afternoons after school spent riding the head end while Frank "ran" his train.
I kind of like "Run" It sounds like you are going some place. Operate sounds like you are cutting removing and sewing. I agree about the drive and guide dosn't work since the cars run on a fixed guideway.
Run is so much more efficent than drive. Only three letters.
But how do you describe the person that runs the train? A runner?
Never Mind. Operator will do.
So does a Motorman Motor his train??
Or is that Motorperson??
In NYC a train operator "operates" the train. Of course a train operator used to be known as a "motorman" . That changed to be genetically correct. A bus operator "operates" the bus. Doesn't drive it. Otherwise the TA would call them "bus drivers". There is a difference between a "train operator" & "bus operator" other than the kind of vehicle he/she operates. When the bus breaks down, the bus operator sits there: doesn't have to get it going again, waits for mechanic. But when a train operators' train breaks down, Control Center goes into cardiac arrest & expects the train operator to get it going again by yesterday. By the title all a train operator has to do is to move the train but it's more to it than that. But if a train operator is classified as an "Engineer" as they do in MTA commuter railroads, then heaven forbid they may have to pay a higher per hour wage. A NYCT train operator has the responsibility in his/her 2 hands to carry many more people per trainload than a commuter RR engineer, but gets paid much less. And he/she has 1 partner, not a bunch of trainmen & conductors like the railroads do. And OPTO he/she/ is alone. But that's another topic.
>>ut if a train operator is classified as an "Engineer" as they do in MTA commuter railroads, then heaven forbid they may have to pay a higher per hour wage<<
And fall under the FRA 12 hour rule. Can you imagine stopping a train in the middle of the Manhattan Bridge because the crew became dead on the law?
Yeah - one word: Timmm-berrrrrrr!!
Speaking of cardiac arrest, I thought Dick O'Neil did a good job of that in the original Pelham 1-2-3 - if you can put up with the profanity.
I know in england the conductor is called a Guard. The Guard would singal the operator that it is okay to start the train.
Another British link.... the "conductor" on Boston's MBTA rapid transit trains is also called the "guard."
You may recall that the "guards" were removed from MBTA Blue Line trains (which are all four car) about two years ago (making them OPTO) to save money. In response to public outcry (mostly concerning safety), the MBTA compromised by increasing the number of "Inspectors" who will rove the line. Inspectors are not police; they are supervisory operations people. The stated intent was to have the Inspectors roam through the stations and the cars, to give more presence. However, my observation -- especially at off-peak hours when more presence is most needed -- is that the Inspectors ride in the cabs and gab with the operators. In fact, since Blue Line trains have full-width cabs, the Inspectors usually open and close the left-side doors so that the operator doesn't have to get up from his/her seat! What was gained? Higher paid guards who are now at the front of the train instead of the middle!
FYI, Orange Line and Red Line trains continue to all have guards as they are six cars at most times. The Green Line trolleys all have one operator per car, including when they MU as two-car trains since the cars' doors must be operated individually.
WOULDNT IT BE BETTER TO HAVE THE M TRAIN RUN SOMEPLACE ELSE LIKE 59TH (AND THEN SWITCH BACK) OR 95TH. IT IS ALWAYS SO EMPTY AND CREATES A DELAY FOR CROWDED R TRAINS TO 95TH.
The M was originally diverted from The Brighton BMT due to construction. Once on the West End, it became a popular addition, a very much needed service during rush hours. As compared to the same time the M was on the Brighton, the TA said that rush hour patronage was sharply increased. This was told when the line was cut back to Chambers Street during midday non-rush weekday hours. The West End line has shown steady demand increases over the past 10 years, notwithstanding the fact that the West End passes thru Boro Park, which has the largest birth rate in the nation.
Anyway, turning the M at 59th will interfere with N express service. In addition, even if the N is operating via local, you cannot turn at 59th because there is no (at least I think) crossover between center tracks. Running to 95th means sharing the terminal with the R, which would be next to impossible. The R during rush hours has a 5 minute headway.
The only time I think you see the train empty is during the beginning part of the rush. Try getting on at 5:30 or 6:00.
SHARING A TERMINAL WITH THE R LINE! WHY NOT THE N LINE! THIS SERVICE COULD USE SOME REAL HELP! I'm sick of people favoring the R over the N! The only place the R is by itself is those three stops in southern Brooklyn. R & M, R & N, and R & G.
On the other hand, the N operates by itself in Astoria and southern Brooklyn when diverting off the 4th Avenue route.
{quote}
[Anyway, turning the M at 59th will interfere with N express service. In addition, even if the N is operating via local, you
cannot turn at 59th because there is no (at least I think) crossover between center tracks.]
{unquote}
This is correct. South of 59th St. are two diamond crossovers, connecting express to local northbound and southbound. There is no connection between express tracks south of 36th St.
What *might* be feasible, however, is run the M's to 86th St where there is a trailing-point (backwards) crossover. Timing would have to be right-on, however, since the relay would be between two active main tracks. One delay and they whole 4th Av. line could go into chaos.
Of course, playing around with services on 4th Av. might just give someone the idea of peak-direction express service on the Sea Beach once construction is finished (there will only be one express track). I can dream, can't I...
Cheers,
Peter Dougherty
Publisher
Tracks of the New York City Subway book
Wouldn't it be easier just to send it to 95th Street (like the did
with the old Diamond "R").
At the very least, restore some form of midday "M" service -
ANYTHING! (9th Avenue again?)
getting to Broad Street from Flatbush terminal past 8:45am is a PAIN IN THE PULLMAN!
WAYNE
True based on increased & increasing ridership the M should be tried once again to go thru to downtown Brooklyn & beyond during midday. Probably won't happen for a while tho. Daily mid-days there has been single tracking on the WillyB for the J, with the M shuttling to Bway Myrtle. This should go on till the bridge is closed full time next spring. But still, the first PM train from Metropolitan to Downtown Brooklyn & beyond leaves Met at 3:01 PM. Not good especially on a Friday when people mostly leave for home a little early, & for the eve of various Jewish HolyDays in the fall when it starts to get dark early. Having double service to 95 St. would not make B&N riders too happy!
Is it likely that SEPTA will ever run any commuter rail fantrips, or
nostalgia trains, using the old Reading Railroad Blueliners, or
Pennsylvania Railroad MP54's? I really miss those old trains, and I'm
hoping to someday see a nostalgia railfan trip planned for
Philadelphia in the near future. Also, Are there any books available
about Philadelphia's commuter rail system? I have seen books on New
Jersey Transit's rail operations, and Chicago's Metra. I'm hoping to
see a book come out on the history of Philadelphia's commuter rail
operations, that would cover the Pennsylvania/Reading Railroad, Penn
Central, and Conrail years, up to the present day SEPTA, that would
be packed with photos of the various type of cars used over the years,
as well as many of the old stations along many of the lines.
With the SEPTA City Transit strike now over, the VRE "Boise Budds" are apparently no longer needed and have been relegated to the Amtrak yard at 30th St Station. All 6 cars are there and have been for at least the past 3 days. I suppose they will soon be hooked onto a southbound Amtrak consist and find their ways back to DC Union Station.
There exists trackways south of 36 Street station on the BRT/BMT Fourth Avenue (Brooklyn) Subway that dive UNDER the mainline tracks. Where do these go ? Why were they built ? Is 36 Street station resently configured as built ? I had heard, many years ago, that there is, supposedly, an abandoned mezzanine somewhere south of the present station which was "stranded" when the present ramps from the W.E. Line were built and the station extended northward.
Inquiring minds want (need) to know....
Great web-site.
Thank you.
WJB.
Talk about another legend! Where would I look to see these trackways? I've ridden the West End 1000s of times and don't recall seeing this. (And I wrote the West End "NYC Subway Line by Line" entry on this site.) I guess I need to pay more attention!
--Mark
If you look at the south end of 36th on the BMT, you can see that the station was moved back to accomidate the ramps leading to the 1800s tunnel to the Murphy Tower area, where you had two ramps from the 5th Avenue el, and the massive interlocking at Murphy.
If you look today, you see a never-finished portal, just outside the 1800s tunnel. Maybe this had something to do with what you are speaking of, because I think the West End/Culver junction was supposed to be a flying junction UNDERNEATH. I need to back in time.
Mr. Voci (what is the name I can't make out the first name/initials?),
Maybe you can shed light on a mystery - did the 5th Ave El use the abandoned no-track ramps far west of 9th Avenue, or the yard rams that continue to be used to this day?
On a Robert Presbrey photo of jus after the rebuilding of the cut to its present appearance, the western ramps even then DON'T have track!
Presbrey wrote on the photo (in an ERA fantrip - the famous May 19, 1975 SBK trip) that these ramps were probably used only temporarily during rebuilding and that the 5th Ave El ran always through the yard and down the east-most ramps!
Comment/info???
Yes there is (was) a mezzanine I was in there once. You had to climb up a ladder and climb thru a hole in the wall. Inside there was a old newsstand and just on the other side there were stairs that went into the ceiling ( up to the street). I think now they use it as a signal relay room when they redid the signals on the 4th ave line. They covered up the hole so there is no entrance from the tracks anymore.
A question or two (or three, or eighty):
I have lived "just up the block" (46 years) from an abandoned tunnel which was part of the R.O.W. of the BRT - Sheepshead Bay Race Track service. (Avenue "X" @ East 15 / 16 Streets, Brooklyn.) I can remember being chased away by the folks who lived nearby when we kids tried to play in there (mid-late 1950's). Did this connection exist when the line ran on the surface ? Where was the terminal located ? How often did trains run there ? When (19??) was the service dropped ? Was there an interlocking plant at Neck Road, or hand-throw switches ? Or, was there a switchman stationed at these switches, or was it the responsibility of a member of the train crew to set the line-up ? Were these switches ever signal-protected ? Several years ago, when the "thru-spans" of other street crossings on the Brighton Line were rebuilt (Avenue "H" to Neptune Avenue), the iron-work carrying the mainline Brighton tracks at this location was not touched. Are there any plans to rebuild this short bridge ? Does the MTA (or the City) plan to cut through Avenue "X" (which would completely demolish this site) ?
There's another piece of history one block north (Gravesend Neck Road & East 16 Street): the "stairways to nowhere". Well, at one time, they led to the Neck Road station of the LIRR Manhattan Beach line. Was there ever a "headhouse" here ? The widely-spaced stairways would indicate side platforms: high or low level ? When did it close to passenger traffic ? When were the tracks removed ?
I've seen a photograph of Avenue "Y" near East 18 Street where the Doody's Lumber Yard (north side) faced the old Permatex Factory (now Edward's Supermarket). The photo shows a single track running north-south along the west side of East 18 Street. Was this track a branch off of the BRT spur or part of the original alignment of the LIRR Manhattan Beach branch when it ran on the surface ?
(Pheww ! My fingers are tired.)
Thank you.
WJB.
Busy day:
There was a highly technical (and highly informative) discussion recently about the High-V 600-volt Master Controllers.
On the Brooklyn El cars (and, for that matter, the Manhattan cars, too): was their MU equipment also 600-volt ? Some Bklyn cars had the control-group mounted beneath the car, some in a "cabinet" adjacent to a motorman's cab: how safe was that ? Were these cars originally equipped with "master switches" (as they were called in the instruction books) with the "dead-man" feature, or was it installed at a later date ? The cars were reversed by simply swinging the removable handle to the left. With no "reverse key" to nullify it, (as on AMUE cars), was there a way to defeat the "dead-man" feature ? Was there a reason these small "master switches" were not installed on subsequent orders ? (The "67-foot" cars, for example.) The High-V's used a "bus-and-balance" system (which made section-break signals necessary.) Any other subway or el car types use this system ? The H&M Black Cars: what was installed there ?
And something that's puzzled me for so many years: Why did the BRT, (and the Boston Elevated, too), install brake valves to the left, and the controllers to the right ? (Similar setup to London Transport.) The IRT, and so many other electric operations, follow steam-locomotive practice where the throttle is generally to the left of the brake stands. Could it be someone performed a time-and-motion study which showed that, since most people are right-handed, using the left hand (and awkwardly, at that) would produce less overall manipulations of the valve, less applications, less releases, and less wear-and-tear on the brake system ? Did someone from England assist in designing the BRT system ?
And finally, just how much influence did Boston have on the development and design of the BRT "67-foot" cars ?
Thank you.
WJB.
In answer to the subject line: neither. The correct answer is: 14
The BRT roads started playing with MU control in 1898, shortly
after Sprague's successful deployment in Chicago. Both GE and
Westinghouse produced MU equipment based on Sprague's patents.
The Sprague design was low-voltage, using a battery of 14-16 volts
nominal. Working the master controller energizes trainlines which
in turn activate control relays which command a drum controller
to advance and accelerate the motors. The primary difference
between WH and GE implementations is that GE used an electric motor
(as did Sprague in his prototypes), while WH used an air-operated
motor controlled by magnet valves.
As far as I know, all of the BU cars were equipped with Westinghouse
gear. WH used a "flop-over" master controller as Mr. Boylan
has described. The center position, handle-off, activates the
deadman emergency brake. The handle is spring-loaded to return to
this center position. Moving the handle clockwise (to the right)
is forward, counter-clockwise is reverse. A very slight movement
off center puts the controller into COAST position and negates
the deadman. Thereafter, the positions are SERIES and MULTIPLE.
There is, mechanically, another position between COAST and SERIES.
It may have been a SWITCHING position and may have been removed
because motormen were errantly resting the controller handle there
instead of COAST. If anyone has definitive information on this
subject, I'd be very interested.
During NY days last year at the Shore Line Trolley Museum, I
ran into a retired BMT motorman who had run these cars in their
final days. He said that he did not recall any way to defeat
the deadman, and the practice was to wedge a glove between the
handle and the center post of the control stand to prevent it from
slipping into handle-off during long station stop breaks, etc.
Westinghouse initially produced MU equipment based on the
Sprague design. Around 1903 or 1904, they changed over to a
"unit-switch" methodology. Instead of a drum-type controller,
individual electro-pneumatic relays control the admission of
current to the motors through the grids. The earliest unit-switch
designs used a circular, or "turret" mounting, which, although
compact, proved annoying to service. Later designs went to a
straight-line mounting of the unit switches.
The earliest Sprague/Westinghouse controllers were indeed mounted
in a cabinet behind the motorman. This was perfectly safe
as the cabinet was lined with a fireproof material. The
unit-switch designs went to under-car mounting.
Meanwhile, back in Schenectaday (sp?), General Electric also diverged
from the original Sprague design and produced a unit-switch
product at about the same time, known as type "M". As mentioned
elsewhere, this system was manually advanced, although some versions
of type M had a kluge to allow automatic acceleration. Type M
is a 600V system...there is no battery (emergency lighting
notwithstanding)
General Electric master controllers were drum-type and more
resembled conventional streetcar K controllers than the bizarre
Westinghouse design. For type M, the controller has lots of
nothces, e.g. 5 series, 5 parallel. In the late 1910s, GE went
back (in a manner of speaking) to the sprague drum design with
PC control, which was an automatic acceleration system. Master
controllers were again the drum type, but with only 3 points,
more or less what you'd see today in the cab a NYC "SMEE" subway
car. [ Aside: GE made other controllers, including those with
4 points and some with 3 or 4 points forward and 2 points reverse ]
Westinghouse eventually gave up the flopover design and shipped
drum-style master controllers standard. The WH BMT "AB" 67'
standards are equipped with this style of controller.
Hopefully someone will have an answer as to why the BRT/BMT chose
to mount the brake valve on the left and the controller on the
right (at least on its rapid transit stuff)
Prior to Chrystie St, Broadway Express trains from Brooklyn used 57th St as a terminal. In a few years, the 6th Avenue link will be broken "temporarily" and BMT southern trains relocated back to the Broadway line. Looking at the track maps, I wonder where they can efficiently terminate now.
It does not seem like there is a crossover near the Lexington Avenue and 63rd St station. Can the Broadway trains turn around there? Also, a prior post mentioned the former stub end under central park. I thought that was connected to the 63rd and Lexington Station. Is there still track there? If so, is the connection between the tracks to 63rd and Lex and the track to the old stub a crossover or grade-separated junction?
Isn't (wasn't) there a scissors crossover at 57th/7th that was used to turn Broadway trains around?
--Mark
There was a scissors crossover just south of 57th and another just north of Times Square (between the two express tracks.)
Scissors crossovers between express and local tracks were just south of Prince St., just north of 34th, and just north of 49th.
When the Broadway express trains (West End and Sea Beach expresses) terminated at Times Square in the early 1950s, they layed up north of Times Square. Brighton express switched to the local tracks at 34th St and continued up to 57th, using the 49th St crossover back to the express tracks, and then crossed over to the southbound express track prior to entering 57th St.
In the later 50s, the Brighton (later West End) expresses ran to Astoria, and the other Broadway expresses were extended up to 57th. The Astoria express used the 34th St. crossover and stopped at 49th.
Prior to Christie St., when the Brighton and Sea Beach terminated at 57th St., the Brighton trains used the southbound express track and the Sea Beach used the northbound express track. The signs in the mezzanines of 57th St. station had the stairways marked "Downtown" and "Uptown and Downtown".
The Prince St. crossovers were used for night/weekend Brighton "bridge local" services (QB).
There is/was an information board on the north mezzanine at 57th St. with illuminated slots for the Sea Beach, West End, and Brighton express services, obviously a remnant from the good old days when all three services ran along Broadway. It was still functional the last time I used that station a couple of years back; I believe it even has arrows to indicate which track the train would depart from. There are similar signs at DeKalb Ave. They don't have arrows, but they do illuminate when the appropriate train pulls in. They served their purpose very well back when most cars (BMT standards) didn't have route signs on the bulkheads. Of course, back then, people could identify trains by the marker lights - something I never paid any attention to, unfortunately. With today's graphics on the trains, such boards aren't really necessary, but it's a nostalgic throwback to an earlier time.
P. S. Unless things have changed, there are scissor switches between the express tracks both north and south of 57th St.
I never knew they were a connection from 57th Street/7th Avenue to the 63rd Street tunnel until I walk the route.
Ed, perhaps you could shed some light on this question:
Didn't Broadway express trains terminate at Times Square in the 40s as well? My 1948 Hagstrom's BMT map indicates that all three express services terminated at Times Square, and 4th Ave. trains terminated at 57th St. Or didn't the Brighton Express go to Queensboro Plaza? Of course, this would have been back when the Astoria line was still jointly served by the IRT and BMT, before the platforms were shaved back.
BTW, at Times Square, the pillars still have the original porcelain "TIMES SQ" placards on them.
I think the request was for Ed Sachs to respond, but I'm chiming in anyway. Broadway express service varied somewhat through the years, but during the day (M-F and Saturday morning, until the abolition of the Saturday rush hour in the early 1950s), Times Square was the terminal for all three expresses during the day until sometime in the mid-1950s (it was extended post-TA takeover) when they were shifted to 57th Street.
Fourth Avenue (2/RR/R) and Brighton (1/QT) locals went to Queensborough Plaza and then to Astoria after the divisional reassignment of the Corona/Flushing and Astoria lines. Around the same time, perhaps when the Brighton local was moved to Queens Boulevard, Brighton Expresses were routed to Astoria, shifting to the local tracks after 34th Streeet (shift to express after 34th Street southbound). At night ("theatre hours," 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. or so) in the 1940s and into the 1950s, Brighton locals ran via Bridge and Broadway express, though they were shifted to local north of Canal in later years prior to Chrystie opening. And West Ends (3/T) were cut back to shuttles at night from 36th Street to Coney Island.
I've only mention some of the arrangements of Broadway service from Times Square north; at later times, West Ends went to Astoria, and the service through the 60th Street connection to Queens Boulevard has been Brighton or Fourth Avenue and also the EE to Whitehall Street. The history from the opening of the Broadway line has seen lots of routings; it's amazing how easily our predecessors seem to have dealt with all the variations depending on time of day, day of week, and the like. (Of course, the TA thinks that people today are apparently too stupid to read more than one letter on a train or to have special services.)
Looking back at what Broadway was like, it's really a shame to see the Toonerville operation the TA has on Broadway now. One has to wonder where all those people have gone who used to wait for the three express routes along Broadway. I'm still waiting for the announcement that they're going to pave the express tracks for a bus route.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Out of all the express routes in Manhattan, Broadway is the least attractive. First of all, express service should have started at 59 Street and Lexington Avenue instead of 57th Street. It should have skip 5ave, 57th St. and 49th Street.
As for your concerns, you're right, they should have put more lines on Broadway. But since they're "fixing" the Manhattan Bridge, the MTA decided to have limited service on Broadway.
They should've never cut express service below canal Street on the upper level. For the Manhattan bridge express, the MTA could have did what they did to the F at Van Wick Avenue. Move the local and express tracks out, than, drop the newly built tracks. Now remains a cut off at the station.
Express trains could have come from 59th Street/Lexington Avenue to Whitehall Street, visa versa. Probably the 4 & 5 is still a better choice, because it has a pretty straight route.
The trackwork at Canal St. is an afterthought. Originally, trains from the Manhattan Bridge were supposed to continue under Canal St. across Manhattan to a Hudson River terminal. In fact, there is a never-used tunnel under Canal St. During the Dual Contracts negotiations, plans were revised to tie the bridge tracks into the Broadway line after construction had already begun. That explains the dead-end express tracks at Canal St. According to Brian Cudahy, the unused tunnel can be seen from the head end of a Broadway Express just as it takes the curve out of Broadway/Canal St. and merges with the express tracks.
If you're at the Canal St. bridge station, you might catch a glimpse of that tunnel if you peer into the darkness at the western end of the station. Otherwise, we'll all have to wait until the south side bridge tracks reopen (knock on wood) before we can see it for ourselves.
The system is half of what it use to be. For example, they had 6 trains running along Central Park West. Similar services existed on the other lines as well. Maybe the problem is the fact the people in this country allow themselves to be manipulated on a daily basis; buying into what they watch on television. I know many times when the trains are delayed or overcrowded, people just deal with it, not mumbling a single word of frustration.
If only we, the people, started to be more forceful in demanding quality service, it will come!
Flood the MTA offices with your letters! Tell them what is needed to improve Subway service! Give them an ultimatum! In other words, tell them if subway service isn't improve by a certain date, we will find other means of transportation!
If they get enough letters like this, they have no other choice but to respond.
Don't you see it! The MTA is taking advantage of you, because, they think that you can't find any other means of transportation! Boycott the TA, buy a bicycle! Ride your bike to work.
BYE NOW,
or maybe I should say,
Live Life,
CBJ
[From Larry Littlefield]
{Also, a prior post mentioned the former stub end under central park. I thought that was connected to the 63rd
and Lexington Station. Is there still track there? If so, is the connection between the tracks to 63rd and Lex and the track to
the old stub a crossover or grade-separated junction?}
The way it works, you had essentially four trackways leading north of 57th St. and broadway, and two ramp tracks between the local and expresses. This is the same configuration as exists all over the system (look at the south end of 59th St/8th Avenue for a typical example). The EXPRESS tracks lead up to the 63rd St. connection. (Shuttle). The RAMP tracks lead to the BMT 60th St. tunnel (N/R). The LOCAL tracks are severed from the rest of the system. For all intents and purposes, the trackways are completely abandoned.
p.s. If I could figure out a way to post a GIF of this I would...I tried for an hour with no success. Follow this link to see a rough version of how they are laid out. I don't have the abandoned trackways shown, but you should be able to extrapolate them out; they are where the locals would be.
Cheers,
Peter Dougherty
VE3-THX
Tracks of the NYC Subway
Hmmmm. So where will they turn around the B, D and Q trains in 2001 when the Chryste St tracks close and (in theory) the Broadway Express tracks open? It appears they will have to turn them around north of 57th, because there is no way to do it at 63rd and Lex. True?
It would be the same as it was always done. One line switches over to the local and goes to Astoria, and the other two end at 57th. Or if they decide to have Broadway trains serve the 63rd St line, then the 6th Av shuttle would terminate at 57th. If the connetion is open by then, they'll probably go with the former configuration.
What will be better. Creating a viaduct from 21st Street Queens Bridge (Q) to 39th Street Beebe Avenue (Q). This new line could come out of 6th Avenue, while on the other hand, the Broadway Express could service Queens Blvd from the tunnel. The Astoria area is in need of better train service.
The old express stubs could be used to turn trains prior to their use as part of the 63rd st connection. The original intent was to turn the BMT west under the park. This obviously never occured.
When the N was running express in Manhattan for a brief period in 1991(?), it switched to the local track between 34th and 42nd and continued north to 57th on the local track (stopping at 49th). I had always thought that was necessary to send trains across 59th Street, but from your explanation and map that's clearly not the case. Does anyone have an explanation for this service pattern, then?
tracks 3 & 4 at 57 st have access to g1 trk and g2trk for the 60th st tube. why the N express in the time frame you mention switched to local to wasn't really necessary to connect to the 60th st tube I can't figure why TA does the things they do? like when service terminates northbound at 42nd st and trains relay at 57th st carrying no passengers? the station is kept open to provide info and tokens/metrocards but customers can't enter or exit?? oh and southbound trains go into passenger service at 49th st??????
Wasn't 7th Ave station under rehab? Didn't they switch becuase of work being down in and around the platform??
I can understand why the underground stations can't have A/C but WHY oh WHY can't they at least have large blowing fans to provide some kind of draft especially in those long connecting pedestrian tunnels?
After living in Japan for 6 years, I had the same question myself upon my return to the Big Apple. Yes folks, believe it or not, almost all of the underground stations in Tokyo are air conditioned.
As a native New Yorker, when I first experienced Tokyo's cool stations AND subway cars, I was pretty impressed.
I think stations are hotter now than when I was a kid in the seventies, when getting an air conditioned car was really cool. The tunnels and stations are not built to properly ventilate the hot air from the train's air conditioners. They really should do something about it...air conditioners are impossible, but at least some fan exhaust system.
When i was in Washington D.C. for the old-timers cracker jack back in the mid 1980's the subway stations were nice and cool also. I have not been there in years, so i do not now if they are still the same way.
Charlie Muller.
The stations in DC are OK, but it is probably a factor of how deep they are. The stop at Union station is very near the surface and is cold in the winter I would imagine that it is also hot in the summer.
I usually am in DC in March or October so I am not sure about the heat of mid summer. Anyone been there this month??
On this topic comparing NYC to DC is like comparing apples & oranges. When the NYC subway was built there was no such thing as air conditioning. All they knew how to do was dig holes. They had no scientific ideas about ventilation except vents in the street which can & does occasionally, floods the subway during downpours. Other systems learned how to build their subways by the successes & failures of NYC.
The idea of building the original IRT subway near the surface was borrowed from Budapest. Can you imagine how much more difficult accessibility would be if all of Manhattan's major trunk lines had been built by deep-bore tunnelling a la London?
Waaah! I'm stuck getting off the A/B/C/D at Columbus Circle. (I either
get into the city at the Port Auth or 33rd street). It's deep...1 stairway to mezz, and then what seems to be about 90 flights up to
57th street. OK, OK, I can take the escalator, but then I've gotta
look at Trump Plaza. :)
And let's not forget all the air conditioners that line the concourse
between 57th and 59th...they blow hot air all day long on us poor
commuters. What they really need is some cedar paneling in the summer
and then they could charge admission.
Not to mention that lovely smell that permeates the station like no
other I've recently experienced. :(
The mezzanine at Columbus Circle is a mere level below the ground. If two flights is too much for you, take the 1/9, which stop at the mezzanine itself.
I usually think AC is overused (it uses tons of energy; call me an enviro extremist) but it seems like AC should not be ruled out for some of the really heavily used subway stations. For instance, Times Square is going to get a complete redo over the next many years, right? Why not install AC at this point?
Perhaps it could be a sytem designed to bring the temperature not to 72 or whatever they over-cool offices too, but to a higher temperature that would still be lower than the current swelter.
If this is indeed impossible, I hope that ventilation is a major concern of the renovations.
Though I don't have details, I believe there will be a cooling system -- but not not A/C -- at the 42nd St IRT Lex station sometime soon. I don't know about the #7 station below it.
There is at least one cooling unit in place, clearly visible overhead at the far uptown end of the downtown island platform on the 4,5,6 lines. A Transit Museum guide told me it will use chilled water to cool the air.
The renovation of Grand Central continues upstairs; I don't know if the two are connected.
Well, I found the article in the NY Times about the improvements coming to Times Square (found out about the article here of course).
"Ventilation will be slightly improved, although no fans will be installed."
Sigh. Are we missing something here - is there some very big reason not to aggressively improve ventilation or install AC in busy stations? Or does the TA just not want to go there - once there is bearable air in one station, everyone will want it?
Commuter rail terminals have it....
Too bad about Times Square.
Here in the Grand Central neighborhood where I work, anticipation has reached a fever pitch! Well, OK, mine has.
Because just last night, I saw about four guys working on that overhead air-cooling unit on the 4,5,6 island platform at 42nd St. GCT Lex. Ave. station!
I'd love to see that thing start working in this hazy, hot, humid week -- I stand right under it every evening.
I was wondering whether NYC subway cars are fumigated for vermin? On Metro North, the cars are sprayed for roaches, and perhaps other things. Is this necessary for subway cars? Do repair crews have to think about this sort of thing?
Thanks, --mhg
Oh, that kind of vermin. I thought you meant the 2 legged type (there is no spray that will work for those).
I am sure the TA does something because I have never seen a roach crawling in a subway car (maybe the rats eat them).
With the large number of skells we have inhabitting the trains, flees, lice, crabs, roaches and the like are a real problem. On some occassions, trains are removed from service for de-lousing.
Since System Safety has not approved commercial insect 'bombs' for use on trains (explosion hazzard) so we normally end up using disinfectant or ammonia or bleach. Some cleaners like to use ammonia and bleach, leaving it in the cars for an hour or so and then opening the doors. Dangerous and quite illegal though...
Anyone know how many "B" Lay Ups are at Concourse? I know there most be several put ins at Concourse...not sure how many.
I have 2 at 57th/6th Avenue, two at Murphy Tower, several at Coney....but no info at Concourse.
Two, at least; maybe three. I travel the Concourse line on Sat.
regularly to visit a relative in Kingsbridge and I see them
just sitting there waiting to go into service. One lays up
near Tremont, the other two near Fordham and just s. of Kingsbridge.
Wayne
As a matter of fact - No B trains lay up on the main line - except when there is a G.O. in effect (Which has not happened since the Bs were mover to Concourse Yard). Normally, there are 5 for AM service and 6 for PM service in Concourse Yard. The 6th is actually an R-68 'D' (Concourse Cars) with the signs changed. The other 5 are Coney Island R-68s or R-68As.
Peter Dougherty's book "The Tracks of New York"
describes the demolishing of the old Fulton Street
line tracks at Atlantic Avenue, and a realignment
of the Canarsie line.
Is there a diagram available somewhere on the Internet
where these changes are shown ?
Thanks.
Ahhhh yesss, Ye Olde Canarsey Line.....
Actually, the Fulton Street tracks are STILL THERE at A.A.,
just not in revenue service.
A.A. has five tracks on six trackways (explanation to follow)
From westernmost to eastenmost: 1 - current "L" service
2 - not used, formerly for "JJ" (leads from yard and Broadway Line
flyunder)
3, 4 - center, unused platform. Led to Fulton Street line at
either end. North of A.A. is a stub which led to Fulton St. line
Rockaway Ave. station and beyond.
5 - current N/bound Canarsie Line, leads to B.J., flyover AND yard.
This may be what got realigned.
6 - GONE. Removed. East side A.A. platform has railings at edge.
From what I can see, this trackway led from the Pitkin Ave. line
into A.A. and then to the Flyover. Track viaduct still there north
of A.A.
South of A.A. the center two tracks lead to Pitkin Avenue and end.
There is a bit of the curved part of the structure left, showing
where it once went. The realignment may be responsible for that
wicked "S" curve north of Sutter Avenue, which sends the Canarsie
Line over Snediker Avenue.
As far as maps are concerned, NYC Subway resources has route maps
from various periods. The current BMT track map may give you a clue as to yesterday. Give Dave Pirmann a mail, he may be able to point you in the right direction.
Wayne
(still surfing the "L")
This Map shows part of what Wayne is describing. The three center tracks (numbered 2, 3, and 4 in his description, shown in black on the map at Atlantic Ave.) are the Fulton el tracks. 1 and 5 are the existing L line tracks and are shown on that map in grey. The #6 track Wayne described would be on the right side of the right-most platform at Atlantic Ave. (which would have been 6 tracks with three island platforms side by side).
-Dave
Another interesting thing about the Atlantic Avenue station on the L is that on the ground between the existing platforms (in other words, directly under the closed Fulton El platforms) are the ruins of an old LIRR powerhouse, mostly ivy-covered today.
Next time I'm there I'll train my trusty camera on it.
Expect to see these pix sometime after 26 July 1998.
Also, will do more comprehensive study of mezzanine at A.A.
(currently have only one photo)
Wayne
The NY Times had a good article on this on Thursday. It includes diagrams of the new arrangements which will take 8 years to complete. Elevators are planned as well as widened corridors.
Can someone post the layout. Just scan the article!
> Just scan the article!
Probably a bad idea after our recent discussion on copyrights.
It is available from the NY Times archive service (see archives.nytimes.com).
-Dave
At various times, potings have discussed adding this service, changing that service, etc. Money constraints are the facts of life in transit operations. Therefore, developing a priority list of projects is a valid and rational thing to do. Projects are designed to serve people, and the number of people served is important in ranking the projects (estimated cost per passenger served), in addition to the estimated total project cost.
With that in mind, how would you rank the projects you think should be built, through the entire system? How many patrons would each project serve? If you have firm (or reasonably reliable) figures on the project cost, could you include them and do the "division" to develop the estimated cost per patron using the project?
One thing I've not seen here is any listing of the average number of weekday passengers on each line in the outer areas, as well as some average on each Manhattan trank line, or at least passing some defined point on a trunk line. I imagine such numbers are developed by the MTA. Are they available? If someone knows them, could you post them here?
By outer area lines, I mean, for example, the M line from Metropolitan to Myrtle Ave., 4 line from Woodline to 149 St., N line from Ditmars to 39th Ave. and separately, Coney Island to 8th Ave., B line from Coney Island to 9th Ave., entire L and & 7 lines. The idea is to get patronage on a line before it joins others, from where patronage would presumably be shared and not readily assignable. Trunk line could be B/D/Q crossing Manhattan Bridge, 2/3 crossing East River.
Be sure to consider repair/replacement projects, such as the Manhattan Bridge.
Thanks.
When the President of the TA and the head of planning gave a presentation where I worked, I asked the following question (or something like it): we've all heard in general that the subway covers 70 percent of its cost and the bus covers 40 percent of its cost, but does the MTA compile data on average and marginal cost vs. revenues by line and by time of day (rush hour, midday)? After sputtering out stuff like "its all one system" and "it all depends on whose ox is being gored" (it was a pained, minute long non-answer) he answered that no, it is not compiled. Too politically explosive.
As someone who has been hired to compile information for public decisions, I have come to understand that the decisionmakers, advocates, the media etc. are not interested in facts at all. True, they like to disguise opinions as "facts," but the implications of objective facts can be interpreted in a variety of ways by people with different viewpoints, and are thus difficult to control. Facts are a threat to decisions based on interests and prejudices. The number of open minded people is very small.
Take the question of overnight service. Many people have the belief that transit is a lifeline service, and that some services should be provided even if it must be heavily subsidized. Those who keep fact and value separate would be willing to compile information on the relative extent of that subsidy, but most would prefer it not be revealed. Some people believe those living on the line to Port Jeff are rich, pay lots of taxes, and are thus entitled to heavily subsidized service. But are they willing to tolerate the tabulation and publication of the extent of that subsidy? No. Why have to make an honest case that others might not agree with. Better to do a deal.
So what area all those people working in various analytical functions at the MTA doing? Not much, just as I am not doing much. I've linkened my job to that of a nuclear missle during the cold war. The politicos are mostly content to fight it out with bullshit, just as the U.S. and Soviet Union fought by proxy with conventional weapons. But there is always the possibility that the other side will launch a fact, so you have to be prepared to launch a fact back. There is probably someone sitting in Silo at the MTA who can answer your question, but don't count on it.
[When the President of the TA and the head of planning gave a presentation where I worked, I asked the following question (or something like it): we've all heard in general that the subway covers 70 percent of its cost and the bus covers 40 percent of its cost, but does the MTA compile data on average and marginal cost vs. revenues by line and by time of day (rush hour, midday)? After sputtering out stuff like "its all one system" and "it all depends on whose ox is being gored" (it was a pained, minute long non-answer) he answered that no, it is not compiled. Too politically explosive.]
In what sense would it be politically explosive? My take on NYC politics (probably true elsewhere) is that discussions are completely taboo if they involve issues or race and ethnicity. Just about any other topic is ripe for discussion if necessary, though obviously some can be more controversial than others.
So where do line vs. line discussions figure into this? Are there concerns that lines in largely minority areas are the big money losers (or, for that matter, the opposite)? Or are the fears of discussion not racially related at all, and may involve almost-but-not-quite-as-controversial union issues?
Any issues. If George Pataki wanted to shut down a line, I'm sure data could be produced showing how expensive it was per ride. But the decision goes in that direction, not the other way. Its not that public agencies collect facts on a regular basis and use THEM to make decisions. So as he said, it depends on whose ox is getting gored. And if you don't need to gore anyone, you don't need the data.
P.S. just guessing, middle-income white areas would be more heavily subsidized, because their residents are more likely to have cars, and are less likely to use transit off peak. Buses would look like a bad deal relative to subways. The marginal cost of peak hour travel is high, and off peak travel is low to zero. The average cost of rush hour travel is low, and late night travel is horrendous. The possible implications are to shut down the system, or more parts of it, at night, tell affluent areas to drive or use private vans instead of buses, etc. Race, ethnicity AND union issues.
I appreciate the education from the previous postings. Perhaps my initial posting should have been titled "Three "P"'s: Patronage, Priorities and Politics". How sad. Haow can any agency plan for the future without adequate data? Is it really a situation of "it doesn't exist" (almost unthinkable) or "we don't want to make it public, its too sensitive" (equally deplorable). It's awful that politics can cause money to be spent inefficiently, while real needs go unattended. How many people board the Franklin shuttle at its intermediate stops? AS free transfer between the D/Q and IRT is already available at Atlantic Ave. Is there really a need for this line at all, or is the moeny being spent (how much?) really the result of political pressure? Who is pressuring for an alternative tunnel to replace the failing Manhattan Bridge? This would all be good grist for the public - that probably doesn't know the degree that non-technical and non-need decisions are driving the MTA's actions. One can only hope
it will end before some tragedy occurs.
If anyone can find public reports with patronage figures for the lines, could you post them? The MTA knows how much fare money it is collecting at each station (or it should know). There have to be reports or internal data listing the disaggregated values. These would get condensed and combined and eventually there would be an annual report showing revenue and expenses. The revenue value would come from the disaggregard data. Are you saying that the financial operations of the MTA have designed a process to assure that such detailed income (as well as patronage) values aren't available? What with MetroCard, it's hard to believe that the data aren't there now.
Not to excuse the lack of data, for I would like to have the very same information as you for the very same reason, but it isn't that simple. After all, you swipe on the way in, not on the way out, so (assuming you take the CBD as a blank box) you can capture the inbound traffic by line better than the outbound traffic. Perhaps you could assign business areas as "destinations" and assume that the share of return trips is the same as inbound. Ie. if there are 200,000 trips coming out of the CBD from 4 to 5 p.m, and the Culver got 2 percent of the inbound during the day, you assume 4,000 people are riding the Culver out in the afternoon. Hiring people to count is expensive.
For my purposes, lots of assumptions would have to go into the allocation of costs. For example, since I favor peak hour pricing I would probably assign the cost of buying, maintaining, and operating all cars in buses not in service at noon solely to peak hour riders, along with the maintenance of all the express tracks. Makes it look like midday riders subsidize peak hour riders, which I think they do, at least on a marginal cost basis. How do you divvy up overhead?
Unfortunately, the TA doesn't use data well for its own political purposes either. One thing I'd like to see is a measure of the cost and revenues of the Subway on an "auto equivalent basis." What that? I'd take out the stations (they are public buildings) and the track and signals (taxes pay for streets and stoplights) and just compare the cost of the buying, maintaining and running the trains to fares. I'll bet the subway breaks even -- a good propaganda point if you can make it. If it doesn't work, you use the delete key. Remember the bureaucrats mantra -- we tell the truth and nothing but the truth, two thirds of what you're required to do in court!
I share the cynic's view, but there are limits in how far I'll go. I want to point out a couple of things.
First, in my view, just because the Mayor and Governor's offices use information selectively to bolster their views does not mean that raw data/information doesn't exist. It means only that the Mayor and Governor's offices use information selectively to bolster their views.
It's not like the TA knows only what the news reports that the mayor or governor decides that he needs a fact. It keeps track of all sorts of things, and publishes them too. The MTA's public reports are available from the MTA for the trouble of asking. (Or, go the the NY Public Library).
What's more, the TA uses this sort of planning info all the time. Look at the notices of public hearing for changes in bus routes, for example, which recite that ridership is low on a route and proposes a change of some sort. I'm not saying that the data is accurate or the decision is sound (or that politicians don't manipulate facts or insist that the TA do this-and-such), but only that the TA does statistical analysis all the time.
Second, the fact that the MTA presents data in a "biased" way is not necessarily bad. It's job is to run the transit system as well as possible. It can't do that without convincing the people who have control over money, workers, etc. that their position is right. In other words, it's supposed to take sides.
The problem with all this is that, in taking sides, it can be manipulative or deceitful. What I'm seeing in the previous posts is not that the MTA has no data except what politicians want, but that politicians manipulate data to serve their own needs. What a huge difference, though!
Which is right? Well, the cynic is supposed to be a realist. The truth, as I see it, is that the MTA generally makes an honest effort to gather information so that it can make the best decisions and arguments it can. I don't see anything in the rationale behind the previous posts that that convinces me otherwise.
Besides, it's a lot more intersting to debate whether a decision is good or bad than to dismiss the decision as "politics as usual" and attack the decisionmaker.
--mhg
A study was done concerning passenger load on the E, F, N, R, and 7 lines in Queens. Unfortunately, I'm unable to locate the site. As for the other lines, I've not been able to locate information about the other lines.
The E, F and N lines has the worst loading problems (somewhere around 125 percent passenger capacity. On the other hand, the R lines only filled to about 80 percent capacity before it leaves the Queens Plaza station heading to Manhattan.
They might be some reasons why the R train isn't popular among passengers. First of all, the route it take to get from Queens Plaza to 59th Street/Lexington Avenue. The slow speeds around the turns before and after the 5 Avenue station. And, the fact that people have choices unlike the N to Astoria.
The N line is the only choice for people living in southern Brooklyn and Astoria Queens. Therefore, it's no wonder why this line suffers from loading problems. It is also the fastest route to Manhattan, which many #7 riders prefer; instead of traveling into the lower parts of Queens.
As for the E and F lines, both services travel to the heart of midtown Manhattan (53 St. 5AV). No other line comes close to this location. However, the F is the most over crowded line in Queens, because of its 6 Avenue route (also indentify as the heart of midtown).
The N and R sways over towards the theater district, while the E, is completely in the theater district.
A study was done concerning passenger load on the E, F, N, R, and 7 lines in Queens. Unfortunately, I'm unable to locate the site. As for the other lines, I've not been able to locate information about the other lines.
The E, F and N lines has the worst loading problems (somewhere around 125 percent passenger capacity. On the other hand, the R lines only filled to about 80 percent capacity before it leaves the Queens Plaza station heading to Manhattan.
They might be some reasons why the R train isn't popular among passengers. First of all, the route it take to get from Queens Plaza to 59th Street/Lexington Avenue. The slow speeds around the turns before and after the 5 Avenue station. And, the fact that people have choices unlike the N to Astoria.
The N line is the only choice for people living in southern Brooklyn and Astoria Queens. Therefore, it's no wonder why this line suffers from loading problems. It is also the fastest route to Manhattan, which many #7 riders prefer; instead of traveling into the lower parts of Queens.
As for the E and F lines, both services travel to the heart of midtown Manhattan (53 St. 5AV). No other line comes close to this location. However, the F is the most over crowded line in Queens, because of its 6 Avenue route (also indentify as the heart of midtown).
The N and R sways over towards the theater district, while the E, is completely in the theater district. Very little interests to employees.
Hi everyone,
In preparation for the second edition, I'm looking for a few details I was never able to get thoroughly confirmed. I'm looking for the current locations of all towers and master towers, and whether they are usually manned or unmanned. Speaking of towers, I assume Murphy Tower is the singal tower governing the 4th Av. and 36th-38th St. Yard and 9th Av. station area. Why is this called Murphy Tower? Who was Murphy?
I'm also looking to chat with anyone who has details of power generation and distribution; I'd like to write a couple of pages on both these topics, and show towers and substations on the maps.
Cheers,
Peter Dougherty
Publisher
Tracks of the New York City Subway book
nyct has abus used for movies and tv commercials.the bus is 4199, a 1985 gmc rts. it actually is pa 4199 but in 1985 there was no pa buses purchased.it has no windows that open and has a castleton sticker on it but if it is garaged there that is the best kept secret on staten island.anyone know anything about this plese post.
The 4199 you saw was not the 4199 you thought it was. 2 RTS buses from 1981 & 82 were sold to motion picture companies who use the buses when needed. Buses that are blown up are bought from scrap companies, then really blown up! One bus sold was 1648, if I can get the other # I'll post it. The movie company will change the number to any # they want. For example the movie they recently made in Brooklyn by the Willy B had a 5200 #. No NYCT RTS was ever numbered in that range. I saw 4199 movie bus at Manhattan & Nassau Aves. in Greeenpoint Brooklyn during filming. If you look close enough like I did you can see a faint shadow of 1648. Also, the bus had a slightly different paint job.
also, these buses (and ditto movie "taxis") have commercial vehicle license plates...
I guess they could have reversed the 4 and 1 to make it PA1499 which did exist as a 1981 GMC RTS. Also, I believe 4199 is still assigned to Kingsbridge.
i was driving my express bus by old navy on 18th and 6th in manh.it sure was adead ringer for an active transit bus. the depot logo for castleton would be correct since 1648 was retired from there after spending most of its life in flatbush.do you know what movies this bus will star in.
I'm interested in photographs / official descriptions
concerning the 1928 IRT Times Square Wreck, aside from
Stan Fischler's books.
If there's any Internet sites containing this information,
I've yet to find them. Anyone know of any ?
And, aside from the few photographs published in newspapers
at the time of the wreck, I get the impression that
someone is supressing the use of these photos.
Legal issues ? Too gory ?
Thanks.
Hello GONZO!
I'm interested too - was it a Composite Car or a Lo-V involved?
If Lo-V, motor or trailer? Unit number, anyone?
ANY AND ALL wreck pictures appreciated.
I understand the TS wreck was roughly on par with the 8-28-91 crash-
with one car cut in half.
Wayne
No doubt the train involved was Low-Vs. After the Malbone Street wreck ten years earlier, only all-steel cars were allowed in subway tunnels.
The New York Times covered this story extensively. Its headquarters building is only a block from where the accident occurred. You can peruse the story on microfilm - available at any public library. Date of accident was Friday, August 24,. 1928 - so begin with Aug 25 and continue for at least a week.
The Composites were banished from the subways in 1916. The circumstances surrounding the 1928 wreck were on a par with the A train disaster last summer - a switch which moved from straight to diverging before the last car of the train had cleared it.
Check out this web-site to see a photograph
of a motorman operating a 67-foot car:
http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/trantran/month.htm
Can you hear the motors ?
There is one thing about the Flushing R-33s that drives me crazy, and it's not the lack of air conditioning.
WHY do those cars have those small signs above the windows that say "This is an air conditioned car, please close windows" ?
I mean, it's quite obvious that those cars are not air conditioned, between getting your hair blow-dried and permed, the fans droning on monotonously, and still having sweat pouring down your face, people are actually going to be stupid enough to think that the car is air conditioned?
Obviously not, since every time I ride them in hot weather, all the windows and storm doors are open.
Why are the signs there?
Hah! That's a good one! They're in the R32GE's too (MORE phantom
A/C). My guess is that when they were putting the finishing touches
on the interior, the "decorators" didn't take notice of the fact
that the R33WF's did NOT have A/C. It takes a fairly trained eye
(of a layman) or knowledge of the equipment to spot that one.
Worst part of the R32GE - they fool you into thinking that there's
A/C on board, you get on and then you have a rude awakening.
I thought that R33WF and R32GE take the summers off!
Rode 32GE on 5-28-98 (#3880) a fairly warm day. MIGHTY UNCOMFORTABLE!
wAYNE
The IRT 7 line still has 11 car trains so I assume they are leaving the 33's in service??
Seems to be...at least for now. One other contributor noted the
fact that the R33 aboard his 11-car #7 train was uncomfortable in
the heat. I mean, there are ten other cars on the train if you
are not willing to "sweat it out". Heck, I remember the R-6's and
R-7's on the "F" line way back when - talk about "sweating it out" -
these cars were in their dotage then ('73-'74), and sometimes you'd
get one where the HEAT was actually on! 1206,1161,1277 etc on 9-11-73:
96 degrees in the street, maybe 105 in the Lex. Avenue station
and we wait and we wait and we wait (passing up A/C'd Slant 40's
cause they were "E" trains) and here comes this "F", creaking and
groaning, air wheezing at every joint, maybe 3000 people aboard -
third car #1277 not only had the heat ON but the fans were kaput!
(they were GE fans with bent blades, not the Westinghouse ones)
And this guy, after gets everybody shoehorned in, sits and waits
about three minutes with the doors CLOSED then takes off at a gallop through the East River Tunnel, rocking and rolling from side to side at 55 MPH or so.
Talk about Hot Rails to Hell!
Ah, the memories...I miss the old cars.
Wayne
In the Sunday July 19, 1998 NY Post on page 14, there is a article about the R-23 Redbirds being in the repair shop the least often. The R-23 Redbirds travel an average of 350,484 miles between breakdowns, leaving newer trains it its wake, according to the article.
If someone can put the whole article in Subtalk it would be great. I do not known if everyone gets the NY Post.
Charlie Muller.
I can assure you that it simply is not true. MDBF is computed in two ways, monthly and 12-month moving MDBF. It's also kept by car class and by car class within a particular maintenance shop. No car in the NYCT fleet approaches that MDBF. I'm also quite sure that you would be suprised as to which are the best performing A & B division cars. Before I give the answers, though, I am interested in some other opinions.
I would guess the R-36 and R-32 as the classes with the best MDBF.
First off, let me say that I like the Redbirds as much as the next railfan, and the cars are reliable. That said, let's get real, folks: the 350,000 mile MDBF (Mean Distance Between Failures) figure quoted by the POST was an aberration, not likely to be repeated with any regularity by the R-28s or any other car class. Moreover, the MDBF figures stated in the article are from April, despite the reporter's statement that they were the latest available. The MAY figures (along with April's), as presented in the agenda of today's MTA Board NYC Transit Committee meeting (which is sent to a long distribution list, including reporters, before each meeting), are as follows (sorry if anyone has trouble reading the columns):
Car Class No. of Cars May 1998 April 1998 12-Mo. Avg.
R-26 110 35,356 41,149 62,548
R-28 100 63,888 350,484 67,163
R-29 236 77,110 82,355 67,363
R-32 594 105,218 111,674 95,602
R-33 531 86,692 137,882 84,106
R-36 424 140,067 95,642 103,287
R-38 196 99,525 84,972 106,758
R-40 391 66,534 50,874 58,049
R-42 391 48,954 59,997 72,499
R-44 275 85,142 51,928 59,041
R-46 752 68,256 70,038 69,300
R-62 323 622,891 116,940 168,028
R-62A 825 108,765 87,478 78,995
R-68 425 113,809 90,366 84,176
R-68A 200 73,315 50,372 56,630
R-110A 10 No Miles No Miles 20,674
R-110B 9 2,451 No Miles 7,057
Note the R-62 figure of 622,891 miles!!! They're good cars, but does anyone REALLY think that any maintenance shop, no matter how good, can get its cars to perform like that EVERY month?
In summary, the Redbirds perform as well as any car class(es) in the fleet. However, it must be remembered that they are approaching 40 years of age. Though in good electrical/pneumatic/mechanical shape, their bodies are showing signs of aging. 30+ years of New York weather and many years of graffiti washes have taken their toll.
Fire away...
Why is the R68A so bad, with a MDBF half that of cars nearly 40 years old? And will this repair record mean anything when the same companies bid for the new contract?
The fact remains that corrosion is a subway car's worst enemy, next to lack of maintenence. The Redbirds have an exterior of LAHT (low-alloy, high tensile strength) steel which not only needs a protective coat of paint, but is less resistant to corrosion than stainless steel which is found on all other current New York equipment. The R-32s have held up very well in that regard, and hopefully they'll still be around for a long, long time. I still miss the blue doors, though.
Those of us who like the Redbirds will indeed be sad to see them go.
Looks like anti-transit attitudes are alive and well even in the nation's most transit-oriented city. In today's Times, the Real Estate section had a community profile on Whitestone, Queens - subtitled "Loving Its Isolation." It noted that Whitestone is quite a bit distant from the nearest subway, but said that according to many residents that isolation helps preserve the neighborhood's "suburban character." What's worst of all is the fact that the lack of easy transit access doesn't seem to have been much of a problem for Whitestone - the article said that houses *start* at $200,000 and many new ones are under construction (including a development in the half-million range).
Question: how come house prices are high in Whitestone when transit access to Manhattan is so poor, given that 2/3 of the private jobs and almost all of the high-paid private jobs are in Manhattan?
Answer: I'll be its because Whitestone is home to high paid government workers (cops, fireman, teachers, sanitation, high level political appointees, etc) who drive to work at locations throughout the city. I'll check this out when I get to work, but that is definately the case in other similar neighborhoods. But the pattern is clear -- civil servants drive, they won't ride the subway or live in subway neighborhoods.
Take Staten Island, for example. You look at Brooklyn, most of Queens, Nassau, Westchester, New Jersey, Fairfield, you name it all most of the high paid people bringing money into town work in Manhattan. We were shocked, however, to find that the best-paid people living on Staten Island worked in Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Queens. Who were they? Government workers, and small business owners. And who were the relatively low-paid workers commuting to Manhattan? Back office, "pink collar" workers.
At this point, I'd say Queens is the borough with its back up. A couple of years ago, I had to make zoning presentations in every borough. The Bronx, Brooklyn and some of the Manattan community boards people had fairly positive attitudes. In Queens, the almost entirely white board members were fearful of the future, and desperate to stop any and all change. I'm told by people who live there that the people who have moved to Queens in the past 20 years are much more positive -- opening businesses, fixing up houses, etc. But the old guard is definately cranky. And perhaps they have a point. Per capita income (adjusted for inflation) is up substantially from 1989 to 1996 in every borough but one. Guess which one?
..
[Question: how come house prices are high in Whitestone when transit access to Manhattan is so poor, given that 2/3 of the private jobs and almost all of the high-paid private jobs are in Manhattan?
Answer: I'll be its because Whitestone is home to high paid government workers (cops, fireman, teachers, sanitation, high level political appointees, etc) who drive to work at locations throughout the city. I'll check this out when I get to work, but that is definately the case in other similar neighborhoods. But the pattern is clear -- civil servants drive, they won't ride the subway or live in subway neighborhoods.]
Could be, though I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Whitestone residents do commute to Manhattan despite the inconvenience, or drive to jobs in Nassau and Suffolk. As far as the civil servants are concerned, their non-use of public transit may not be an attitude thing, but rather might result from the geographic dispersion of their workplaces. Public transit from Whitestone to a corporate office in midtown Manhattan is quite feasible even though it may be a little bit inconvenient. Public transit from Whitestone to, say, a police station in Bensonhurst or a public school in University Heights is probably an ordeal. Driving might be the only reasonable option for many of these civil servants.
Its true that civil servants drive because their workplaces are dispersed, although its amazing home many on-street spaces in Manhattan are reserved for high (and not so high) public officials. And the transit access from Whitestone is not bad -- bus to LIRR.
I think if transit is to be expanded in Queens, I'll have to be the LIRR, given the attitudes toward people who ride the subway. Besides, since the TBTA surplus is slanted against the TA and toward the commuter railroads, getting more city residents on the commuter railroads is a way to be fair value. In addition to the Rockaway Branch, I'd like to see tracks put back in the Kissena Park Corridor down to the Alley Pond Park area, to serve those south of the LIE. This could be done as part of the deal to get the LIRR to GCT, if the city's reps were smart enough to demand it. And, I'd like to see Metro North service in the Amtrack cut in the East Bronx. The MTA is paying big bucks to study (God Help Us) adding one station in the CoOp City area. What about Pelham Parkway, Parkchester, and City Island?
[I think if transit is to be expanded in Queens, I'll have to be the LIRR, given the attitudes toward people who ride the subway. Besides, since the TBTA surplus is slanted against the TA and toward the commuter railroads, getting more city residents on the commuter railroads is a way to be fair value.]
Queens residents may want the LIRR but the LIRR doesn't want Queens residents. What with Penn Station's limited capacity, the LIRR can't significantly increase the number of trains (and therefore riders) during rush hour. It would rather fill the limited number of seats available with higher-fare riders from Nassau and Suffolk. This can be seen in the current fare structures, where riders from Queens stations pay quite a bit more for the LIRR than on the subway - the LIRR wants to discourage their patronage. Things might change once the LIRR connection to Grand Central is open, but that's a long way off.
I have to agree with Peter, with the LIRR City Terminal Zone or travel only within that zone is $3.00 Peak I believe or that might even be off peak. Double the price of the subway. Long Haul makes money period.
LIRR also cut out the Penny Bridge service as well... Friday night on the local ABC news they had a bit on how poor the service has become on the LIRR, flat wheels and broken A/C has causes equipment shortage and short trains and high tempers.
There was a similar fare arrangement on Amtrak from New Haven. Amtrak ticket prices to Penn Station were steeper than those of MetroNorth's predecessor, ConRail, because Amtrak wanted to discourage people from taking their trains from New Haven to New York. My sister was going to school at F. I. T. at the time (late 70s), and she would still ride on Amtrak because Penn Station was closer to F. I. T. - six blocks away - than Grand Central.
[ The MTA is paying big bucks to study (God Help Us) adding one station in the CoOp City area. ]
Extending the Pelham (#6) line into Co-op City isn't feasible?
I thought that the subway's mission is to serve the boroughs of NYC and that of the LIRR & Metro-North to serve the suburbs. Why dilute it by having LIRR or Metro-North and the subway competing for passengers?
--Mark
Why have Metro North stop at Co-op city instead of extending the Pelham subway line? Because it is a LOT cheaper to build a station than extend any tracks any distance. A LOT cheaper. Like hundreds of millions.
Why should the people on one side of a political boundary exclusively move on one system, and those on the other side move only on the other? Rather artificial.
[Why have Metro North stop at Co-op city instead of extending the Pelham subway line? Because it is a LOT cheaper to build a station than extend any tracks any distance. A LOT cheaper. Like hundreds of millions.]
Wait a minute - how could Metro North be involved? Co-op City is not close to any Metro North lines. It *is* fairly close to the Amtrak line, which Metro North doesn't use. But Amtrak isn't in the business of commuter transit, and it's highly unlikely that any Metro North trains would use the Amtrak line south of the current New Rochelle split given capacity limitations in Penn Station.
the Amtrak line, which Metro North doesn't use. But Amtrak isn't in the business of commuter transit, and it's highly unlikely
that any Metro North trains would use the Amtrak line south of the current New Rochelle split given capacity limitations in
Penn Station. >
You indicate that Amtrak is not in the business of commuter transit, which is mostly true, although many commuters do use Amtrak. I know a few people who take Amtrak daily from Phily or Trenton to their jobs in NYC. If you are from South New Jersey or Eastern PA it is probably a quicker alternative to take Amtrak than New Jersey Transit.
I'm sure it's probably a profitable run for Amtrak unlike many of their other lines. Additionally, I'd guess the commuting times from even Phily are shorter than from some parts of Long Island, New Jersey, or Upstate NY via LIRR, NJT, or MetroNorth.
From what I understand, it's probably one of the only Profitable runs for Amtrak. The Northeast corridor subsidizes the rest of the system which is clear in it's pricing structure (Some routes in California may be the only exception to this). About 2-3 years ago Amtrak raised faires about 25% and eliminated round trip pricing within a 6 month period effectively doubling prices from Philadelphia to NY. The CHEAPEST round trip is now about $72 (possibly more) for a 90 mile trip. And that goes up even more on the weekends to about $90. And I'm not talking about the Metroliner. I can't afford to take Amtrak any more. It's pricing makes it an impractial option for most people I know.
Last year I looked into taking Amtrak to Montreal. There is now only 1 train per day in each direction and the fare structure dictates that it's the cost of Philly to NY plus NY to Montreal which made it close to $200. I found an airfare for $10 more including taxes. On routes like these Amtrak can't even compete with airlines on price. And on top of being about half the price, Greyhound is FASTER than Amtrak on the same route.
I know that the ever decreasing subsidy from congress has forced Amtrak's hand in raising prices. But my patience with facing outrageous prices so that Amtrak can still run in Texas and Florida is fading quickly. We need to decide as a country if we want a national passenger railroad. If congress isn't willing to fund it, then the burden shouldn't be placed on the northeast to subsidize it (like so many other things . . .). If Congress won't pay, then each region should fund it themselves or face prices that reflect the cost of service.
In the mean time I'll fly or take the bus - most of the time those options are either faster, cheaper, or both.
Travel fares vary by market, and mode. On the "Shuttle" from NYC to either Boston to DC, both Delta and US Airways charge over $400 round trip. That's right -- over four hundred dollars round trip for an unrestricted, walk-up fare without a Saturday night stay. What, you say? You can travel to Paris and back for less? That's right! The northeast corridor Shuttle market has the highest yield (revenue per passenger mile) of any air route in the country. It's that way because business flyers will pay whatever the fare is for convenient transporatation on these heavily traveled routes. However, in late 1999 (allegedly) the Penna. Station (NYC) to South Station (Boston) high speed rail will be inaugurated, reducing rail travel time from five hours to three. I suspect that the airlines will see some serious competition from this new service (the press has quoted AMTRAK as proposing a $200 round trip fare from Boston to NYC). And since trains are less susceptible to weather delays, I believe the service will become a major market force and cause the airlines to reduce their fares.
Would it be possible for one or more of the transit agencies to contract with Amtrak to provide the service like the MBTA does with all it's commuter rail.
What do you think the increased cost of a round-trip ticket will do to ridership? Right now, I'd rather pay $88.00 round trip to NYC to take the train, as the bus is $60.00 and, well.... it’s a bus!
I must say, however, that I will probably revert to Peter Pan, Bonanza, or Greyhound if Amtrak fares increase to $200.00 to support the modification of the NE Corridor ROW. I'm a railfan, but I'm of Scottish descent, too!
Is reduced ridership an expected repercussion of the restructuring of Amtrak's service? Or will it increase as a result of those people who would have taken a plane? On the other hand, maybe they'll just cancel each other out...
From Philly to NY the bus is actually $31 round trip (not each way) on the weekend, and cheaper during the week. It takes 1 hour and 50 minutes (assuming it's not rush hour). And it runs more frequently than both Septa and Amtrak.
The Septa & NJ Transit option costs $24 round trip - but it takes about 2 hours and 40 minutes assuming that one train waits for the other in Trenton because both trains are always late. I stopped taking the train because I got stuck in Trenton for over an hour around Midnight one too many times.
Amtrak takes between 1 hour 20 minutes to 1 hour 35 minutes and costs almost 3 times what the bus or commuter rail costs. It's certainly the most comfortable option, but $60 is quite a premium for 25 minutes and less frequent service.
As for NY-Boston "High Speed" service . . . I imagine that will be an extension of Metroliner service to Boston. There will (hopefully) still be cheaper service that is slightly faster than the current service since the engine switch hold-over in Stamford will be eliminated. And who knows if Amtrak as we know it will still exist by the time the electrification of the NE corridor is complete.
Congress recently relented and gave AMTRAK its subsidy. So I think it will be around to see the delivery of the new high-speed service, slated for late 1999. BTW, the engine changeover is at New Haven. And while I don't know if the 'Metroliner' name will be continued, the plan I've heard is for many trains to be thru from BOS-NYP-WAS.
I'm sure AMTRAK will come up pricing strategies to keep the "leisure" traveler on-board as well. The airlines certainly do: you can fly coast-to-coast for $99 and be sitting next to someone who paid nearly ten times that amount! My guess is that the previously-quoted $200 round-trip fare BOS-NYP on AMTRAK would be for walk-up, same-day travel, with substantial discounts with advance purchase and other requirements.
Your comments about discounts for the leisure traveller strike at the heart of my complaints. My problem with Amtrak's fare structure for travel along the NE Corridor is that it lacks discounts for advance purchase. The prices I've mentioned earlier in this thread are the same whether you purchase them 3 months in advance or 10 minutes before boarding. Actually the current fare structure screws the leisure traveller by raising rates for weekend travel.
Airlines have very flexible rates to attract the leisure traveller. With advance purchase you can get airfares that are lower than Amtrak prices on travel between Philly/DC to Boston. I'm sure Amtrak is loosing riders to those rates.
Well, if the trains are running reasonably full, then Amtrak sees no reason to lower fares...
After all, they are supposed to run their system as a business.
On the other hand, they are supposedly going to *reduce* the availability of NE Direct trains as the new trains come along to force business travellers onto the higher priced first class service.
If so, will they have some other way to utilize the tracks? Run a third class service (but still faster than NJT/SEPTA? Considering how much railcars and track cost, I hope that helping the bottom line does not end up occurring at the cost of capacity along the line.
Amtrak does run something of a "third-class service" already between Philly and New York. The "Clocker" trains generally run from Philly to NY in the morning and from NY to Philly in the evening.
New Jersey Transit monthly tickets are accepted on these trains for travel to Princeton Junction and Trenton and Amtrak now offers monthly passes to NYC and Newark from North Philly and 30th Street.
From what I recall when I lived near Metropark a few years back, these trains were normally made up of Amtrak's oldest equiptment and had no on-board services.
There are some "Clockers" which run during non-peak periods, but I don't think Amtrak offers any discount off the price for riding them.
That's reassuring to hear. I'd sure hate to have to go to NYC riding on rubber tires if there are perfectly good rails to be ridden!
I'm proposing two services to Co-op City. One diverting off the 1/9 lines in the Bronx (238th Street). Operating along Van Cortlandt Park South, Gun Hill Road, and Burke Avenue. Connecting the 2/5 at White Plains Road, and the #5 at Esplande. Ending at Co-op City Blvd.
Or D train extended from 205th Street on Bainbridge Road into Burke Avenue to Co-op City Blvd. Connections made to 2/5 at White Plains Road, and 5 at Esplanade. Express service develop after 205th Street.
[(proposed Co-op City service) Or D train extended from 205th Street on Bainbridge Road into Burke Avenue to Co-op City Blvd. Connections made to 2/5 at White Plains Road, and 5 at Esplanade. Express service
develop after 205th Street.]
I believe that when the D was built, there were plans to extend it to the east of the 205 Street terminal, but nothing ever became of them. Of course, Co-op City didn't exist at the time.
Yes, the IND Second System included plans to extend the Concourse line to Boston Rd., at least. When the city acquired what is now the Dyre Ave. line, that proposal was shelved. Of course, the Depression completely wiped out any plans to build the Second System.
Why don't MTA extend the D to Burke Street and White Plains Road or Gun Hill Road.
Why don't MTA extend the D to Burke Street and White Plains Road or Gun Hill Road?
Actually we are still wating for the Mononrail that was promised to us in Co-Op City when it was first built.
BTW - the Pelham Line cannot be extended. Something about the line cannot cross a Federal Highway (makes no sense to me).
> BTW - the Pelham Line cannot be extended.
> Something about the line cannot cross a Federal
> Highway (makes no sense to me).
Say what? All the Bronx subway lines cross over a federal highway.
(I-95). Cite, please?
-Dave
I know it and you know it but that is the excuse we always get. It might have something to do with the fact that the highways were added AFTER the Pelham line (and all the other Bronx elevated lines) was built. There may be a restriction on NEW elevated construction over the highways.
>I know it and you know it but that is the excuse we always get. It >might have something to do with the fact that the highways were added >AFTER the Pelham line (and all the other Bronx elevated lines) was >built. There may be a restriction on NEW elevated construction over >the highways.
I doubt that is the case the Washington Metro crosses 295/395/495/66 I think these are the right route numbers. Near Philly the route 100 trolley goes under the PA TK I-76 and I476. . It is high speed rail the cars look more like subways but run as light rail with a 3rd rail.
THE SUBWAY WAS THERE LONG, LONG BEFORE I-95, THE CROSS BRONX EXPRESSWAY!
The question of "duplicative" subway and commuter rail service comes down to this -- do you believe in giving people the option of purchasing a premium service (faster, get a seat) for a premium price? Of do you want to try to push people who do not want to go onto the subway, and allow the car to be the premium service?
At LaGuardia, I'd like a subway for us, leaving the taxi as the premium service. In the East Bronx, I'd like to see commuter rail. Lots of people who live there use the New York Bus Service rather than ride down through the South Bronx. One guy I work with has his wife drive him to Mount Vernon, takes MetroNorth to Grand Central, and then the 4/5 Downtown. Go figure? He used to vanpool.
"Why should the people on one side of a political boundary exclusively move on one system, and those on the other side move only on the other? Rather artificial."
Just so! Here in Chicago, Metra has several stations in city neighborhoods, and not just neighborhoods on the very edge of the city. In fact, the Metra Electric line, in proximity of stations and frequency of trains, is more like rapid transit than commuter rail, and the Rock Island "Suburban" Branch has stations every four blocks for a few miles in city neighborhoods. Most Metra stations in the city are "A" or "B" zone, which is $1.75 or $1.95 respectively. Considering that you can usually get a seat, you can eat and drink on the train, and there are trashcans and lavatories, this fare compares well with the $1.50 CTA fare. The fares are even more competitive with the discount for 10-ride and monthly Metra tickets which is not paralleled with CTA fares.
Conversely, the CTA rapid transit extends on the north and west into bordering suburbs (Evanston, Skokie, Rosemont, Oak Park, Forest Park, Cicero). It is my understanding that the NYC subway system is strictly within the city limits.
Gee Larry, am I as a high paid-government- NYCT train operator doing something wrong? I can't afford to live in Whitestone. You see I live in Maspeth. My giant salary has to support a wife, 2 kids, pay the mortgage, taxes, water bills, etc.etc. My take home pay has a 4 1/2% additional deduction for a NYC pension, for the privlege of retiring after 25 years age 55. But wait: since I came in at 26, I have to work 29 years to get a pension. That's long enough in ANY job. We get paid every 2 weeks. My take home pay in one period doesn't cover the mortgage. And I have to constantly read on this tread you bad mouthing us for making "so much money". If I made so much money I could go on vacation at least once a year. I don't know what it feels like to go away on vacation. We haven't gone anywhere for 3 years. And before that a few days in the car (not a Cadillac: a basic no frills 1990 Chevy Cavalier) to Seaside Heights N.J. Were your kids ever to Disney in Orlando? Mine weren't . We are trying to finally go next year.. Maybe you support yourself only. It's simple to only support yourself, but are we allowed to be good parents & provide our kids with a once a year vacation? When did you last go away & to where? You have to realise some of us have families. Don't hold that against us. Yes, my wife works part time. I can't afford to send my kids to private school. And because of this my wife and I have to worry if the will become victims of violence in the city public school system. We don't make 6 figure salaries. Far, Far away from it. And you know why we drive? Because the buses feed into the subways which are Manhattan oriented. Buses run infrequently. What kind of wait would you have for 1 or 2 changes. Us transit personell work off hours. I Finish my job after 2 A.M. Am I supposed to take the once an hour bus? Wait 45 minutes for it?
TYPO: we pay 5 1/2% for pension, not 4 1/2%.
Now don't get mad at me. I, too am a civil servant, probably get paid about what you do, do not get a pension or holiday (provisional for about 10 years), etc. But my wife earns a good living. I think the pension was 3 percent when I was at the TA. Did they raise it? And we bought a tent and will be camping at a state park next with my kids next weekend.
The point about Whitestone is if the value of houses is high, some of those living there must have fairly high wage jobs, and aside from the airports the high wage jobs outside the CBD are government jobs and small business ownership (or were in 1990, when we have reliable data). Now that I have the data, in 1990, 8.8 percent of those living in Queens worked for local government. In Queens CD 7 (which includes both Whitestone and all of Flushing) it was just 9.2 percent. In my face -- that's not much different. In Staten Island CD 3 it was 15.8 percent. So Whitestone is no Staten Island after all.
In that case, they'd be better off with transit.
Nah I'm not angry with you. The main problem with us working poor homeowners, is that some of us (including me!) don't have rich parents or a rich uncle to "give" us a substantial down payment. When I'm gone & my sons take over, it may be a little easier for them since there will be money around when this house is sold which hopefully they will inherit. Since you worked for the TA & saw what that paystub says, then you understand. BTW: A few years ago, the TA told the union we must renegotiate, or there will be layoffs. Guess what: the TA eliminated the car cleaners anyway thru attrition instead of layoffs, we gave up a yearly wage increase & the week after the contract was ratified by the scare-dy cats of my union the TA came up with a $200+ million dollar surplus. Now,there is over $100 million surplus. Guess when the TWU contract expires on 12/15/99, the TA will once again have a large deficit. But then again, the boss always screams poverty.
[A few years ago, the TA told the union we must renegotiate, or there will be layoffs. Guess what: the TA eliminated the car cleaners anyway thru attrition instead of layoffs, we gave up a yearly wage increase & the week after the contract was ratified by the scare-dy cats of my union the TA came up with a $200+ million dollar surplus. Now,there is over $100 million surplus. Guess when the TWU contract expires on 12/15/99, the TA will once again have a large deficit. But then again, the boss always screams poverty.]
Yes, that's rather nasty dealing, but stuff like that is commonplace in the private sector. It sounds like the TA is simply doing what's been done for years elsewhere (which still doesn't make it right).
Many private sector companies operate on far better principles than the government. In virtually any non-professional title, you can earn more working for the government than in the private sector, especially with benefits included, yet government workers are dissatisfied. Why?
My Dad told me this story about a company he worked for a while back. If you went a couple of months without an absence, and doing a good job, your supervisor would take you and a couple of others out for lunch on the company. Six months got your supervisors supervisor, a year a vice president. You know, he said, there are things which don't really cost that much money but can really help morale.
Every government agency I've worked for operates on the opposite principle -- there are things you can do that really don't save much money but really make you workforce wan't to say "screw this place."
For example, every government workplace instantly gives the message "you're shit." Unions and supervisors battle over piciune rules, with neither wanting any worker to get anything they are not exactly entitled to nor to do any work above the absolute requirement. The Post Office may be the worst, judging from the number of workers going postal.
Unions hate workers being rewarded for a good job, as opposed to being rewarded for not doing a bad job or striking. The TA should use some of the surplus to give out a bonus and throw a big Christmas party. Things will go down a lot better in 1999 if they do. You can't repay the union for the ripoffs of the past -- those that did the ripping off are long gone, and the performance of current employees speaks for itself.
[Unions hate workers being rewarded for a good job, as opposed to being rewarded for not doing a bad job or striking. The TA should use some of the surplus to give out a bonus and throw a big Christmas party. Things will go down a lot better in 1999 if they do. You can't
repay the union for the ripoffs of the past -- those that did the ripping off are long gone, and the performance of current employees speaks for itself.]
You are right about using the surplus in that way, but unfortunately it doesn't have a snowball's chance. The MTA's whole scheme of labor-management tension will prevent that.
I have to agree, as a city worker since 1986 I might add that my pension contributions is Federaly exempt but all 414(H) money must be added back to our State and City Taxes. City Pension contributions are taxable at the state and local level, need I also add the IRC-125 benifits we get (Drug Plan) is taxable as well and that is re-added to State and Local taxes to raise your gross as well. There are lines on all State income tax forms so you can easily add back that money.
As far as Staten Island residents driving in, everything has to go over that bridge. Be it your car or an express bus, there is no choice. And if you call the public transportion on Staten Island "Transportation" you need a new definition for that word. If it didn't take me over 2 hours by express bus to travel to work from Staten Island I might not have taken a car. For me I would need Express Bus to any subway line to Queens(Boro)Plaza or Staten Island Railway then Staten Island Ferry and two subway lines (Or one hell of a long ride on the Never and Rarely).
Now that I live in Brooklyn I guess you can take me off those high paid city workers list who drives to work.
I agree that no one can really expect civil servants working in the field in the outer boroughs to use mass transit, since the transit lines funnel into Manhattan. Even if you work on the same transit line as your job, you're out of luck if you are transferred to another, say, police precinct. However, too many city employees get on street parking passes in Manhattan, in my opinion. Outside my office, both sides of the street for two blocks are reserved for them.
I once had this thought about outer borough workers, which absolutely no one else thinks is a good idea. It was to establish a "carpool club", in which members (who could be drivers seeking riders or riders seeking drivers) dial in to a computer, giving their origin and destination zip codes and when they plan to leave. The comptuer would match those traveling to/from the same areas at about the same time, then connect them into a conference call to arrange the trip. The riders would pay the driver, say, $2.00 each, and might be able to avoid the cost of owning a second car.
That might work for Staten Island to Brooklyn/Queens commutes, since so many are traveling to/from police precincts, firehouses, schools and small businesses -- plus the airports, which are huge employment centers. Perhaps the city could try to set something like this up for its workers.
[I once had this thought about outer borough workers, which absolutely no one else thinks is a good idea. It was to establish a "carpool club", in which members (who could be drivers seeking riders or riders seeking drivers) dial in to a computer, giving their origin and destination zip codes and when they plan to leave. The comptuer would match those traveling to/from the same areas at about the same time, then connect them into a conference call to arrange the trip.]
Carpooling is one of those ideas that never seems to work as well as its advocates hope. No doubt there have been some successes, but they're fairly rare.
Why the lack of success? It's because carpooling is as fraught with social awkwardness as a junior high school dance. Can carpoolers keep to themselves and (drivers hopefully excluded!) sleep or read the newspaper? Is it necessary to "make conversation"? What are acceptable topics for discussion? It's human nature to avoid being in close proximity with (relative) strangers, which is what carpooling entails. At least on a train or bus there's no forced intimacy.
I have an uncle-in-law who was a Maryknoll priest over in Africa. He doesn't think much of U.S. culture, relative to African culture. He uses the silence of the subway car as an example of how isolated/unfriendly/unChristian Americans are. If that was a car full of Africans, he says, they would be introducing themselves and chatting. It would be thought rude not to acknowledge and show interest in other people.
However, I'm not one for forced intimacy either. And I think that if people can keep quietly to themselves on a train, they can probably do it in a carpool as well after a brief introductory excchange.
Would the rest of you ever think to open up a conversation with a stranger on a subway, without a natural opening such as having them fall on you as the train rounds a curve?
I have, on occasion, engaged in conversation with strangers on the subway. Usually, the topic would be equipment, or stations or routes. In other words, subway pertinent stuff. On one such occasion, I had the differences between R-32s and R-38s explained to me.
A computer assigning people for carpools? They'll need one with artificial intelligence -- preferably the brain patterns of Henry Kissinger -- to handle all the scheduling problems that come up with a carpool. When my family of four had only one car, scheduling who was going where in the car at what time (of course we take the subway and the Metra, but nobody in my house, myself included, wants to take the bus; we want a ride to and from the train) was like negotiating the Versailles Treaty all over again every weekday morning. And that was four people living in the same house.
All you need is one person to come out late in the morning or stay late at work and the whole house of cards collapses. By that measure, though, if there is anyone a carpool would work for, it would be civil servants, who definitely come in precisely at 9 and go out precisely at 5 (or whenever their shift begins and ends) and rarely if ever work overtime. God knows (and I know from experience) that it doesn't work for college students!
In the SF Bay Area there is a car pool matching service. But more interesting to me is the casual carpooling, Tolls are waived on the Bay Bridge during rush vor cars w/ 3 or more riders. As a result a regulart pattern of casual carpooling has arisen adjacent to bus stops for tyransbay express buses. This has been strong enough to cause cutbacks in morning commute runs and some Ttransit agency fomented p[olice harassment of drivers. The result actual official carpooling locations have been designated, and the usage is strong.
[ Why the lack of success? It's because carpooling is as fraught with social awkwardness as a junior high school dance. Can carpoolers keep to themselves and (drivers hopefully excluded!) sleep or read the newspaper? Is it necessary to "make conversation"? What are acceptable topics for discussion? It's human nature to avoid being in close proximity with (relative) strangers, which is what carpooling entails. At least on a train or bus there's no forced intimacy. ]
While these are good points, I think the reason why carpooling doesn't work as well as expected is that the savings in gas or time in an HOV lane are negated by the extra time required to go and pick someone else up. I may get 4 people in my carpool taking me an additional 30 minutes to get everyone, and if I save 20 minutes riding in an HOV lane to avoid traffic I'm still 10 minutes later than if I'd drive myself to work.
--Mark
You're right about the lost time picking people up as a detractor. That's why carpool reverse commuting (from city to suburbs) is more effective than traditional commuting patterns.
If everyone lives within several blocks of each other - and can meet at someone's house (preferably the one driving) by walking - then the time lost is only for those who have the benefit of not driving themselves. Everyone saves money - and not everyone needs to have a car (which saves a significant amount of money if you live in a city). It also helps if you have the option of public transit as a backup in case someone needs to leave early.
This was my situation when I lived in Philly (Center City) and worked in West Point, PA at Merck. I carpooled this way for almost 3 years until I changed jobs and moved to NY.
This thread reminds me of my commute to school when I lived in Brooklyn.
I remember having long waits for the B5 bus on Kings Highway in Brooklyn (now the B82) going to school. There were some people looking to make a quick buck, and they'd take their cars and ride the service road of Kings Highway picking up people waiting for the bus. For a token, they'd take you to the train station. No one thought of carpool "protocol" - all these people, myself included, wanted to do is get to our destination as fast as they could and minimize their waiting time. It got to the point where I'd rather wait for one of these cars instead of the bus. The bus never seemed to come soon enough.
--Mark
Are you positive on the Staten Island job/income stats, it has generally been reported in the press out here that most SI'ers do work in Manhattan. Home prices are high in Whitestone because it has always been a desirable area, transit is just one component. Home prices are up on SI, though not as dramatically has in the other boroughs, but they didn't fall as much here in the early '90's either, so it sort of balances out.
Unfortunatley, the press doesn't have access to Public Use Microdata Sample data, and we never publish anything. Might as well drag up the data, especially since I've learned so much about the subway from others on the site, so I'm happy to contribute where I can.
In 1990, 44 percent if SI workers worked on SI, 31 percent in Manhattan (relatively low, compared with the other boroughs) and 18 percent in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens (relatively high). What's really unusual is that SIlanders working in the other boroughs earned more than those working in Manhattan. Nearly 41 percent of those working in BX, BK and QN earned at least $40,000 in 1989, compared with just 31 percent of those working in Manhattan. It seems that many of Brooklyn's civil servants and small business owners commute over the bridge. The self-employed accounted for 11 percent of SIlanders commuting to BX, BK, and QN and government employees accounted for nearly 40 percent -- both huge numbers. Meanwhile the big cluster for Manhattan is Female, Clerical, Finance -- ie "Working Girl" the movie was based in reality.
A little economics humor (in case you're not completely bored yet). This data was compiled as part of an analysis of the SI secession issue. The secession commission had hired an economist to see if SI could go it alone. The economist found that the Staten Island economy was less dependent on government jobs that the other boroughs. How? He used business establishment tax records. Those records reported all the jobs in an agency at the address of the personnel office which filled out the forms. Thus, there are no cops on Staten Island (all in Manhattan at Police Plaza) and no teachers (all in Downtown Brooklyn on Livingston Street). What a mistake! Staten Island is the home of the civil servant. When I got a government job, I almost felt I was breaking a rule by not moving there.
I wrote a memo pointing out this little problem, but I doubt anyone ever read it.
Not boring at all (I have a BA in Economics). The 'working girl' demographic is partially true based on my daily commute, but in an unusual way. The 6:34am bus is about 50% male/female, but the 5:06pm bus is roughly 75% female. Does this mean that the guys are cutting out early? No, I think it is more a sign of the dwindling white-collar worker population on SI, which is a whole other story.
[In 1990, 44 percent if SI workers worked on SI, 31 percent in Manhattan (relatively low, compared with the other boroughs) and 18 percent in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens (relatively high).]
Those numbers seem odd, as according to them only 7% would work outside the city. Aren't there any commuters to New Jersey?
Yes, about 7 percent worked outside the city, almost all in NJ. The number of SI to NJ commuters was much higher in 1990 than in 1980.
Peter, also Larry & Mark,
Peter your post realy started something !
High paid .... city people don't all live in Whitestone, you'll have to add Douglaston, Bayside, Staten Island (most anywhere the house is detached & has grass around it).
In Whitestone (Queens etc) good bus (Express & Local) service exists, as proof of the pink/blue collar types are using it, WHY is Main Street at the end of the Flushing line (7) one of the heaviest stations on the system ????
LIRR/Metro-North service in close to the city: EYE agree with Mark that it doesn't make much since. They fill up (trains & track capacity) outside of the city & would have a big problem just collecting the fares before the train arrived. The "Hempstead" branch is a good example of a short train set that I'll bet the LIRR would love to drop (can anybody confirm this ?) Extending the subway makes musch more since (distination options for customer).
If you've traveled the LI parkways recently, i.e. Route 110 or 135, there's a lot of local & reverse traffic ! The same applies outside of Manhattan (Queens/Brooklyn/Bronx). It's still true that lots & lots of traffic still goes to Manhattan, but ... well you get the point.
Mr t__:^)
Census data shows a big increase in city to suburb commuting in the 1980s, both in New York City and other large cities. The data show that while suburb to city commuters are high earners, city to suburb commuters are low earners in service occupations. It seems that when your zoning limits housing to detached housing on large lots to keep out the poor and working people, you have a hard time finding staff to operate you McDonalds and clean your office park. So they're busing them in in the morning and busing them out at night. Can you say Soweto!
You're right about the large numbers of reverse commuters. Every morning at around 8, when changing trains at Jamiaca, I can see a big crowd on the tracks 7/8 platform, which is used for eastbound trains. I know that appearances can be deceiving, but even so it doesn't look like most of these reverse commuters are particularly affluent.
Larry/Peter, EYE wasn't talking so much about the folks CURRENTLY reversing on the transit system as EYE was about the drivers on Route 110 & 135.
While looking for a job in 1982 I was amazed at the traffic in the Farmingdale/Bethpage/Westbury area ...
15 years commuting to JFK made me believe that LI was one big bedroom town with everyone going West in the AM.
The point is that there seems to be a lot of potential for transit in reverse, i.e. Queens to mid-island; North or South to mid-island.
Now before the nitpickers attach ... mid-island is just one area on LI, ALSO the same can be said for Purchase/Yonkers/etc.
Mr t__:^)
[While looking for a job in 1982 I was amazed at the traffic in the
Farmingdale/Bethpage/Westbury area ...
15 years commuting to JFK made me believe that LI was one big bedroom town with everyone going West in the AM.]
It's a common belief that Long Island is a bedroom community, but that's far from the truth. Nassau and Suffolk have a combined population of around 2.6 million, about the same size as the Pittsburgh or St. Louis metropolitan areas. Clearly, the ~60,000 LIRR commuters are a small percentage of the workforce. More than 90% of the workforce is employed right on the island.
(Not a bedroom community?) Not quite. 40 percent of the income earned by Nassau County residents, and 25 percent of the income earned by Suffolk County residents, is earned in New York City. When the commuters spend their income (in stores, on local services, in local taxes) this generates a "multiplier effect" which accounts for most of the rest of the earnings of Long Island residents. Even many Long Island businesses which do not cater to Long Island residents have a city connection -- either that's where their customers or clients are, or (if a headquaters) they need to be near, but not in, the city.
Long Island did have an independent economic base -- in defense and agriculture. Those are long gone. Long Island's money flows in on the LIE and the LIRR.
I may have missed the beginning of this thread.
However, does the ROW of the LIRR Whitestone Branch still exist?.
[(Not a bedroom community?) Not quite. 40 percent of the income earned by Nassau County residents, and 25 percent of the income earned by Suffolk County residents, is earned in New York City. When the commuters spend their income (in stores, on local services, in local taxes) this generates a "multiplier effect" which accounts for most of the rest of the earnings of Long Island residents. Even many Long Island businesses which do not cater to Long Island residents have a city connection -- either that's where their customers or clients are, or (if a headquaters) they need to be near, but not in, the city.]
What the 40/25 figures presumably mean is that Long Islanders working in the city tend to earn higher wages than those working in Nassau or Suffolk. That makes sense, though I still believe the figures are too high - it's a known fact that the percentage of the Island's work force employed in the city is in the single digits (higher in Nassau, lower in Suffolk), and the city jobs surely don't pay *that* much more. What is surely true is that Long Island would not have 2.6 million residents but for the city. In that difficult-to-explain-but-easy-to-understand sense, then it would be a bedroom community.
By the way, some of the real estate ads for new developments in eastern Suffolk, places like Wading River and Manorville, tout the easy commuting to Happague and Melville (major employment centers farther west in Suffolk). They don't mention commuting to the city. Of course, their credibility might be in some doubt - rush hour commuting on the L.I.E. is anything but easy!
(Percent of LI's workforce working in the city is in the single digits). That's not the way Long Islanders filled out the 1990 census of population "where did you work last week" question. My Department produced this data for the Long Island Regional Planning Commission, which used if for a report. I never saw the report, but you can probably get it.
The share of Nassau and Westchester residents who work in the city is very high. What seems to be happening is that better access to high wage city jobs pushes up the value of real estate close in, pricing out lower wage workers. So areas further out become, in effect, suburbs of the suburbs. You commute from Nassau from to a job in the city, and when you spend your income, it supports the job of someone commuting in from Suffolk (or Queens).
[The share of Nassau and Westchester residents who work in the city is very high. What seems to be happening is that better access to high wage city jobs pushes up the value of real estate close in, pricing out lower wage workers. So areas further out become, in effect, suburbs of the suburbs. You commute from Nassau from to a job in the city, and when you spend your income, it supports the job of someone commuting in from Suffolk (or Queens).]
If that were true, then average incomes in Nassau would be notably higher than in Suffolk. Nassau may indeed be somewhat more affluent, but the difference isn't much.
(Nassau Income Not Higher) Shouldn't argue with me about data, since I work surrounded by a load of it. I could look up 1996 on CD, but here are the per capita incomes for 1994 (BEA data) from the 1997 New York State Statistical Yearbook.
Nassau $34,629
Suffolk $25,544 (Despite, I'll bet, some rich 2nd homeowners reporting their income there).
Westchester $37,324
Dutchess $23,006 People are commuting from Dutchess to Westchester/Fairfield
Manhattan $53,189 in 1994 (and $64,000 in 1996, #1 in the U.S.)!
Brooklyn and the Bronx -- below the U.S. average, but catching up.
[(Nassau Income Not Higher) Shouldn't argue with me about data, since I work surrounded by a load of it. I could look up 1996 on CD, but here are the per capita incomes for 1994 (BEA data) from the 1997 New York State Statistical Yearbook.
Nassau $34,629
Suffolk $25,544 (Despite, I'll bet, some rich 2nd homeowners reporting their income there).]
Okay, those figures are fairly impressive. Even so, I can think of three possible reasons that might somewhat lessen the disparity.
1. These are per capita figures and hence are pulled down by no-income children. While I don't have any data (though you probably do), I strongly suspect that there is a higher percentage of children in Suffolk than in Nassau. Nassau is a fully developed area with a lot of first-wave development. While many of the 1950s houses are now in their second and third ownership generation, there must be a non-insignificant number of original, now elderly homeowners in the area (not poor, thanks to Social Security and pensions). Suffolk, by contrast, has quite a bit of ongoing development, in most cases consisting of larger houses aimed at families.
2. Nassau has some extremely high-income communities that pull up countywide figures. Consider Hewlett Bay Park, Old Westbury, Mill Neck, and several others. Suffolk has some affluent areas, but not to the same extent (presumably most of the second-home owners in the Hamptons consider themselves Manhattan residents).
3. Sufflok has quite a few impoverished areas, what you might call exurban ghettos. Just some examples include Wyandanch, Brentwood, Central Islip, Huntington Station, North Bellport, Mastic Beach, part of Bay Shore, Gordon Heights, and East Patchogue. Nassau has poor areas too, consider Hempstead Village and Roosevelt, but not as many.
All in all, I suspect that these three factors contribute to Nassau's higher per capita income, as much as (if not more than) proximity to Manhattan.
H - 6 Avenue Local From/to 21st Street (Q) and Rockaway Park (Q). Service: Every Day 6AM - 9PM. Operates along the Q route (via 63rd Street), F route (via 6 Avenue), after/before West 4th Street the C & E routes, via Fulton Street Express; A route. Bypassing Euclid Avenue Brooklyn to Aqueduct Race Track Queens am to Manhattan and pm from Manhattan rush hours.
H Shuttle - Rockaway Shuttle From/to Rockaway Park (Q) and Far Rockaway (Q). All the time service. New track bed should be built to accomodate this service.
C - 8th Avenue Local From/to 168th Street (M) and Euclid Avenue (B) or Lefferts Blvd (Q). Weekdays 6AM - 12AM. Local All stops.
C - Liberty Avenue Shuttle From/to Euclid Avenue (B) and Lefferts Blvd (Q). Everyday 12AM - 6AM.
C - 8th Avenue Local From/to 168th Street (M) and World Trade Center (M). Weekends 6AM - 12AM.
A - 8th Avenue Express From/to 207th Street (M) and Far Rockaway (Q). Express via 8th Avenue (Everyday 6AM - 12AM), Express via Fulton Street (Weekdays 6AM - 12AM), and Local in Queens. All other times Local.
A - 8th Avenue Express From/to 207th Street (M) and Lefferts Blvd (Q).
8th Ave (same as above), Fulton Street Local, and Queens Local. Service: Weekends 6AM - 12AM.
Rush Hour Service
A/ 5 - 13 minutes
C/ Euclid Terminal 20
C/ Lefferts Terminal 10 - 15
H/ 5 - 15
HS/ 15 minutes
Midday Service
A/ 10 - 15 minutes
C/ Euclid Terminal 20 minutes
C/ Lefferts Terminal 15 minutes
H/ 10 - 15 minutes
Does anyone think this is a good idea?
H (six avenue local) express via fulton street brooklyn and extending c to lefferts blvd. Thank you kindly for your suggestions.
There have been postings which suggested weekend A express service in Brooklyn. If ridership numbers support this, I'd like to see it implemented.
It really won't make a difference, unless they add an additional line. By the way, I took the C from Broadway East NY to West 4th Street. Not once did I see an A train pass us. That's because, they don't run the A express as often as the C local. For some reason the MTA decides to implement A express service on the Weekends, they really need to think about running the A more often; at least 7 - 10 minutes apart.
I've just added fifteen new photos to my Modeling the New York City Subway site layout section. These photos are a mix of HO and O scale layouts and models. I hope you enjoy them.
You can see them by going to http://www.iop.com/~patv and navigating to them through the "Model Railroading" link.
WHY WERE THE R44 OR R46 CARS THAT USUALLY RAN ON THE R LINE SWITCHED WITH OLDER CAR MODELS FROM THE E TRAIN? IS THERE A REASON?
WHY WERE THE R44 OR R46 CARS THAT USUALLY RAN ON THE R LINE SWITCHED WITH OLDER CAR MODELS FROM THE E TRAIN? IS THERE A REASON? .
WHY WERE THE R44 OR R46 CARS THAT USUALLY RAN ON THE R LINE SWITCHED WITH OLDER CAR MODELS FROM THE E TRAIN? IS THERE A REASON? ,
There is no mix-up involved. The current B division service calls for three 10-ar R-32 trains in addition to the R-46s. Incidentally, is that a deliberately chosen alias, a coincidence or are you THE Jenna Jameson?
Anyone know the weight, length and width of the SI ferry?
I know there are 3 classes of boats maybe you can try calling them at 718-815-BOAT(2628). I do know that they get their color from the first director of the Staten Is. Ferry, an exNavy man so he chose Navy colors for the boats.
I feel a little like Chris C for doing this, but one of my kids was sick today and my wife stayed home. So I used her unlimited ride Metrocard instead of my pay per ride card. The T.A. just lost $2.64 on my trip to work. I think the unlimited advocates had in mind allowing people to take more off peak trips, not having them avoid paying for trips to work they would have taken anyway, but we did follow the official rule.
With people taking more days off in the summer, more people will use the card this way in July and August than the other months. Lots of parents have to take days off to cover child care when school is out, so they can buy one unlimited card instead of two. And, of course, the first quarter of data on which estimates of revenue losses will be made will include the summer.
What you did, used your wife's card is totaly LEGAL according to our Great Gov. Pataki. He said to let family use the card when the other family member is not using it.
So I think you ducked the Chris C. bullet.
The fact that you are now debating this just goes to prove my earlier point that government must clearly define what it considers acceptable use of public facilities. It can't leave it up to individuals to divine, from Pataki's informal pronouncements or bulletin-board polls regarding Chris C's behavior.
To Larry: what happens when your third cousin-in-law, thrice removed, his live-in girlfriend, and his adopted child come to town and asks to borrow that unlimited card? Are they all "family"? Which ones?
How about Old Mrs. Witherspoon, your longtime the nanny and housekeeper, who's unrelated to you but is "just like family" and has a vital role to play in your household?
What if you and your wife work different shifts that don't overlap? Is it OK if you use the card for two commutes every day, and she does the same thing twice every night with the same card? Or is it just supposed to be "once in a while someone can borrow it"?
Etc., etc.
Pataki's comments about who can borrow a card are not a replacement for formal, written statements of policy or, better yet, law. Clear, unambiguous, easily understood laws reward law-abiding citizens, by preventing others from interpreting informal "rules" more liberally than intended and avoiding their "fare share" of the burden..
There really is no debate here.
The MetroCard literature states: "Paying for Others: Although Unlimited Ride MetroCard cannot be passed back to others for multiple entries, you can lend it to others when you're not using it." http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/mtacc/demo/mcgtreng.htm
You can share you're card with anyone when you're not using it - family or not. All of the ambiguous relationships listed in your post would be covered by this.
Perhaps I used a poor set of examples, regarding "family." Perhaps not.
My "family" examples addressed Pataki's comments, which I believe concerned use by family members. Perhaps they were unnecessary. But clearly some people on this board ARE debating it, and are wondering whether they're doing the right thing.
In any case, the written policies I've seen still don't address many, many other possible scenarios suggested on this board and elsewhere.
For example, what does "when you're not using it" mean? Does that mean that when Chris C. is exiting the system, he can "lend" his card to another rider entering the system -- lend it to him/her just long enough to swipe it -- then take it back and go on his way? Or does it mean the "loan" must continue until the second rider exits the system? Or what?
A better set of rules would include:
"A rider using the card must carry it with him/her for the duration of his/her travel on NYCT." That might at least help stop Chris C from offering free rides to tourists and sapping potential revenue.
Speaking of sapping revenue, what about various forms of "card pooling"?
What if I ran a large business with multiple NYC locations, with a bunch of messengers, delivery people and other employees going to and fro all day? Or a series of huge semi-communal apartments/fraternities/senior-citizen residences/etc., housing dozens of people with a variety of different schedules? I could buy a relatively small number of unlimited cards, and leave a few at the door of each location. Anyone who needed to use the subway could take a card, maybe sign it out, use it, then drop it at the same location or one of our other locations. I could get a thousand rides a week for my people for the price of a couple of hundred -- costing the NYCT tens of thousands of dollars a year in missed revenue.
Does anything in the current rules prevent this? If it happens, won't the unlimited card end up hurting revenue?
Look, maybe you have an answer for that one, and the next one too. And I understand that the rulemakers can't think of everything.
But I think they have to try harder, especially in this case, when they're throwing around the potentially dangerous word "unlimited.:
In a city this big and crowded, full of so many sharp, savvy bargain-hunters, when you say "all you can eat," you'd better spell out the particulars, the who, what, when, where, in excruciating, legally enforceable detail, so that no one (or very few people) can take advantage of the system and get away with it.
Otherwise, you'd better be prepared to do a WHOLE lot of cooking --- maybe more than you expected. And to lose your shirt in the process.
There is a rule limiting shared use of a timed MetroCard - one person must complete his or her trip before another person can use the card. Yet this rule is largely unenforceable. Consider this example: John and Mary go into a subway station together. John swipes a timed MetroCard and passes it back to Mary. Mary waits outside the turnstile for the 18-minute lockout to end and then swipes herself through. Even if transit police were watching the whole episode, it would be nearly impossible to prosecute John or Mary because there's no way of proving that both were in the system at the same time. Except at times when there are long headways, the 18 minutes should be enough for John to have gotten on a train and ridden to another station.
My guess is that the Transit Authority does not really expect to enforce the no-simultaneous-use policy, and instead is relying on the lockout to stem abuse.
I would note that the rule you mention --- a card lender must complete his/her trip before the lendee begins his/her trip --- would not prohibit Chris C's diabolical plan to give free rides to tourists when exiting the system.
Chris C is the lender, and his trip is already over when he lends the card -- briefly -- to the tourist. Then he goes home and tells us all about it.
[I would note that the rule you mention --- a card lender must complete his/her trip before the lendee begins his/her trip --- would not prohibit Chris C's diabolical plan to give free rides to tourists when exiting the system.]
You are right, Chris C.'s free-rides plan would not violate the rules. By the way, I didn't get the idea that Chris was actually planning to do anything of the sort, he was just raising the issue for discussion. A rider who "sold" swipes upon exiting, for instance by charging the tourists a dollar for a swipe, could be prosecuted as there are rules against unauthorized fare sales.
Despite all the hand wringing, the use of the unlimited card is pretty straightforward. One person at a time can use it, as much as that single person wants, and so long as the fare is paid to the MTA. It's not easy to come up with situations that abuse the rule, either scams or legitimate "family" situations. A volume discount is a volume discount, single-occpancy is still the rule.
Also, there is really no way to gauge the financial impact of the unlimited cards at this time. It's too difficult to measure how much of a gain or loss in overall revenue the cards are going to generate: Is the present value of an extra $3 at the begining of the month (or $2 at the begining of a week) worth more or less than the $1.50 that the MTA could have gotten today for Lary's wife's "extra" trip? How much did the extra trip cost the MTA? Would Larry's wife have even used the subway at all without the "free" ride? How often will Paul & Mary cheat if it takes them 18 minutes to do so? How much would it cost to catch them and is it more or less than $1.50?
I can't answer these questions. So far, no one can. So, no one can talk very intelligently about the financial impact of the unlimited ride cards.
--mhg
Hey is this a transit fan and transit use booster site or a bean counter and guard house lawyer club? As long as clearly fraudulent ,as currently published rules define, usage is not widespread quis carat. The object is to get more warm bodies into the system at all hours because then there will be a larger constituency for funding AND more p[ersons waiting on the platform at otherwise thin hours which should ameliorate security incrementally. The farebox nationally cruises between 10 and 35 percent of cost so its a joke anywayu. BTW if the TA has any brainds the money paid in early each month will go into interest bvearing banking instruments and earn interest. So let's spend more energy on neat stuff.
I agree, David! Mass transit, espeically rail, exists for the benefit of the people. It's more efficient, reduces air pollution and highway congestion, and -- hey -- it's fun! The governing agencies should be doing everything they can to encourage ridership, and use the increased ridership and revenues to improve the system.
But if you want to focus on the financial "gain" or "loss" of unlimited ride options, there is another side as well. As David mentioned, more people pay for more fares in advance. This adds up very quickly! You can compare this to the "stub cards" from cities such as DC and SFO (BART). As one who also visits DC very frequently, I have lots of small value cards laying around (like in suit jacket pockets) which I never remember to bring and ADDFARE. This is money of mine that the DC MetroRail has and that I've not redeemed for travel. I'm willing to be they know how much that is in total... and that it's a LOT!
Back to NYC, there's also the "lost rides." For example, I will be in NYC from Wed nite until Sat midday in mid-August to do some vacation fill-in on Newsradio-88. I am planning to buy a weekly card (a week in advance, so I can begin using it at LGA upon my arrival). I'm pretty sure I will take 13 or more trips, the point at which the unlimted weekly card makes financial sense for the user. But what if I don't? Then the TA "gains." Of course, I may just give the card to someone in my "extended family" when I leave town on Saturday, who will have three days' use of the card.
The first week the 7day unlimted was out I bought it and then got ill and stayed home from work for 3 days. I lost money that week, no where near 12 rides or even ten....
The last few posts make very good points, which are indeed the flipside of the "lost revenue" debate. More riders is a good thing in many ways, socially and politically, even if some ride for free. And some of that lost revenue will indeed return through "lost rides." (Although there is a risk that more peak-hour rides will make rush-hour crowding even worse, without funding the improvements that could ease it.)
Having said that ...
RE: "neat stuff," ...
I happen to think that studying and debating the behavior of a large, diverse population -- influenced by a thousand factors, united only by a need to get somewhere, and poured into tin cans hurtling through underground tunnels -- is one of the most compelling reasons to be a subway fan.
It may not be quite as much fun as watching a train of Redbirds sweep majestically behind the Pepsi-cola sign, but I still think it's kinda neat.
Ah, the sweet free entertainment of political and legal dog fighting.
As has been mentioned somewhere in this thread the family thing is preposterous. After all, are we not all family??? Global Village and six degrees of separation and all that sort of thing.
Will George Pataki take the political heat of being devisive over just who is family and who isn't???
If Pataki insists that only family can use the card and gays swipe their lovers through, could that be used in court to bolster the case of same sex and commonlaw marriage???
Will the police get into the business of checking the relationships between passengers???
From this spot checking will a patern develop where interracial couples or same sex couples are more likely to be checked???
The person with the messenger Idea is right on the money. I am allready aware of companies simply buying unlimited passes for their internal messengers to use as they please. This is a perk for the employees as well as for the companies which wash their hands of having to deal with petty cash.
If the company pays for the card, are they "legally" lending the cards to employees who are not "technically speaking" related to the guy who signed the check???
Will companies use this perk as a form of additional "Non-taxable" income. For example, the company pays you $50.00 less each month but gives you a $63.00 unlimited Metrocard for "Company Use" Then you use it to get too and from work, while the company writes the cost of the card off as a business expense.
Will the TA and the IRS compete with each other over who gets to harrass which morning commuter???????????????????????????????
I'll see you all in court! Or Hell!
One of those.
Okay, just off the top of my head, here are some numbers.
1,000,000 riders each take a $50 pay cut in exchange for their company buying them a $63 unlimited metrocard.
That's: $ 50,000,000 per month or
$600,000,000 per anum.
The companies write of as a business expense:
$63,000,000 per month or
$753,000,000 per anum
The reduced salaries shield $600,000,000 of "income" which had previously been taxable.
Say the Fed, State and City get %30
That comes to a total of $200,000,000
Companies reduce payrolls. Reduce payroll taxes and get a huge write off while employees get all their commuter and personal rides for just $50 and at the same time reduce their taxable income by $600 a year.
The TA has created a gold mine. For everyone!!!
And I'm not even counting the fact that all 1 million riders are going to swipe their card on the way out so that some tourist can ride for free!!!!
It seems that there is a master plan at work in the TA giving unlimited rides. Apparently the TA and Pataki are willing to take transit losses in exchange for the booming prosperity that is sure to come when New York based companies and transit riders figure out that they can use the system to soak the Federal Government.
Is this a plausible scenario?
1) Shairing of unlimited Metrocards leads to fewer and fewer people using subway tokens (with the savings possible they would be mad to).
2) So few people use subway tokens that they are abolished (uneconomic system to run), now everyone must use a metrocard of some sort.
3) 'Abuses' of unlimited metrocard means that revenue has fallen and so use is curtailed, photocards, exit swiping, zoned fairs and distance charging are introduced to try to claw back revenue. All of these are impossible as long as the subway token exists.
It's a plausible scenario, but not one which will happen intentionally. The history of the subway says that when transit advocates and workers are organized, revenue shortfalls tend to lead to rising debt and deferred maintenance.
How about this one: the state cuts off capital assistance to the TA, but continues to fund the commuter railroads. The TA runs up a huge debts backed by fare revenues, but the LIRR and MetroNorth have no such debt. The state gives the city two choices -- cut other services (ie. schools, which no one cares about anyway) and pay more for the subway (city residents state taxes go to the commuter railroads) or have transit collapse. People scream about saving the fare. The union strikes for higher benefits. The capital program collapses.
I just saw a memo -- the RPA is calling the 2nd Avenue subway "Metro East." I guess the idea is the help suburbanites get around Manhattan on a separate system if the subways, and the neighborhoods they serve, need to be disinvested in. The RPA also advocates having the state and city pay for trains direct from Long Island to New Jersey. I wonder what share of their operating cost they would cover, and what would have to be cut to make up the difference?
Who is the RPA?
I do not look for people abandoning tokens. Even with the unlimited cards, I have had people buying 10-20 tokens and they were not only elderly but working class as well. The only way tokens will go away is for a decision to be made that they'll go away and then people like the straphangers campaign will squawk. The NYCT had planned on removing the old iron maidens but the straphangers campaign made them keep them--becasue people still use tokens! You could charge $2for a token vs 1.50 for the card and still some will buy tokens.
Deduct a few tax benefits for city workers. While hassling everyone else about air pollution and driving, the city does not offer its own employees the federal commutation tax deduction benefit. But my wife gets it.
I think Chris C's "business plan" would work and would be legal for the most part, except that companies probably couldn't announce a quid pro quo, unlimited cards in exchange for salary cuts. That might be deemed to be "compensation" of companies by their workers in exchange for the cards, and the fine print does say compensation is illegal.
Whereas, if a company just gives the cards away ... ooops! I mean, "lends" the cards to all its employees on a permanent basis, and then decides not to give raises next year ... who's to say the two are related.
By the way, I saw one thing in the legal fine print about the unlimited card that differs from the plain-English version, something that might make Chris C's free-rides-for-tourists plan illegal:
The plain-English says you can't "lend" the card until you've left the system ... so Chris could "lend" it to a tourist, who could use it and then return it when he/she is done "borrowing" it.
But the fine print says you can't "transfer" the card until you've left the system. That could easily be interpreted to mean that the tourist can't "transfer" the card back to Chris C right after swiping it, making the scheme impractical.
Of course, Chris C. could still give away his weekly card to a tourist every Friday night and let him/her use it all weekend without ever returning it.
And I'm sure there are a million other "pooling" schemes we'll hear about in the next few months that won't be preventable.
Okay looks like the terrible heatwave out west will make it to NYC this week.
So which car in your humble opinon has the best A/C in the NYCTA Fleet (assuming everything is working)??
Today's trip for me was on the D (R68) to an F (R46) and the F had a noticebly COOLER car then the D at 8am.
I'd say express trains have the best AC, since the doors don't open into the hot stations as often. Yet another reason to prefer the express.
I'd have to say the R38's are among the better ones. The fan in
the little vent seems to blow air out harder (I can feel the breeze
while seated). Also some of the Slant 40's are pretty good -
PROVIDED THE A/C IS WORKING...
Wayne (keeping cool in the shade of the Wilson Ave. shed)
Since all of the NYCT B division cars use two 9 ton units, you would expect that the 60 foot cars would be colder than the 75 foot cars. The only exception is the R-44 which uses two 10-ton units and they can easily be the coldest in the system. However, that does not make that the best A/C. The best A/C is the one which maintains a comfortable temp. In that case, the temp. control logic on the R-68/R-68A wins hands down.
The absolute best A/C, bar none, is in a most unlikely place - the ancient diesel coaches used on the LIRR's Greenport shuttle. Yesterday evening, when I got on the shuttle at Ronkonkoma (having gotten to Ronkonkoma in an only moderately cool train from Penn), it was like stepping outdoors at the South Pole. If the temperature was much over 60, I'd be surprised. The only bad thing was that I take the shuttle only to the first stop in Medford - it was so pleasant I wish I could've stayed on until Greenport!
If you measure A/C as "coldest", I'd have to say the R-32s on the E win hands down. I swear those A/C units are the same ones used at Nadler's Meat Market in Brighton Beach to keep their meats frozen.....
--Mark
Yeah, those E's are mighty cold.
Last weekend, as I was walking underground from World Trade Center toward the A train at Chambers Street, I had to walk past the whole length of an R-32 E train sitting at its terminal.
I avoided the heat of the station by walking close to the E. The blasts of cold air coming out of its open doors was enough to cool me off. I ducked into and out of the E's cars at times as well --- such a chill!
Heck, you could take a stroll through the train. Unless things have changed, the storm doors on R-32s (and, for that matter, all 60-foot equipment as well as the Redbirds and single R-62s) are unlocked.
I recently took my own "fan trip" to Coney Island via the F(because I had never gone via the F before). I transferred from the N at 4th Ave, and since I had never been to Smith-9th St either, I went north one stop and transferred over. I took some pictures, and someone asked me about a set of tracks that has me stumped.
I was standing on the northbound 4th Ave platform, looking north. I know the middle tracks are where the G reverses direction, and you can clearly see four tracks head UP the hill towards Smith-9th St, but there are tracks that lead INTO the hill. I checked the track maps, and it appears to be a stub-end track. What was it for?? Lay-ups?? taking trains out of service??
Help....
Jeremy
Jeremy Whiteman wrote:
[I was standing on the northbound 4th Ave platform, looking north. I know the middle tracks are where the G reverses
direction, and you can clearly see four tracks head UP the hill towards Smith-9th St, but there are tracks that lead INTO the
hill. I checked the track maps, and it appears to be a stub-end track. What was it for?? Lay-ups?? taking trains out of
service??
[unquote]
Hi Jeremy,
What you are seeing is track B5 which heads into the bridge span for a few hundred feet only then dead ends against a bumper block. It can be used to layup a bad-ordered train while still keeping everything else running, or for holding a work train during rush hours, storing a work train if a crew has to go off duty and another one is to take over later, etc.
Here's the drawing of how things are laid out. I was through there just a few weeks ago, and it's 100% accurate.
Tracks of the New York City Subway book
If no one has gotten around to building the 2nd Ave. subway line, is it possible that no one has gotten around to determining whether there's any threat to the subway system from the dreaded Year 2000 Bug?
Just curious whether anyone knows.
Just a guess. The only "mission critical" systems on the subway are the signals and the Metrocard system. The Metrocard system is brand new, so if it has a Y2K problem it would be a terrible ripoff. The signal system is so old it probably doesn't even know what day it is.
Of course, if Con Ed goes down, there'd be a problem. I've heard that Southwest Airlines is not going to fly on New Years Day. Maybe they should shut the subway down and run buses, just to be sure.
Yeah, I thought the same thing: Lots of old, electrical, non-computerized systems along with new, presumably 2000-capable systems, so the Y2K bug shouldn't pose a great direct threat.
But various supporting cast like the power company could go down and have cascading effects.
I hope this isn't a bad omen, but the Metrocards' expiration dates are printed on the back as groups of TWO digits, as in "03/31/99." Nah... it couldn't be.
But what I want to know is, if the subway DOES have the bug ... will it shut down until 2004 and then start running a single route from City Hall to the Upper West Side? ;-)
Hello to you people in the Philadelphia area. Does anybody out there know the latest status on the M-4? How many do they have and how many trains are running with them? I imagine the crazy SEPTA strike probably really put things behind. Thanks for any imput. Also in case some people did not hear, the 110B fan trip has been canceled for this Saturday. They claim sometime in August maybe.
The strike is over.There is enough cars on the property to form two
6 car trains.The cars were delivered during the walkout and tested
by supervisory personel.Since I am in Denver Co. this is all the
info I have.Half of the board of directors for the RTD are anti transit.The other half wants to upgrade the system from horse drawn
omnibuses.So by comparison Phila. transit looks good.The bus and
light rail drivers have been working with out a contract for two
years.
currently there are 48 new m-4 cars on the septa property. recently on my way to work i was on a new train heading into town and have seen 4 new trains head up to frankford. as far as i know they can only run up to five new trains because they draw to much power and septa is in the process of upgrading the power distribution system. a six car train consumes one third more power then the old broad street subway cars from the 20 and 30s that were retired in the early 80s.
Why are they such power hogs?
currently there are 48 new m-4 cars on the septa property. recently on my way to work i was on a new train heading into town and have seen 4 new trains head up to frankford. as far as i know they can only run up to five new trains because they draw to much power and septa is in the process of upgrading the power distribution system. a six car train consumes one third more power then the old broad street subway cars from the 20 and 30s that were retired in the early 80s.
Why are they such power hogs?
"Half Denver RTD board is anti transit". Are these board members appointed or elected? If appointed, why appoint someone who is anti-transit? If elected, why did they run if they are opposed to the concept of transit? It sure must make it interesting for the riders to have the people running the system working against them.
They [the RTD Board in the Denver area] are elected, and they run because they view the office as a way to get themselves in the spotlight and therefore a stepping-stone to higher places. Jon Caldara, my corrupt anti-transit blowhard representative here in Boulder, is known to be gunning to be running the state department of transportation. Why someone would sell out to become a high level bureaucrat is beyond me.
This is exhibit A in my argument against having elected transit boards.
Apparently, there are enough on the property to field 7 trains in regular service (@ 6 cars per train, this works out to at least 42 cars).
I had the pleasure of riding an M-4 train for the first time today (I am only an occasional El user although I've seen the trains on the line in my travels). I rode car 1029, the third car in a train headed by 1042/41. The ride was nice, the AC was appreciated (we hit 91 today), and it was an enjoyable (but short) trip, since I only rode from 5th to 15th. The one problem I do see is the interior layout, with the door sets opposite each other, unlike the staggered arrangement on the Budds. The wealth of cross seats on the M-4's, compared to the longitudinals near the doors on the Budds, leaves comparatively little standing room, and folks were congregating near the doors. However, most riders, even those riding to the further-out stops, venture too far into the cars away from the doors, even on the Budds. This seems to be a habit of El riders.
Hey Ron, I was in frankford last tuesday, i saw 3 to 4 m-4 running. by the year 2001 or 02 the m-4 (new EL) will retire the old 1960 i think m-3 's
Only if they install a switch between Tracks 3 and 4 on the 42nd St. Shuttle.
I'd be guessing just like everyone else, however, our system AS400 uses two digit date fields. That does not bode well for the car history and train trouble reporting systems as will as the timekeeping systems. I suspect it's the same in Surface. Several years ago we had hoped to switch with the LIRR, Metro-North and PATH to a common system. That has not come to pass as far as the NYCT is concerned. Perhaps on 01/01/00 the fare will go back to 5 cents and my salary will be cut to .................S#!t
Oh, well. I guess it's no big deal.
I mean, it's not as if, when the Year 2000 starts at midnight on New Year's Eve, there will be tens of thousands of drunken people who can't drive, all trying to get home from Times Square via subway, or anything like that.
Please, please, somebody tell me that somebody at MTA is working on the bug.
Actually, I think the MTA should shut down the subway on New Years and run buses just to be sure. Then it can rent out the stations for parties. If the city's economy doesn't crash by then, and rents and prices continue to rise, no one who actually lives here will be able to afford to go to a party anywhere else.
How much for the mezzanine level of the Prospect Park 15th St station?
Any computer data processing system that has date sensitive transaction processing of database records that are ordered by date that do not have a 4 digit year as part of the date field is in trouble. They may be able to cheat with a single digit to signify the century, but you still have to take the century into account.
I'll take South Ferry but only if I can sell rides on the moving platform...
You take South Ferry -- I want Union Square on the IRT!
And I'll take Smith/9th St for the view!
--Mark
Better yet - rent out Wilson Avenue upper level, with the view of
the graveyard and all. Sounds swell to me.
By the way, our own organization is busy working on the Y2K problem-
we're about halfway there, with just a bunch of print programs to fix.
Wayne
In the highly unlikely event that the MetroCard system has the Y2K bug you could treat yourself to a 7-day unlimited on Christmas Day, 1999--good until midnight on 12/31/99. Since the day after that will be 01/01/00, you'll have a NINETY-NINE year (and seven days) unlimited pass!
... you go to see a movie at a chain of theaters where the projectionists are on strike (even if I was pro-union, I had little choice, since Sony/Cineplex owns all the first-run movie houses in Chicago), and when the film breaks (actually, catches fire!) two minutes into the picture, and they don't restart the movie until after at least fifteen minutes, the first thing that occurs to you is the Malbone Street Wreck -- a stupid mistake caused by having managers and clerks subsitute for striking skilled workers.
IATSE projectionists did a nice job keeping the equipment working and the light on. After carbon arc lamps gave way to quartz and 15 minute reels yielded to continous platters, the theater owners though that an acne faced high school kid could turn the projector on and off, that is unless something goes wrong. Sounds like OPTO dosen't it?
You know you're a rabid transit fan when you show up on a transit property and the staff whispers asides to each other. (Usually about "foamite" railfans.)
Applies to both paid and unpaid staff.
You know you're a rabid transit fan when you try and figure out what
inane question to first ask the Path conductor to get them talking.
You know you're a rabid transit fan when you ask the conductor on a D train as to why the train is terminating at W. 4th St. and he asks you in amazement where you've been hiding out. After you tell him you're from Denver and make it out to NYC once a year, he tells you that the north side tracks of the bridge are closed and you have to transfer at 34th St. to continue to Brooklyn.
Joe M wrote:
[IATSE projectionists did a nice job keeping the equipment working and the light on. After carbon arc lamps gave way to
quartz and 15 minute reels yielded to continous platters, the theater owners though that an acne faced high school kid could
turn the projector on and off, that is unless something goes wrong. Sounds like OPTO dosen't it? ]
Speaking as an IATSE projectionist (Local 173), I couldn't agree more, except to correct you slightly: The lamps in use are xenon short-arc lamps (although they do have quartz envelopes), and the reels were (are) 20 minutes, by and large.
Cheers,
Peter Dougherty
Projectionist and Publisher
Tracks of the New York City Subway book
I was a IATSE stagehand at one time in a mixed local and did some projectionist relief work, but that was prior to 1971, and the mind fails you know. Keep the light on and the books comming.
WHO IS IN FAVOR OF THE N BECOMING A LOCAL AND THE R AN EXPRESS IN BROOKLYN? IT SEEMS TO HAVE HEAVIER RIDERSHIP.
Not a good idea, even if the riding is there. If you take a look at the switch layout south of 59 St-4 Av, you'll see that the Sea Beach Line (N) defaults to the 4 Av express tracks, while the 4 Av Line (R)defaults to the local tracks. Exchanging them would involve switching movements, and the more of those you have, the less your capacity becomes and the greater the chance of a delay becomes.
P.S. If you can, use a mixture of upper and lower case letters, as in the posting you are reading now. Use of ALL UPPER CASE is considered yelling. Of course, if you're using a terminal that doesn't have lower case characters, you're forgiven :-)
I have watched so many stories about prophecies. That on July 1 1999 I wont be here and don't be in the Subways either. Nostadomnus has predicted that an atomic bomb to drop on New York City sorry to scare you and that 2000 bug that will screw up cities can cause trains to crash and other things I love New York City benn here since 1985 when I was born if this does happen the 1999 one there wont be a Grand Subway to be proud of.
[I have watched so many stories about prophecies. That on July 1 1999 I wont be here and don't be in the Subways either. Nostadomnus has predicted that an atomic bomb to drop on New York City sorry to scare you and that 2000 bug that will screw up cities can cause trains
to crash and other things]
Even if we escape Nostradamus' atom bomb, we're not out of the woods. When I was about 11 or 12 I read this book called "Criswell Predicts," in which this self-proclaimed psychic made a lot of predictions. Most notably, Criswell predicted that the world would end on August 18, 1999 ... and let me tell you, that scared the holy s*** out of me!
But look at the bright side, if Criswell is correct, at least people will stop complaining about how there's no Second Avenue subway :-)
P.S. If Criswell is wrong, and the world's still here on August 19, 1999, he won't have to listen to any criticism ... to use a favorite expression of the French, he's been eating dandelions by the root for many years now.
July 1, 1999 you say??
This is when they City's fiscal year starts no?? Well at least my agency it starts the FY00 or is that 1900??
Guess you could call it an atom bomb YK2000??
But that is another thread....
To be a true prophet the person has to be 100% accurate. Nostradamus and others are not 100% accurate.
Every year the supermarket Tabloids publish "predictions for the year". A TV network once bought them and sdaved them for the end of the year=most did not come to pass.
In other words- dont worry!
My predictions was that I wouldn't be here in 1999, you all will be just fine.
What is the use or function of the two orange colored lights or signals on the top corners of MTA buses. I saw the lights of one of those new buses flash constantly like the hazard signal on a car.
-GarfieldA
If you're referring to the ones on either side of the destination sign,they're part of the silent alarm system designed to attract attention if there's trouble aboard.Activated by a footswitch near the
driver's left heel,it causes these lights to flash along with the roof
marker lights,taillights,and the license plate light. On models with
electronic destination signs,the sign can also be made to display a message such as "EMERGENCY-CALL POLICE". I've never seen it activated on an NYCT bus,so I can't say whether they have the sign feature.
I've seen it ativated by mistake, it works. Livery in NYC now have a single orange light on the rear of the car (Car Service, Yellow Taxis) for the same purpose.
I have seen bus operators "flash" passing buses with these teltale lights as well. Kinda like waving.
i suspect that the lights blink due to a poor electrical ground :} don't all large trucks and buses in the us have to have 5 lights across the top in front (and back...) to warn the bridges that they are coming??
The two lights that GarfielfA is referring to are supposed to blink or flash when activated - along with the destination sign displaying "EMERGENCY CALL POLICE" - They are also in addition to the required lights. The required lights are the "indentification lights" which are the those at the corners and the cluster of three which are the "ICC Clearance lights".
Before they were ICC lights they were Michgan Marker Lights, and Bruce, they are not to warn the bridges but if the driver hears the top marker lights crunch they should stop because the bridge is too low.
The two top corner lights on busses are identification lights to see how wide they are to upcoming motorists. The center three lights are a
"triple marker" required on all vehicles over 80" wide. I designed
semi-trailers for Gindy, Budd, & Thayco(the crook who closed us down)
for some 22 years and learned all the lighting rules.
1. Noise on Curves.
To the uninatiated, subway cars on tight curves sound like they're derailing. I assume the squealing is caused by the flanges rubbing the rails, but what causes the bumping, grinding, and loud crashing sounds?
2. Unknown signal indication.
I've seen this on the IRT and yesterday on the 'M' line. Two small white lights, side by side, in the round space usually occuppied by a single red, green or yellow lens. what is it?
1. Noise on Curves.
To the uninatiated, subway cars on tight curves sound like they're
derailing. I assume the squealing is caused by the flanges rubbing the
rails, but what causes the bumping, grinding, and loud crashing sounds?
ANS)The noise on curves is also caused by the friction between the
couplers, causing the trains to lift up on a angle, and the noise
of friction of the place where the trucks attach to the car chassis.
Also causes by the flanges rubbing against the rails. Don't believe me? Go to 14th street on the Lexington line and listen to the express rush out of the station on a curve.
2. Unknown signal indication.
I've seen this on the IRT and yesterday on the 'M' line. Two small white
lights, side by side, in the round space usually occuppied by a single
red, green or yellow lens. what is it?
ANS)train order Signal. If in a particular formation; tells the engineer to call the tower and listen to the instructions.
More info at:
http://www.nycsubway.org/signals/light.html
scroll down to "train order signals"
evacuate the train and go to its home yard-
I always thought the squeeling noise refered to was caused by one wheel travelling a greater distance than the other on a bend and as the axle is fixed, slipping.
What you're hearing is one piece of metal (the wheel) exerting
friction on another (the rail). I worked in a place where there was
a machine shop, and they had this turret lathe, when they operator
would put his piece in the chuck and start to cut, sounded just like
the #5 train comin round the bend at Mott Avenue. Same thing holds
true for trolley cars and all kinds of trains. Some hiss more
(R10, R16, R44/46), some screech more (Slant 40, R62), some even hoot (PATH, DC Metro) but the principle's the same. Attempts at noise abatement are only successful when a) the wheel's true and b) the track's ground right.
That creaking you hear in R44 and R46s comes from under the floor,
I think it's coming from the place where the truck joins the floor.
Screechiest cars I ever rode in have to be the IRT Redbirds in their youth, esp. the R36's. Close second were the R27/R30s.
Wayne
To add to what Wayne has said, the screeching occurs when the wheel slips a very little bit against the rail in a jerking fashion, instead of smoothly. The high-pitch of the screech reflects the fact that the wheel slips a very little bit, very very quickly, resulting in a high frequency sound wave.
One way to combat this is to smooth the connection between wheel and rail so that the wheel slides smoothly and evenly instead of jerking along. Thus, the use of lubricants on the track. Make the rails too smooth and slippery, though, and the train can't start or stop properly, so there is a limit to what can be done. On a small curve, though, say 50 feet, the remaining 450' of train is sufficient to give full traction. On a larger curve, the problem is actually worse, even though the degree of rail squeal is lesser.
Another way to combat rail screech is to put dampners in the wheels. The idea is that the wheel vibrates when it jerks along the rail, but if you cut groves inside the wheel and insert, say, rubber ring dampners, or metal springs, or what have you, these pieces absorb the energy of the vibrating wheel, instead of the air around the wheel. O don't know how well these work in practice.
-mhg
The noise on curves (streetcar) is related to the degree of curvature and the truck wheelbase and diameter of the wheels. Baltimore's 1930 Witts were some of the noisiest on the system, being related to the wheelbase of the Brill 177E trucks and the 30" wheel diameter. They squeal on greased curves. PCC's are no better, they will squeal if the conditions are right, resilient wheels or not.
Hear, hear! Just listen to the PCC's in the Newark Subway as they
loop around Penn Station. I remember as a very young child being
frightened of the sound - in Washington DC, they had PCCs still
running I think until about 1960. But then a kindly driver on the
#42 trolley got me over the fear and made it fun for me - by letting
me ride up near the front with him as he went round at 13th and "D"
Street N.E. I was never afraid of it again - in fact I badgered my
mother into riding all around Washington on the #42, #40, #54, #21,
#90, #92, #94, even the #70 and #74. PCC's all. I had a ball!
Wayne
Washington's PCCs were unique in that they were equipped for both overhead wire and conduit operation a la Manhattan, since overhead wires were forbidden in the cental part of Washington. There are photos of PCCs cruising past the White House on Pennsylvania Ave. with their trolley poles down. There were changeover spots on each line where the car would be fitted with a "plow" which extended down through the slot between the rails and made contact with the positive and negative conductors. This was all done manually.
Not every line in Washington had overhead. Lines 40/42 (Mt. Pleasant),
50/54 (14th Street), 60 (11th Street) and 90/92 (Pennsylvania & New Jersey Aves.) were all conduit. The lines with conduit/overhead (Cabin John, Wisconsin Ave and the Maryland lines were all gone by 1961. 50/54 and 90/92 were the last two lines in DC and died on January 28, 1962.
The changover operation was not entirely manual. The cars on the Wisconsin Ave line were equipped with automatic trolley releases and motorized retrievers and the wire at the plow pit (outbound) had a pan on it (a la Seattle's TC subway). Inbound cars simply pulled the pole down with the motorized retriever. This euipment save one man at the pit. Only the pit man (who attached and detached the plows) was needed.
To save money, DC Transit removed the trolley ropes and wired the poles under the hooks to save time and rope maintenance after the overhead lines were abandoned.
What has been said thus far in this thread concerning curves
is not quite technically correct. It is true that since the
axle is fixed and there is no "differential" mechanism, the
angluar velocity (rpms) of both wheels in a wheelset is the same.
The linear velocity of the wheel, i.e. if you imagine the
surface of the wheel being unraveled, is the product of the angluar
velocity and the radius of the wheel.
When a wheelset follows a curve in the track, the linear velocity
of the inner rail is obviously less than that of the outer rail,
since the outer rail is at a greater radius from the theoretical
centerpoint of the curve. If it were the case that wheels were
perfectly flat, then at any curve, no matter how slight, there
would be a mismatch in linear velocities at the wheel/rail interface
and slippage would result.
However, railroad wheels are not flat! The tread of the wheel is
sloped 20:1 or 40:1 (depending on the railway), then between the
tread and the flange is a curved fillet. Therefore, the radius of
the wheel is smallest at the outside of the wheel, and greatest
on the inside.
The standard gauge for railroads is 56 1/2 " On tangent (straight)
track, a wheelset will sit on the rails such that the fillet of the
wheel is almost, but not quite touching the inside
face ("the gauge") of the rail.
On curves, the gauge of the track is opened up a little bit.
The slope of the wheel automatically guides the wheelset to shift
such that the wheel on the outside rail of the curve shifts further
out. Therefore, the outer wheel, which needs to make up more linear
velocity, is riding on a fatter part of the wheel, and conversely
the inside wheel is riding on a narrower part.
On gentle curves this is all there is to it. There is no slippage
(ok, maybe there is a little bit because of the elliptical motion
of the wheel relative to the rail, but essentially no slippage).
The wheelset steers itself around the curve and there is no need
for guard rail OR lubrication.
On tighter curves, this mechanism alone is not sufficient. Without
a guard rail, the forward edge of the flange of the outside wheel
would strike the rail, leading to heavy wear on the flange and
rail and possibly a derailment. The function of the guard rail
is to retard centripital force and push the inside wheel towards
the inside of the curve. This is done by pushing against the BACK
of the flange of the inside wheel.
The guard rail/backside contact is a sliding one, therefore
generous lubrication is called for. Note that the TREAD of the
wheel NEVER receives lubrication...that would be recipe for
disaster. The squealing of a wheel around a tight curve is
caused PRIMARILY by this sliding contact. Most railways have
some sort of automatic grease dispensers to keep the guard rails
sufficiently lubricated.
The amount of squealing depends primarily on tightness of the
curve, the condition of the guard rail grease, and the wheelbase.
As someone has already noted, a longer wheelbase truck has a greater
tendency to bind tightly in a guarded curve and cause more noise.
I hope this has been helpful.
Wow that's quite a lot of food for thought to digest! Sounds like
I have to brush up on my Geometry (Mr.McInerney - WHERE ARE YOU???)
Anyway - here's a scenario:
this assumes your familiarity with the NYCT system, N & R lines
(all radii are in degrees and are APPROXIMATE):
(turning circle (the radius of the curve) is a best guess)
Track n. of Cortlandt Street - curves 87.5 degrees to right
and eight feet after the angle completes, turns 95 degrees left.
Turning circles are about 40 feet per curve (give or take a few ells)
"R" train is made of 75-foot R46 cars; "N" train is made of 60-foot
Slant R40 cars. "N" train follows five minutes after "R".
Both trains navigate the curves at 7 MPH. Now the wheelbase of the
"R" is longer than that of the "N" (car itself 15 feet longer) -
but "N" train squeals twice as loudly as "R" train. In fact, "R"
hisses and growls more than it screeches. "N" train emits a deafening
screech, especially on the second curve, from all ten units.
This phenomena was observed on August 20 1997.
Is it the equipment? The way the wheels are trued? Obviously the track's no different. By the way, thank you for your explanation;
it is most thorough and logical - I'm just trying to figure out
why square pegs are in the round holes.
thanx
Wayne
I know the trackage in question. A 40ft radius curve?!
No, not THAT bad. I don't know the correct number, maybe
300' ? Hey Dave R. - ask our fellow member from the truck
and stractures dept.
Anyway, the wheelbase that matters is the distance between the
axles on a single truck. The fact that one car is longer than
the other, and therefore the distance between trucks is longer,
doesn't matter w.r.t. wheel squeal, as each truck is free to
swivel independently.
I looked it up in the closest reference handy, namely the Sansone
car roster book, and both cars in question (R40 and R46) have
the same wheelbase of 6'-10". The truck designs are somewhat
different though, and of course the R46 bears a lot more weight
per axle than the R40. These factors would affect resonance of
the trucks and could explain your observations. I won't profess
to be able to model and understand the complete acoustic situation,
nor could I make predictions about the audio performance of various
cars around various curves in the system. However, if some eager
young railfan has the time and ambition to visit these locations
with tape recorder in hand, I'm sure the results would fascinating.
Whoa! Good work on this technical problem. Now, I have two questions:
1. is there a test on this?
2. how many credits did we just earn?
p.s. to Wayne Whitehorne: I'll need a recording of this for authenticity on my model layout.
Well, I can't resist the opportunity for a shameless plug, so:
It may be of some interest to those on this forum that
The Shore Line Trolley Museum
( East Haven, CT)
will be holding its annual event
Workin' on the Railroad
on Aug 1 and 2, 10:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
Here's your chance to learn how to string overhead wire, drive
a spike (it's not as easy as it looks!) or pick up several-ton
objects effortlessly.
[Yes, I know the 1100 fantrip is Aug 1...so come on Aug 2? ]
For more info, call the museum at (203) 467-6927 or visit
http://www.bera.org/specev.html
According to WNYW TV5: Two trains crashed under B'way between 96 and 100 st. It was on a non-revenue track. It was a rear-ender.
No service disruption stated-no injuries.
Opinion:Must have been redbirds since the 2 trains that end at 96 use the center track after 96 and lay over at 103 before reversing direction to go back to 96.
2 trains do not go to the upper level at 103 St unless they are being stored at the 137 St Yard. I'll tell you what I think happened. At 8:30 trains go out of service at 96 St and head to 137 St Yard. At 9:00 trains use one of the two express tracks (downtown) between 96 and 110 St. Trains that go out of service return to service at 5 PM. The two trains that crashed were probably the ones being stored on the express track. The TA is taking risks . Motormen that store the trains are not protected by signals when they wrongrail (move the opposite way against normal direction of traffic) on the downtown track to 110 St CPK No. Motorman probably went too fast around the curve and smacked into a stored train next to him. You cannot see ahead on the curve. TA has got to find a better way of doing things. Does anybody know what the numbers were on the cars and the extent of the damage? Does anybody know what happened?
The shuttle will close at 12 midnight on 7/24/1998. (Midnight Thursday- that is No rush Hour service Friday AM).
There is free shuttle bus service available. For details ask for the brochure at any Franklin Shuttle subway station. To get the transfer see the station agent at the shuttle stations. Note also that the token booths will also close at this time. (prospect Park and Franklin will remain open).
For pics of the shuttle-before closure see:
www.nycsubway.org/lines/brighton/pics. (This is a temporary page until the station by station is finished.)
(Maybe someone will post the brochure! )
I have a Brighton Line-by-Line page almost done. How far have you gotten? (Mine doesn't have a stop by stop description like yours does, though, so I doubt we overlap.) ALso coming soon is the 4th Ave (Brooklyn) BMT subway.
--Mark
I assure Mark and the others that the forthcoming Station by Station will not compete with your works. Our terrif webmaster requested that I do station by station for the remainder of the system save the L (Wayne W is doing a station by station for that line.)
I'll also be doing stations for the Dyre(as they are today) and the entire 7 line.(If someone will do the history I'll stick to stations but Dave has had no takers)
I have historical info on Brighton and 4th Ave; I'll attempt to get those done ASAP (Brighton is almost done) and you can combine your station-by-station guides with those, then I'll do the Flushing Line. So I guess you now have a volunteer :)
Also, no competition was inferred. Sorry it may have come across that way.
--Mark
just out of curiousity, is the shuttle closing temporary or permanent, and in either case, why is it closing?
The closure is until "Winter 1999" for rebuilding. There will be totally new bridges, tracks,and major renovations of Franklin Ave(ADA elevators); Park Place(ditto), and a free tranfer at Botanic Graden to Franklin ave (IRT).
In the meantime, there will be a free shuttle bus at Prospect Park and Franklin Ave Stations
has anyone taken for posterity pictures of what these stations look like now, before the rehab?
Yup! Subway-buff and I just toured the Franklin Shuttle (and the rest of the Brighton and Sea Beach lines) on Saturday. The pictures will be available soon. Some of them are ready now but in a temporary location; I'd rather wait to make an annoucement when they are formally available.
The "Farewell to the R-30" pages have pix of the R-30s at Dean St before that closed.
--Mark
I just got back from a lunch-hour ride on the Franklin Avenue Shuttle. I'd never been on it before (the sole gap in my subway riding), so it was now or never, to see it in the unrenovated state.
All I can say is that the renovations are *way* overdue!
You ain't kidding. Following your example, I left work early and rode the Franklin Shuttle yesterday for the first time, to see it before renovations.
It bordered on scary toward the north end. Creaking ever so slowly over that bridge approaching Franklin Street and onto that elevated curve, it felt like the train would fall off.
When you look at the Franklin Avenue terminal from the street, your first thought is, "Hey, look, an abandoned el."
Posters on this board have theorized that it was allowed to decay because it serves largely African-American neighborhoods. I don't know about that. I do know that out of a hundred or so people I saw on S trains and stations, there were about four or five Caucasians. I was one of them, and another was an older gentleman taking pictures ... perhaps one of you!
I have one set of questions that I've heard answered several different ways:
Is there a free transfer from the Franklin Ave. end to the C (or A local) train? The stations are maybe a couple of hundred feet apart, but I didn't see a connection. When I asked the station agent at the shuttle terminal how to get to the C, she pointed me to the A & C station entrances on the street below -- outside the shuttle turnstiles.
Yet The Map shows it as a transfer point between the shuttle and the local, if I'm reading it correctly.
If there is a free transfer, how is it done, and where is the connection?
If not, will the renovation make one?
And if not, why not, when this is far from an affluent neighborhood, and the riders of this line surely could use a break from a pointless extra fare?
There is (now I should say *was*) a free transfer between the Franklin Avenue Shuttle and the C at Franklin Avenue. Riders had to get a paper transfer from the booth at one station before exiting, which got them into the other one at no charge. Until some months ago a remnant of the Fulton Street El was used for the transfer.
Once the renovations are completed, there will be a regular, within-the-turnstiles transfer, with ADA access.
There has been a lot of discussion about why the Franklin Avenue Shuttle was allowed to deteriorate so markedly. I don't believe that the racial makeup of the neighborhood was the cause. While it may be the only line located entirely in a minority area, the fact remains that there are many long sections of other lines that serve similar neighborhoods - much of the IRT in Brooklyn, for example. What's more likely is that the Shuttle was neglected because it's not a vital line. All of its stations are close to other lines, and the Brighton-Eighth Avenue connection is useful but probably not indispensable.
Meet the Author
The New York Transit Museum and Temple University Press present:
An Afternoon with Marian Swerdlow
Author of the recently published: UNDERGROUND WOMAN:
MY FOUR YEARS AS A
NEW YORK CITY
SUBWAY CONDUCTOR
Saturday, July 25, 1998 at 2PM at the Museum.
I have a question about lights on buses and trucks. There are lights on the roof of buses. They are four in the front and four in the back one on the side. They are red in back and orange in front and on the side. Someone mentioned that they are "identification" lights.
What are they used for? So cars can see them comeing up a hill?
Motorist don't really pay attention to them, do they?
Then why do some trucks have so many of them? I seen trucks
with blue, green, yellow, they look like Christmas trees.
Unless I'm wrong, the idea of some of these lights -- generally placed along the outermost edges of a vehicle -- is to make it easier for other drivers to see that it is a bus or truck at night.
They create a visible outline of a large vehicle, so no one mistakenly thinks that those two headlights approaching are those of a small car, etc.
That's valuable information, because of the different handling characteristics and clearances of a large vehicle.
The proper term for them is clearance lights. Some truckers add extra clearance lights (Christmas Tree effect) to a point where they are no longer a safety feature, but a safety hazard.
There are certain lights that the Manufacturer is required to installed on vehicles. Of course there's the usualu headlight,turn indicator, brake, taillight etc. On trucks and buses the identification lights let you see just how wide the vehicle is. I think you're right - most people probably don't pay attention to them. Imagine you're driving along a rural two lane highway at night and in the distance you see an oncoming vehicle approaching and it happens to be a bus. I think that as you get closer you'll notice those extra lights as something bigger than a car. Here it is: The lights at the corners and the 3 in the center on the front and back are required. On the side there are marker lights. Marker lights are required on all vehicles (including cars) - These indicate the lengh of the vehicle. Also on cars the CHMSL (or third stop light) has been required on all new cars since 1986.
I believe SUVs (sport utility vehicles) were exempt from having center brake lights until later. My 1988 Jeep Cherokee, for instance, does not have such a light. I must admit that the center brake light definitely gets your attention when the car in front of you stops, which is precisely what it was intended to do. This was one rare instance in which the federal government actually passed a law which made sense. Imagine that! OK, repealing the 65 mph speed limit on interstates was also a good idea (it's 75 in Colorado).
BTW, my Jeep has had the 8AVEXP license plates for over 7 years now, and while many people have asked me what they mean, so far no one has made the association with New York. Some people have figured out the 8th Ave. Express part, but that's as far as they've gotten. I give them one of two responses: 1) it's a subway route in New York, or 2) are they familiar with Duke Ellington's "Take the A Train"? (I never knew the words to it until a coworker started singing them after I told her about my plates.)
{Also some of the Slant 40's are pretty good -
PROVIDED THE A/C IS WORKING...}
Amen to that. In recent days I've ridden two R-40s that were "half-hots," meaning that only one of the two compressors was working. The car numbers, in case anyone (Steve?) is interested, are 4309 and 4342 (twice in a week), both of which are on the Q.
The windows to cabs from passenger compartment is blackened out or covered so car body light doens't reflect off of windshield impairing operators view of track and signals. It has nothing to do with blocking a riders view ahead but for the safe operation. even still with the small cut out provided on R44's I prefer a totally darkened cab in tunnels so I can see as far ahead as possible.
>>so car body light doens't reflect off of windshield impairing operators view of track and signals<<
Good point but umm the last couple of R46's I've been on (E/F) the train operator has had the door opem about 2 to 3 inches so he (I assume) can get the A/C into the cab...
So much for keeping the light out.
To provide a view for the customer and less light on the operator, perhaps we transit buffs can take up a collection for one-way glass on the new trains. As long as the operators don't mind looking in the mirror.
I think the polaroid film of the R-68's was a great idea. It lets light from ahead be visible to people outside the cab (although blurred), and keeps out enough light to not distract the mororman, PLUS blocks light on angles giving the motorman (off to the side) privacy.
But these often get covered up too.
Eric B
Rules prohibit the cab windows from being covered either by paint or newspaper. The polorized cab glass is the only one which is supposed to be on ANY car with a transverse cab. This is to prevent glare in the cab but allow police a decent view of the car interior from the cab. Incidently, the reason the train operators keep the cab doors open 2-3" on R-46s is because there is no ventilation in the cab door such as on the R-68 or 68A. There are AC ducts in the cab but without the door vent there is no air circulation.
I thought rules also prohibit the cab door being held open except with an approved device. The device I thought was for the old closet operating booth and can not be used on the new cars (44/46 68/A's) so is that yellow piece of wood an approved device??
You are absolutely correct. The Cab Doors on the transverse cabs are supposed to be kept closed. However, there is no vent in the R-44/46 cab door and the cabs get hot fast, even with 2 AC vents in the ceilings. What's worse, the 'Shoe Paddles' (yellow pieces of wood) get lost and in an emergency, you can never find them.
Now that you mention it...
I have seen that polarized, or whatever it's called, glass, on R-46 cab doors as well - but not on R-44s.
My theory is that any revenue loss due to the unlimited metrocard is being made up by having the money up front for the purchase of the unlimited cards which justifies(to the bean counters) any losses...
to me its stills loss of revenue. As for generating more ridership everything seems the same so far.
I saw plenty of posting about the creation of the K line. What about the H line? The F serves midtown Manhattan from the Essex Street station very well. Why throw money into one of the most lowest ridership routes.
H - (6 Avenue Local) 57th Street (M) or Rockaway Park (Q) everyday 6AM - 12AM. Operates on Q route, F route, after West 4th Street on C and E routes, and A route. Local Sixth Avenue, Express via Fulton Street Brooklyn, Express via Liberty Avenue from Euclid Avenue and Aqueduct Race Track to Manhattan am rush hours, from Manhattan pm rush hours.
Benefits: provides a 6th Avenue link, improve service in Bklyn and Qns.
H - (Rockaway Shuttle) Far Rockaway (Q) or Rockaway Park (Q) All the Times. Benefits: improves service in the Rockaways and connections to lines to Manhattan. Extra track bed show be built to elimating track switching.
Q - (6 Avenue Express) 57th Street (M) or Brighton Beach (B) Rush hours. Track work done on brighton line.
C - (8th Avenue Local)168th Street (M) or Euclid Avenue (B) or Lefferts Blvd (Q) Weekdays 6AM - 12AM. 8th Avenue and Fulton Street Local. Benefits: better service to Lefferts Blvd. Note: two train should run to Lefferts Blvd for every one train to Euclid Avenue. Other times serving the WTC station in (M) Weekends 6AM - 12AM.
A - (8th Avenue Express) 207th Street (M) or Far Rockaway (Q) All the times. 8th Avenue Express everyday 6AM - 12AM, Fulton Street Express Weekdays 6AM - 12AM. Queens Local. Benefits: improve service to the Rockaways.
A - (8th Avenue Express) 207th Street (M) or Lefferts Blvd (Q) Weekends 6AM - 12AM.
What do you think of this proposal?
It leaves the Brighton Line without a midday xpress!
Solution: run the "M" out to Brighton Beach and make the "D" an express just like it used to be.
I STILL think SOME kind of service ought to connect Canarsie and
Broadway lines, even if it just goes to Canal, Chambers or Broad St.
Wayne
The express tracks on the Brighton Line is being fix. That is why I proposed a cut back in service on the Q express line.
[The express tracks on the Brighton Line is being fix. That is why I proposed a cut back in service on the Q express line.]
The work on the express tracks is SUPPOSED to be completed this weekend. Service is supposed to return to "normal" with the AM rush on Monday.
What was the problem in the first place?
Last night I saw workers installing monitors in the lower level of the West 4th St. Station. What are these for?
At best I can only hope that they are for a system which announces the line and destination of the next train along with an approximation of the wait for that train - similar to the London Underground. At worst it's probably another opportunity to overwhelm subway riders with advertising.
Which way are the screens pointed, toward the trains or facing the passengers on the platform?
CTA is installing television screens at curved stations and stations with blocked lines-of-sight, to make it safer for the motorman to open and close the doors in connection with the institution of OPTO.
About five years ago, there was a system of television sets suspended from the ceilings of downtown subway stations and a few vital outlying stations. They were run by an outfit called "MetroVision" under contract with CTA and they ran about 50% news and trivia and 50% advertisements. The system lasted a few years but disappeared as quickly as it arrived.
So it could be either one, depending on which way the screens are pointed.
PATH in NJ/NYC, and BART in SF, also have MetroVision. Well, they used to have MetroVision. Both systems still have the monitors but the "MetroVision" name has been removed. I think another company operates them now, and they use the name "Commuter Channel" on the displays. It's the same company in both systems-- the graphics used for the time/weather displays are the same...
I think Boston's "T" has them, too.
--Mark
SEPTA also has MetroVision in Center City commuter rail stations (Penn
Center, Market East), as well as Center City Market-Frankford subway
stations.
The monitors face out towards the tracks - but West 4th is not a curved station - on either level. That's why I didn't think it was to enhance operator range of sight. Unless they are planning constructions that might block operator vision. Although the monitors face the tracks they can be clearly seen if standing on the platform.
Also, the monitors are too small for "Metro Vision" which as far as I know still survives on PATH and is more like 90% adds, 10% info.
Would 'approximate wait' indicators be possible in NY or would entire lines need to be resignalled. Even then, is the system too complicated for this to work well?
On the surface lines in London at some of the complicated junctions, the approximate wait times cannot really be calculated. At Liverpool Street, heading west, the next train might be a Circle Line train heading out of the through platforms at Aldgate, a Metropolitan line train heading out of the terminus platforms, or a Hammersmith and City Line train heading out of Aldgate East. All trains are supposed to run in sequence in theory, but in practice whichever train gets there first seems to be a lottery (let alone how long).
On the other hand, on the tube lines (no junctions in the centre of London) the approximate wait indications can be excellent. Get a long gap (10 minutes) on the Northern Line in the rush hour at, say, Moorgate and the train will be unbearable, but if the indicator says that three trains are backed up at one minute intervals and you KNOW that you will get a full row of seets to yourself if you just let the first couple of trains go past. Strangely, when I had to do this a few years ago, other passengers did not seem to cotton on to this, but in a hot London August (approx 30 centigrade) with no air conditioning, not even fans and a carriage approximately 7 feet high and 8 feet wide inside packed full of people, and I would rather wait (in fact, I would rather walk).
I don't get the response message box when reading new messages this morning. I click on the hotspot for post response but I don't get the 4 message posting boxes...
Well now I can talk to myself, thansk David!!
I can't post responses either. Nor can I post a response to Lou's post that he can't post a response.
Hummm I can't answer the problem but I know who can why don't you ask Dave he might help
I love SEPTA!
They have dirty trains and all sorts of low life scum rides on it.
They have rude idiot trade unionist drivers and incompetent and inept management.
Hmmm, I lived in Philly for 22 years and spent a significant amount of time on SEPTA. Does this mean that I'm low life scum?
Yes some of the train operators are rude, but compared to New Jersey Transit, SEPTA operators are downright friendly!
When you criticize SEPTA, or any other transit authority for that matter, this way you are painting with a very broad brush. Although most of us have had varying degree’s of unpleasant experiences, on the whole, we must look at the big picture.
As a DAILY (I don’t own an automobile) CTA rider, I experience routine trips (fast, clean, without problems) about 95% of the time using both the ‘L’ and buses. There is always one day in the week, for some reason Monday morning seems to be the worst time, that something will and does go wrong. Do I judge the entire system, using the "one bad experience"? NO, I can’t say that this would be fair. Yes the CTA has its share of "I don’t care" and rude operators. Some I’ve observed to be downright nasty at times. However, most are trying to do the best they can with the equipment and authority they have been given.
Public transportation, by its very nature, has been a difficult service to deliver. We, the riders, can want a bus "always within sight", as the old CSL used to phase. Train headway’s of every 2.5 minutes would be great. A wide smile on every operator’s face would be welcome. However, do you experience such efficiency, and well meaning in your place of business? The task facing all operating managers is to get the proper amount of service out on the street, or line, to benefit the most riders. To do this, and live within budgets to boot. Providing this service is not cheap, and with the ever shrinking public purse, is a challenge at best.
My opinion is that most of the problem’s with the business of mass transit today can be pointed to top management. Are the leaders of authorities such as MTA, CTA, SEPTA, etc. transit professionals? I know the only qualification to manage the CTA is be on King Richard’s (Daley) "A" list. In Chicago, the mayor’s office looks at the CTA as an employment agency first, the "problem" of moving people comes second. Until the "leaders" of these agencies come to grips with the "management issues" of these bureaucracies, such as, obtaining "buy-in" from employee’s at all levels to commit to focusing on their main purpose - moving people from point A to point B, dealing with money draining issues such as archaic work rules, and being innovative, the MTA’s, CTA’s, SEPTA’s, etc. will never rise to the fulfill their "so-called" goal. This goal should be first and foremost - "Providing fast, safe, clean and low-cost transportation to its customers".
Speaking as another lowlife scum, I guess (I use SEPTA every business day, so I qualify), I would agree that any painting of the authority with such a broad brush is a naive generalization.
I took a little heat from some of you for my views on the strike situation, but admittedly I wouldn't want to be an operator. The reason for this is the class of rider that Mr. (?) Smythe IV typifies. Too often, today's transit users are slobs. They put feet on seats (a woman is now suing SEPTA since she received a citation for putting her feet up on a commuter train seat, despite other riders standing and admonitions from the conductor - she claims it's related to her disability, diabetes, and is suing on ADA grounds!), they eat and drink and then leave empty containers behind, and, among my personal pet peeves, they chew gum and then spit it out wherever, to be found later by often unsuspecting riders. While this class of rider is in the minority, probably less than five percent, yes, this rider is indeed a lowlife scum, in my opinion. Whatever you, Mr. (?) Smythe IV can do about this, please feel free to do it. It would be greatly appreciated. I have attempted to intervene in these cases, but most of these pigheaded morons will never get it, and often mumble their overwhelmingly favorite seven-letter retort when they think you're out of earshot.
For the large majority of transit riders who are not lowlife scum, and for the many operators who do their jobs professionally day in and day out despite having to deal with problems caused by the lowlife scum, I think you need to re-assess your opinions of them. How often do you ride SEPTA? When was the last time? Are your opinions based on personal observation, scientific fact, or are you just looking through the windows of the transit vehicle from your automobile? One of SEPTA's main problems, in my opinion, is that too many folks share your views and then deduce that SEPTA is nothing but a way for criminals, welfare cheats, and low-skilled workers to get around until they can either save cash for or steal a car. I would invite you to take an objective ride and perhaps this will open your eyes.
I have a question for the guys up in the BIG APPLE. Does anybody know how to get into the TA command center for a tour other than with a group? Maybe somebody has some pull and knows the right people. Also on the same subject maybe visit one the towers. Are the towers manned 24 hours a day? One last question. In the chain of command who has the most say the command center or the tower? Or do they work together? Thanks for any help guys.
Unless things have changed, the desk trainmaster was/is the boss of the entire division (IRT, BMT, or IND, or A, B1 and B2 divisions). He would oversee the dispatchers, who communicate with train operators. His job was/is to keep things running smoothly; i. e., run the railroad. He can also communicate with tower supervisors, who in turn oversee tower operations.
Remember the scene from the original Pelham 1-2-3 in which Frank chastises Garber for pleading with the hijackers to be reasonable with their time demands? Garber replies, "Go away, will you, Frank? Go play with your trains."
i'm doing research on race relations in the communities along the #7 train line in Queens. any info on its construction, history and important events that you could send me would be apreciated.
thanks,
kristin
Back before 1920 when the #7 line was built, the census bureau classified Italians and Jews as separate (ie. non-white) races. And very few of them lived near it, nor did many other "non-white" races.
Also, Junction Boulevard used to be known as "Junction Avenue," and the 103rd Street station was also referred to as "Alburtis Avenue" (which is actually 104th Street).
I still remember the "ALBURTIS AV" sign on 104th Street @ 37th Avenue (about 4 blocks north of present-day Roosevelt Avenue). Used to live in the Corona area about 20+ years ago...
Back before 1920, that whole area of Queens was largely undeveloped. Have you seen the photo in one of the newer subway books of the Queens Blvd viaduct under construction? Talk about wide open spaces. It was still that way when the IND Queens line was being built - building the stretch under Queens Blvd. was a piece of cake.
are there any sites on the internet, or does anyone have, and can scan and email me, pictures of what the Utica Ave. A station looked like before its 1997 rehab?
thank you for anyone's assistance.
does anyone know if there is anyone i could speak to at NYCTA regarding getting a chance to access and take pictures of abandoned stations not normally covered by transit museum tours, i.e.
worth street
ninth ave brooklyn lower level
brooklyn bridge side local platforms
42nd street lower platform
i am looking to do this for a college research project. does anyone know if this is possible?
thanks
Barry Plotkin
Brooklyn Bridge is commonly included in Day One on the IRT Tours. A recent tour also went to lower 42nd but it's unlikely there will be any future tours given recent construction limiting access to it. Ninth Ave. was last seen on a fan trip in '93. (All of which have pictures here on the site.) There was a scheduled tour to Worth St. but that was cancelled. I'd suggest calling the Transit Museum education department (718-243-8601) and explaining who you are and why you need access. Maybe someone there can point you in the right direction.
question here for anyone who might know:
i got off an uptown A at 34th st. one morning last week. there was an
enclosed construction area at the northern end of the platform. when i looked down into it, i saw an area, obviously with work being done
or things being stored. Also within view were two concrete bricked
restroom entrances (one men--one women). Since the A and C are on the same level at that end of 34th Street, can anyone tell me what the lower level i peered into is? Were those once upon a time restrooms for a line that was never built?
this station has just started renovation. The space you saw was part of the lower mezzzanine between 34 and 35. It is being closed for safety and for elevator machinery rooms The station will have ADA elevators. While I do not have floor plans, the lower mezzanine will be closed overnight for safety.
I will post updates as construction progress
Are there any New Orleans Streetcar pictures or system Maps available?
I am particularly interested in the St. Charles Line.
I know this has nothing to do w/ trains, but....
From my apartment, I have noticed that the Whitestone bridge has not been lit up at night for over a year at least. Does anyone have any idea why?
Michael B.
ANYBODY CARE TO COMMENT ON THE P LINE?
YOUR THOUGHTS PLEASE.............................
They are too many train focus on the Coney Island route. What about the H proposal that express ealier. I got on one response. This H line will travel from 57th Street (M) to Rockaway Park (Q) Everyday from 6 AM - 9PM. It will travel along the Q route, F route, after West 4th Street C & E route, and A route. It will be a Sixth Avenue Local, Fulton Street and Queens Express. Note: Express in Queens will be from Euclid Avenue (B) to Aqueduct North Conduit Avenue (Q) to Manhattan AM, and from Manhattan PM.
Meanwhile, the C should be extended to Lefferts Blvd, also service the Euclid Avenue Terminal. A service should not serve the Lefferts Blvd station Weekdays; greatly improving service to Far Rockaway (Q).
Improving service to the Rockaways might encourage passenger patronge to the Airport.
Also, since the H will come out of 6th Avenue.
I think the transportation Authority should rethink the Q route. Possibly restricting it to only rush hour service. Not very many people ride it anyway. On the other hand, everyone reading this message should submit this proposal regarding the New H line route to the MTA for consideration. 370 Jay Street, Brooklyn, NY 112.
Low ridership is precisely why the NX was discontinued. It was a real treat for those of us who are express addicts, since it skipped a record 8 stops in a row, but that's about it. Unfortunately, I never had a chance to ride it. I'll bet it wasn't even close to being full after leaving Coney Island for Manhattan, (I know, it started at Brighton Beach) or after leaving 59th St. for Brighton Beach. If anyone had a chance to ride it back then, chime in.
IMHO, making the Sea Beach express tracks nonstop from 59th St. all the way to Coney Island was a bad idea. Maybe not so in 1915, since in those days a lot of people went to Coney Island by subway. It would have made better sense to make the New Utrecht station an express stop, since 62nd St. on the West End, which has a transfer to the Sea Beach, is exactly that.
If I had to vote for a lengthy nonstop stretch, I'd nominate the Flushing line between Willets Point and Queensboro Plaza before and after Mets games - on weekends, anyway, or at least after night games (similar to what they had during the 1964-65 World's Fair). It's too bad that 74th St. is a local stop; it would make a perfect express stop because a lot of people get off to transfer to the Queens IND line after ballgames.
As a Flushing resident, what I would really like to see would be the 7 rush hour express veer off between Queensboro Plaza & 33rd St./Rawson into the sunnyside yard (possibly using some of the present elevated structure which currently has no tracks installed) & follow the LIRR ROW, going underground & rejoining the present #7 line just after the Vernon-Jackson station. I have no idea whether this is physically possible, & it would certainly tick off people who take the 7 express to the N & vice-versa, but it would make for a damn fast ride to Manhattan, going straight from 61st St./Woodside to Grand Central.
I know it'll never happen, but it'd be nice...
By the way, does anyone know what that extra trackway w/o tracks between Queensboro Plaza & 33rd st. on the 7 and between Queensboro Plaza and 39th st. on the N was used for? Does it have anything to do w/ the former connection w/ the Second Ave. El?
Oh- Yes, 74th St. should be an express stop.
Thanks.
N rider: I surely will like that!
Damian,
1. #7 diversion thru Sunnyside yard would be nice BUT U still only have tubes for TWO tracks after Vernon-Jackson so you're only talking about bypassing three stops ... at what cost.
2. Queensboro bridge tracks were for the Trolley that went over the bridge & turned aroud at Manhattan end. It was repl by a bus for a while but discontinued.
P.S. My co was asked to provide FREE rides across the bridge when the cable car was hit by a boat ... you could count the riders on one hand.
Mr t__:^)
There was actually an idea years ago to do this! Back when they were still deciding what to connect the uncompleted 63rd St tunnel to.The main purpose of it was to avoid the slow curves, not necessarily avoid stations.
Avoiding the slow curves isn't the problem, but, #7 overcrowding N trains into Manhattan. The shorter route will eliminate the need to transfer to the N train (which it's next stop is in Manhattan).
To speed up the trip to Queensborough Plaza and Manhattan on the 7, you might try to work on bringing back the Super Express service on Queens Boulevard/Roosevelt Avenue. If there's careful scheduling, it could operate efficiently without getting slowed down behind another express (or local, Manhattan-bound), which was the only problem with it. Non-stop to/from Queensborough Plaza was a great ride.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Building a two track system below 33rd Street/Rawson St. was stupid! What they should have done, was, build a third express track that will pass from grand central to woodside. It could have done something similar to the E and F lines. Take a short route from hunts point into 33rd Street.
Quoting from my last posting - the #7 express (as better planned) would have greatly reduce passenger congestion on the N line into Manhattan. Many people prefer the N into Manhattan because it makes it's first stop their. It's a better bet than the E and F transfer (51st #6), because 59th Street is an express station for the 4 & 5. Plus the #7 travels slow in the tunnel.
Of course, back when the Flushing line was built, there was no IND system, period. Had both lines been built at the same time, you can bet that 74th would be an express stop today.
Same story with 66th and Broadway. Lincoln Center didn't exist in 1904. Had it been there, or if that line had been built later, more than likely it would have been made an express stop. There have been stories of people not getting off at 66th while on their way to the Met or Avery Fisher Hall, then changing to the downtown platform at 72nd (back when you could transfer from uptown to downtown) and unknowingly getting on an express and winding up at Times Square. The most common excuse was, "But nobody said it was an express".
I agree with both the P and H lines. Only two things to add.
1. Extend the P train to 145 Street or 207 Street. Make it express between 125 and 59 and here is where it gets weird so hand with me it will continur along with the A train as the 8th Avenue Express at West 4th street it will connect with 6th Avenue Express and go with the B train to Bergan Street and proced down it's normal route and with the H train no problem at all.
(Didn't get the last part of that sentence) didn't you mean the "F"?
In any case -
I would like to see what suggestions surface for my Canarsie-Broadway
service (I'll concede and terminate it at Chambers Street or
Broad Street) - I really wanted to run it up 6th Avenue via the
Essex St-Broadway Lafayette Connection.
Wayne (searching for BMT standards on the "K" train)
The reason why I don't like the P idea is that I don't think there's much sport for it. First of all, the F goes on 6 Avenue from Essex Street already, and runs very regularly. It will also interfer with my plan of having a H out of 57th Street running along the 6 Avenue Local route.
The P route will create additional delays on the F train to Queens. In other words, they will have to run fewer F's to accomodate this line on top of the H proposal. Doing rush hours, the F is known to come more often than the B, D, Q, combine. Just stand in the West 4th Street station.
Ridership on the J,M,Z lines is considerably low because of the slow speeds operated over the bridge and other slow spots.
On the other hand, the H is the best deal because it will provide additional service to the Rockaways. Currently, service there is inadequate - one line going to three different places (A).
Have one line going to three different places, slow service to a particular area. Eliminating that will involve four plans. One, create a 6 Avenue line to Rockaway Park (Q). Two, create a shuttle that will serve both the Far Rockaway (Q) and Rockaway Park (Q) stations simultaneously. Three, extending the C to Lefferts Blvd (Q). And four, the A should serve one route from 207th Street (M) to Far Rockaway (Q); weekends to Lefferts Blvd - shuttle from Euclid Avenue to Lefferts Blvd. Those who are going to the Airport will benefit, because, they will be everyday express service from the central part of Manhattan (6th Avenue)(H). On the other hand, for any reasons their is a delay, or if people prefer the new H express, they can take the shuttle from the Far Rockaway side to the Rockaway Park side.
The P will be more of a burden than a meaningful form of transporation. I don't see a real use to it, although, I use the Essex Street station quite often.
Anyhow, please contact the MTA to tell them that they should consider the new H service. And I will like to hear your comment.
Would any of these plans increase service to 2nd Avenue (my home stop when I visit NYC!), Delancey, East B'way, and York Street?
Thank's for the feedback, but I have to disagree. They is already adequate service between 59th Street and 145th Street. Four lines, 2 local (B,C) and 2 express (A,D). How many should they be? The A probably run the best of the other lines; coming from Lefferts Blvd, Far Rockaway, and Rockaway Park. On the other hand, the N in Astoria sits along, not running as often then the A, B, C, & D trains.
Meanwhile, support the H line by writting to the MTA.
A better new service rush-hour only configuration would be to run trains from Canarsie, through Broadway Junction, then along the Broadway express track into Essex Street, connecting to the 6th Avenue local terminating at 21st Street Queens. Call it the 'K' train.
********** MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY !!! ****************
Let's hear it for the "K" train! (Rush hours only, natch! - and
an Orange sign to boot.)
Wayne, I don't like the K idea. First of all, I think the F serves the Essex Street station adequately. Besides, you will have to run less F's to allow this useless service through. Do you think people will get off the J & M lines to get on this (k) train? If they do, their stupid. The F comes more often because of the overcrowding stations on it route.
James raised an even worse idea than your's (my opinion). He wanted a P going to 145th Street and B full time service. It will use the 6 Avenue Local F train route. This will not only burben the F, but the B and D which uses that same track at 145th Street.
I'm proposing a H train via the 6Ave Local trackage. It will operate from/to 57th Street (M) and Rockaway Park (Q). Service to that area will be greatly improve, not to mention, airport riders as well. Of course, extending the C to Lefferts Blvd - eliminating the extra A route is also being proposed.
Don't get me wrong! I think the "H" concept is an excellent one, esp. if it runs as an express along Fulton Street. And the "C" to Lefferts Boulevard is another very good idea. One minor adjustment - your
express would have to start at Euclid Avenue, as the center track
from Rockaway Blvd. west leads only to the Pitkin Avenue Yard.
However, the "K" I propose would run
a) limited service only during rush hours
b) from Canarsie
c) express from Eastern Parkway to Marcy Avenue (peak direction only)
d) express via 6th Ave peak direction only
It would be best to run this only from 7:30AM to 8:30AM and from 4:30PM to 6:00PM, much like the "Z" runs, and only on, say, a 12-minute headway.
My theory is that if you provide more and better service, the
riders will use the system more, so there is room for both of these
proposed routes.
Wayne
Wayne: Tell me something, do you think the riders will support this service? I don't ride the J, M, Z very often, but when I do, it's practically empty - especially towards the Manhattan direction during the PM rush. I don't know the situation during the Morning rush. Furthermore, many of the passengers get off at Essex Street to transfer for F trains.
You mention the "K" will run every twelve minutes and operate only rush hours. If you are not aware, the F train runs every 5 minutes during this period. Why? Because of passenger over crowding on this line. Check out the Lexington Avenue station or the 53rd Street station. There's practically very little standing room.
I see some possibilities in your "K" plan. Maybe this line could terminate at 179th Street; returning F train express service beyond Continental Avenue. Still one problem remands. How often a train comes into the station. Every twelve minutes during rush hours isn't going to cut it. Maybe, sending the G might eliviate the situation to some degree. As you know, the R was running to 179th Street for a short while, but due to inadequate service, they push it back to 71st Continental Avs.
This center track is useless? Doesn't the center track drop underneath the Grant street station. What happens from there I don't know. All I know there is a great possibility of running express. Are you tell me after Grant, they don't follow the same path as the trains above?
Back to the "K". It should be express? Why? Does it cross into the D tracks or F tracks? There's already three trains on the express route and one on the local route.
Maybe the MTA should move the Q from sixth Avenue to Broadway replacing it with the new "K". On 6th Avenue will be Sixth Avenue Express: B, D, "K", or Sixth Avenue Local: F "H". I will prefer H on express track (smaller letter than "K"), however, it has to meet the C & E after West 4th Street.
The Astoria N train could use some serious upgrading. Maybe this line could be the Q express (Ditmars Blvd or Brighton Beach).
Yes, when the Manhattan Bridge is fixed, by all means move
the "Q" to Broadway! And maybe send the "B" up Eighth Avenue
(it goes to 168th Street during the day) during the rush hours
if the 6th Avenue gets overcrowded.
The center track of the "A" line does indeed lead straight
into the Pitkin Avenue Yard, so says the track map in this
web site. Another yard track leads from Euclid Avenue, forming a letter "Y". A new switch would be needed - OR - if express
service is a must, send the train past the station with a toot
of its horn instead of stopping, like they do on the "J"/"Z"
skip-stop. (Can't easily place a switch right after Hudson Street-
a curve's there, plus a downhill ramp)
The more I look at the "H" proposal, the more I like it,
especially the express-on-Fulton street aspect. It could help
people move from JFK Airport to Midtown, (like the old "Train
To the Plane" did). It would certainly give improved service
on a branch of the system that sorely needs it.
As for the "K", one of its main purposes is to give Canarsie
riders a one-seat ride to Midtown. And part of the reason for
emptiness on the "J"/"Z" is that it goes DOWNTOWN, not to
Midtown and once there, it ENDS. 8-to-10-minute headway on
"K" might be better, along with a little more time, especially
if planning to run it through to Queens.
Diverting the "B" to 8th Avenue and the "Q" to Broadway would
give a "D-H" express and "F-K" local on 6th Avenue, and an "A-B" express with "C-E" local on 8th Avenue. The "B" would switch to
local above 59th Street. "K" service to Queens probably would work
too - through Express to 179th Street is sorely missed, though
I think that when they open the 63d Street connection, the "Q"
will fill this void.
Again, diversion of "Q" to Broadway will have to wait until
the bridgework is done.
I am going to work out some paper schedules and route maps for all of this. One more question - sign for "H" - Orange or Blue?
"K" should be orange.
Can't forget the mapmakers' task sorting all this out.
Thanks for the input
Wayne
The only problem with a switch stops on the H lines is that the A and C local will have to stop at those stations.
The Financial District isn't as important as Midtown? And do you think people will be willing to wait the extra twelve minutes so that they can get a one seat ride through 6th Avenue?
The problem with the H express and the K local, is that the H will have to go on the express track and K on the local track after W. 4th Street. That could mean plenty of delays.
Since lines are given their designated color according to the midtown route, both H and K should be orange.
Regarding your comment about the Pitkin Yard, how much work will it take to send the H through there?
If they (MTA) approve the K route (6th Avenue Express), the Q should be sent to Broadway. They wouldn't be no use for it there. The N and R is dieing for another train on Broadway.
And finally, where should this "K" terminate, 179th Street/Jamaica? Note: They are already a Q and possibly a H terminating at 57th Street and Central Park West is covered.
Thank's Wayne.
Regarding the Hudson Street dilemma:
The only place I could see a switch being installed is either
right east of Hudson Street or right in the middle of the station.
Dont forget, once they make that curve, the middle track drops down
(you can see it where it dives under Grant Avenue station right
at the tunnel portal). Or they could try this: close off the "Y"
and make it a "T", with a section of track connecting the two
yard leads (The Rockaway Branch has this sort of connecting track between the two legs).
Yes, there could be a bottleneck at West 4th - maybe one line could
use the switch below the station and the other the one above it.
Careful scheduling is the key here.
179th Street makes sense for a "K" terminal, and if the "Q" should invade there, why not Jamaica Center/Parsons-Archer, since it would only run during the rush?
Oh, yes, the financial district is VERY important, but the demographics seem to indicate that a significant number of the people who work there commute from the suburbs (LI, NJ) and the outer boroughs. Commuters from LI don't often get off at Jamaica to hop aboard a "J" train to Wall Street, they get off at Penn or Flatbush Avenue and ride the "A" or #2/#3/#4. During my May 28 ride, which saw me riding various "J"s and "Z"s at the height of the rush, there were
standees, but none of the trains were packed. I DID notice, however,
during my transfer to the "L" at Eastern Parkway, that the "L" trains
had considerably more people aboard than either "J" or "Z", and
when I tried to board an "A" downstairs (8:40am) I could barely get on! By Nostrand Avenue, it was Sardine City. I had to fight my
way off at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Street. This train was a 10-car R-38.
This bears out your theory that additional Fulton Street Express
Service is badly needed AND that many Canarsie Line riders may be heading in a direction other than downtown. Also, having the "B"
to help the "A" out on 8th Avenue might go over well with those who
are heading from Penn Station to the financial district.
You're absolutely right. Headway (12 minutes) is too long, should be consistent with other rush hour services.
A historical note: according to one of the contributors, one of the
original plans was to have the OLD "BB" train run the route from
168th Street-Broadway in Manhattan to 168th Street in Jamaica.
This predated the actual construction of the Essex/Chrystie/Houston
link-up. By the time they opened it, the "B" had taken over and
the feeble "KK" service they instituted was using it, lasting only
until about 1974 or 1975.
Full steam a"H"ead with your plans! By all means, let Jay Street
know. Shall I draw up a couple of maps (GIF files) and mail them to you?
Cheers,
Wayne
I have trouble with the switch track plan. The K and H will have to switch twice, bottle-necking with the A, C, E, B, D, and F trains. It will be much easier to keep H on local track, and K on express track.
Your right about the L train, it's very crowded. A "K" to Canarsie might do very well there. Throwing it into 179 Street will also be good.
Maybe every twelve minutes is good, to keeping trains from bottle-necking with each other. After 71st Street Continential Avenue, the K can be express to 179th, while the F local. The K will be a faster addition to the F line from Broadway Lafayette to 179th Street.
Doesn't the C run regularly on 8th Avenue? After 50th Street, it is copple with E support.
Yes, send me the GIF files. Must be a GIF extention - machine can't read anything else.
Thanks Wayne.
One thing that was not picked up by anybody is that if the B is sent over to 8th Av. to "help" theA, it will not be able to access the Manhattan Bridge and its' Brooklyn route. ESPECIALLY not from the 8th Av. exp tracks. Only the local tracks of both lines connect at W4th, and only with 2 switches could bridge trains acces 8th Av-- and then ONLYnorthbound! Now if the Rutgers-Dekalb connection is built, you could switch the B over like that (it would still have to be local though) Then you could also have the V(63rd St) switch over and run out on Fulton St to Euclid or the Rockaways.
My idea for the Eastern Div is to have the K run from Canarsie, to 168th (If the V is running on 63rd), on weekends, and the Mwould run to Chambers. To avoid the charge of "Not enough ridership to justify 2 services on both Canarsie and Bway-Bklyn lines", I would suggest cutting the L to Atlantic and the J to Eastern Pkwy, but I don't know if they could get away with the inconvienience that would place on some people who enjoy the existing service and would have to make additional transfers.
I forgot to mention it Eric. The B will have to switch twice; after W. 4th Street to the F train tracks and after Broadway Lafayette. Regarding the A, switching is impossible unless they decide to rebuild the old Culver Shuttle route into the 9th Avenue Station. However, that is unlikely. I believe it was Wayne who suggested that the B help out the A. What about the C was my question.
Anyway, what do you think of my H line proposal, Eric? Do you think there some worthfulness for this service?
H - (6 Avenue Local) From/to 57th Street (M) or Rockaway Park (Q). Everyday 6AM - 12AM. Operates on the Q route, F route, C & E route after W. 4th Street, and A route. 6th Avenue Local, Fulton Street Express, and Liberty Avenue Express peak hours (Euclid Avenue and Aqueduct North Conduit). Benefits: Increase service in Brooklyn and Queens, express service provided everyday, direct link to 6th Avenue, and faster service for passengers going to the Airport or the Rockaways.
S - (Rockaway Shuttle) From/to Far Rockaway (Q) or Rockaway Park (Q). All the times. Benefits: Good for passengers traveling from one part of the Rockaways to another, connecting passengers to either the A or faster alternative, "H".
C - (8th Avenue Local) From/to 168th Street (M) or Euclid Avenue (B) and Lefferts Blvd (Q). Weekdays 6AM - 12AM. 8th Avenue, Fulton Street and Liberty Avenue Local. Benefits: More frequent service to Lefferts Blvd during the Weekdays. Note: Every one train that terminate at Euclid Avenue, two or three trains should terminate at Lefferts Blvd.
Other times (Weekends 6AM - 12AM) to World Trade Center (M).
S - (Liberty Avenue Shuttle) From/to Euclid Ave (B) or Lefferts Blvd (Q). Nights.
A - (8th Avenue Express) From/to 207th Street (M) or Far Rockaway (Q). All the times. 8th Avenue Express (Everyday 6AM - 12AM), Fulton Street Express (Weekdays 6AM - 12AM), and Queens Local. Benefits: more trains focus in the Far Rockaway terminal.
A - (8th Avenue Express) From/to 207th Street (M) or Lefferts Blvd (Q). Weekends 6AM - 12AM. 8th Avenue Express and Fulton Street Local. Benefits: Same as Before.
Q - (6th Avenue Express) From/to 57th Avenue (M) or Brighton Beach (B). Rush hours. Benefits: Reduce congestion on the possible "H" Line.
During Weekdays the H should run more often then the A, A more often than the C.
Subject title "The P and the H sure" was first posted by James Rivera.
Not sure about the P plan, but, I like the K (Wayne's) plan alot.
My proposal for the K service.
K - (6th Avenue Express) From/to 179th Street (Q) or Rockaway Parkway (B). Rush hour service. Operates on the old F route, E & F route, B & D route after 47-50th Street, Christie Street Connection, J, M, Z route, note: express after Mytle Avenue to Broadway Eastern Parkway. Hillside Avenue, Queens Blvd, and 6th Avenue Express. Express on Broadway (peak direction) on the J, & Z lines. Benefits: Reduce over crowding on L line, replace Q service which is badly needed on Broadway (N & R route), and restoring rush hour express service after Union Turnpike into 179th St. Jamaica.
Q - (Broadway Local) From/to Ditmars Blvd (Q) or Brighton Beach (B). Rush hour service. Broadway and Brighton Local. Benefits: Improve service on the N line in Astoria.
D - (6th Avenue Express) From/to 205th Street (BX) or Coney Island (B). Grand Concourse Express peak direction, 6th Avenue Express, and Brighton Express rush hours.
What does everyone think?
Well, I just couldn't see them having 3 services on Fulton St., even though it might be useful. --unless the Williamsburg bridge is out. (During the crash they sent the E out, I think exp. to Euclid). Hopefully then they'll increase service on both Fulton and 14ht St, Canarsie likes(they can try out a proposal to have a new "K" run skip-stop with the "L". The tunnel fan work should be finished by then)
But as for new services to 57th, they generally don't start things like that while disruption is in progress. They would wait until the entire 63rd St rebuilding and connection is finished, and then whattever goes to 57th would extend to 179. ASo keep this in mind when you make service plan ideas. I'd certainly like to see the Eastern div. improvement I just mentioned soon, but I know not to push it when the Bridge service is going to be completely cut off next year. It will have to wait until it reopens. It is not useful to improvise during such a period of transition as this. (That's why they didn't send the Q back to Bway the month that bridge was fully open in '90. I lived on the Brighton and needed to get to Lexingtom@60th and was disappointed, but they felt it would have been too much changing back and forth for the people.)
Understand your dissatifaction with the K concept, because of future closure of the Williamburg Bridge. However, I have trouble digesting your view about this new H line.
Creation of the H line, will not cause disruption to the train system. It will enhance it. Especially where this line is really needed, the Rockaways.
I can't see your orMTA's logic in providing one service (A) into three different terminals. Ultimately, riders who live at one of those terminals, have to wait twice or three times as long as riders living in Brooklyn or Manhattan.
Finally, If the riders of this line were of the same type of people living in southern Booklyn, then maybe, the support for the new H line will be overwhelming.
The Q service is a total screw up! First of all, the Q should have never been designated as an express on 6th Avenue or the Brighton area. Most of the time it's almost practically empty.
On the other hand, the D should have been the express train. However, since it serves a population who don't run this city, it was changed!
I say, the Q should be restricted to rush hour service from 57th St. (M) or Brighton Beach (B). Meanwhile, the H plan should be implemented; using the same 57th Street terminal.
To wrap up, it appears that biases sure does play a role in what service are upgraded, even though most of the people using that service are racial "minorities".
Iwasn't saying i was dissatisfied with the K, just not to expect any changes until around the turn of the millenium when the bridge opens up. What i was saying about the H is that you have it going to 57th, but that will not always be a terminal. Regular service to 21st St is also supposed to resume next year sometime, and then in a coule of years, it will be connected to Queens Blvd. If I remember correctly, you already have your "K" going out there with the F. So you have to keep that in mind. They are not going to bother making these major changes in routing until all the construction with its diversions is completed, both extensions, and closures and reopenings. So it's a good idea to work with the completed system when planning routing ideas.
Looking ahead, you could have both the H and K run through 63rd and one go local in Queens and the other express, but my idea for that was to have the Q, returned to Broadway, extend through the connection and provide express service (since the current R-60th St feeds into the local), while the extra 6th Av service (H, K, V, whatever), would be local since the F-53rd St feeds into the express)
This would eliminate alot of crossing over for local passengers for 6th Av., and people further out on the line heading for Bway, who want to ride express. This would further reduce dwell time as well. And you would still have the extra servies for express to 179th.
I don't like the three-pronged A either. For aesthetic purposes, I wouldn't mind if they returned the whole Rockaway section to the LIRR, and then the A would only have to worry about Lefferts, but the riders out there would then only have direct acess to Flatbush Ave or Penn Sta., rather than subway service that runs the length of Manhattan. I always felt there shhuold be a line all the way down Flatbush Ave, that would cross over or the Marine Pkwy bridge, and then connect at Rockaway Pk. A new westbond track would be built flying over the wye, connecting B67 and B90. (this would really be needed for your shuttle idea as well). Or light rail, from the unused lower level of Nevins St, to the Rockaways, since Rock Park is on street level. In both plans, the A would only have to go to Far Rockaway, (It could be shared with light rail) while the Rockaway Park branch would have service from the West
I miss understood you and apologize for that. Anyway, how long should passengers wait before service is upgraded? We pay far too much for inadequate subway service.
57th Street has been a terminal station for many years. Simply cutback the Q line; limiting it to rush hour service. In it's place, should be the H line, running everyday 6am - 12am.
The K should be put on the back-burner until most of the construction projects are completed.
Regarding your idea about the Brooklyn IRT line into the Rockaways, I've been thinking along those lines. It might be a faster alternative into lower Manhattan.
I'm putting my map on the back burner for the time being... As it
is, it has the "H" in full, revised "K", 2nd Ave as originally
planned, and "M" rush hour to Brighton Beach via "D" line and
revised "Q". I will watch postings for a few more days and see
what else develops, taking notes as needed.
Thanks
Wayne
indeed I have been working on my version of the map. Yesterday I sent the letter to E. Virgil Conway it my line. Well I will rest for a couple of days and keep watching the postings.
My Sexond Avenue Line will just do that it will go from River Park Towers to Beach Channel Drive a 40 Mile Trip it is a Express. From the stations below it goes down Utica Avenue then turns on to Flatbush Avenue goes on a new bridge and terminates.
Utica Avenue
Eastern Parkway
Empire Blvd
Winthrop Street
Church Avenue
Beverly Avenue
Avenue D
Farragut Avenue
Avenue H
Flatland Avenue
Avenue N
Flatbush Avenue
Floyd Bennet Field
Beach Channel Drive
You REALLY need a stop at Kings Plaza!
Meanwhile, I'm just going to sit back and wait for all this dust
to settle before going back to work on my map.
Thanks
Wayne
The Flatbush Avenue Stop is right under the Kings County Mall
Hi James
That's OK - except, meybe we would be better off calling it
"Avenue U - Kings Plaza" (with white, aquamarine, dk.brown &
sky blue tiles in a geometric pattern, big white "U" on Dk blue
& dk brown panels (4x6feet) on either side of exits.
Lt.grey & olive green pattern tile on floor. 2 side platforms
with walkway overhead (like 21-Queensbridge) plus direct access
to mall)
thanx
Wayne
This may have been addressed earlier, but why not have the H continue on the current F trackage from West 4th Street to Jay Street and then switch to the A trackage? It seems like it would eliminate a switch and save time. Or is there some reason the route must serve lower Manhattan?
Good idea, except I have seen trains waiting there for nearly five minutes. Otherwise I don't see a major problem with this alternative route.
My proposed map will be undergoing revision along Queens Blvd. etc.
over the course of the evening, due to the sizeable number of changes
proposed. Your "H" stands, in fact, maybe 24/7 (or all but Nite Owl)
and "Q" will go to Astoria, not 179th St. New "T" alternates with
"B" (runs to 57th/7th when "B" is not operating) "D" express
will be added. What about adding the "M" as Brighton Local when
D & Q are express? (They did this before) ("J" is out - Montague
tunnel's at capacity unless "N" is rerouted over Bridge)
SWITCHES AT WEST 4TH ST WILL HAVE TO BE ADDED/REVISED (add that
to your capital costs along with the Grant Avenue construction)
All changes (except "H" contingent) upon the following:
a) Manhattan Bridge work is complete
b) 63rd St.connection is complete.
I will start work at 8 tonight.
Wayne
I like to see the finish product when it's completed. Meanwhile, I heard the M on the brighton line wasn't a good sell. Most of their rider were coming from 4th Avenue. Although, during the early 80's it was very interesting. It use to race with the D; D always winning to the next station. On the other hand, compare with the J, it was a faster alternative, beating J to the next station. Of course, the D used the R 40, M R 30, and the J used and even slower model. It's not that D train is fast (it never was!, especially compare to the A, B, and C lines), but in comparison to BMT trains (at the time, and so what now), it is.
No one can beat the Express 4 train when it goes Express between 125 to 86 Street it can reach speeds up 45 miles per hour cause the track is so straight if you put it up againest any other line in the system they would loose. That would be cool if they put the Q back on the Broadway and became Express on the Sea Beach Line and they made the Express station platforms on the Brighton Line IRT size so that they can have an IRT direct line to Coney Island (Well I can dream can't I?)
I agree, the 4 is one of the fastest in the system. What about the A express from 125th Street to 59th Street?
It moves! Especially the R38s. (now the R10 - that REALLY moved!)
Actually, I've seen it go faster between 59th & 42nd than from
125th to 59th.
One question re Brighton service proposed - if D and Q are both
rush hour express, who's at Avenue J and so on?
Thanks
Wayne
Once I get this resolved I'll start working on the map again.
I'm thinking now rather than waste some of the work I did, just
fill it out and make it a full B-Division work with ALL the lines,
from A to Z, including H, revised Q, maybe even K and T too.
Simple. The Q should become a local, and D express. Remember, the D has a longer route into upper Manhattan and the Bronx. Besides, many people ride the D train from Brooklyn into the Bronx.
Your right about the A b/t 59th Street and 42nd Street, it's fast. However, I was talking about the Harlem routes. The A is the fastest train, skipping 7 stops. Also, it never switches off the track, which slowest the train down. For a long time, it was the only train that didn't switch off the track. The D switch twice (before/after 59th St and 145th St), B use to switch once (before/after 59th Street) and the C switch once (after/before 135th St).
The 38's was the fastest trains on this line until they combine them with the 32's. Also, serious modifications were done to slow them down.
I use to like the speed of the uptown A before (38's) it arrived at the West 4th St. station. Four cars will be traveling at full speed before the train stops.
The A is known for busting into the station. However, the D traveling on the same route never does. It is also pretty sluggish, and stops in the tunnel alot.
But no train is as slow as the N train. When both are arriving at the Dekalb Station, the D goes around the turn alot faster than the N. It even closes it doors and moves out the station faster. The route has nothing to do with this. Even the R travels faster.
The big problem with the N, is that the train never seems to come. Once you get on it, it does seem to get you there, although it could be faster. On the other hand, the D does come often, but once you on it, don't expect to get to your destination on time.
Maybe what the MTA should do, is rename the D to DN and N to ND, because maybe both can compensate each other.
I couldn't decide where to jump in on this thread...
I agree: back when the R-10s ruled the A line, they flew between 59th and 125th. Going northbound, once you reached 81st St., you had a full head of steam. The biggest thrill was the southbound run from 59th to 42nd - it was all downhill just past 50th St. where the E joins in, and by the time you reached the uptown platform at 42nd, that train was screaming. God forbid if one ever derailed there.
The slant R-40s saw action on the A line in the late 70s, and they were just as fast - but nothing could compare with those two-tone, white-and-teal, R-10s. I loved them every bit as much as the R-1/9s; unfortunately, I only rode on maybe five A trains of R-1/9s, and never between 59th and 125th (D, yes; A, no), but luckily did catch one once between 59th and 42nd - and the first car didn't have headlights! Talk about howling motors!
Referring to a previous response concerning a K express: only the local tracks have interconnections between the 6th and 8th Ave. lines south of W. 4th St.; the express tracks do not. Also, the Essex St. connection is tied to the F (local) tracks under Houston St, whereas the Chrystie St. connection leads to the express (B, D) tracks.
I don't know what the different between the Christie Street connection or the Essex street connection. Please explain further?
Hi Chris -
I need your 'station list' for the uptown part of your 2nd Avenue
proposal! Also - the "Y" goes crosstown at 125th - your far uptown
would be the "Y" or the Broadway line?
[Thanx]
Wayne
This is going to be a long one.
From 125th Street/Manhattan (New 2nd Avenue Line)
125th Street
116th Street
106th Street
96 Street (Express Stop)
86th Street
79th Street
72nd Street
66th Street
59th Street
50th Street
42nd Street (Express Stop)
34th Street
23rd Street Avenue C Division
14th Street (Exp. Stop)Transf. L 1stAve 1st Ave (14th Street) t/L
St. Mark's Place 8th Street
Houston Street - Transfer F 2nd Ave. Houston Street
Grand Street (Exp. Stop)Transf B,D,Q Grand Street
Back into main route
Chatham Square (Worth Street)
Pine/Wall Street
Whitehall Street - Transfer N & R lines.
125th Street Crosstown starting from 2nd Avenue
Lexington Avenue - Transfer 4, 5, & 6
Lenox Avenue - Transfer 2 & 3
St. Nicholas Avenue - Transfer A, B, C, & D
Broadway - Transfer - 1/9
Now for the Bronx from 125th Street
Traveling on Third Avenue Route
138th Street - Transfer 6 (3rd Avenue)
149th Street - Transfer 2 & 5 (3rd Avenue)
161st Street
167/168th Sts.
Claremont Parkway
Termont Avenue
183rd Street
Webster Avenue (Fordham Road)
Grand Concourse - Transfer B & D (Fordham Road)
Jerome Avenue - Transfer 4 (Forham Road)
Sedgwick Avenue (Fordham Road)
South East Bronx Route
3rd Avenue & 138th Street (Share station with 3rd Avenue line) - Transfer 6 (3rd Avenue)
Hunts Point Avenue - Transfer 6 (Southern Blvd)
Long Fellow Avenue (Lafayette Avenue)
Soundview Avenue (Lafayette Avenue)
White Plains Road (Lafayette Avenue)
Castle Hill Avenue (Lafayette Avenue)
Termont Avenue (Barkley Avenue)
Randall Avenue (Termont Avenue)
Lawton Avenue (Termont Avenue)
Trains might be IRT type 8, 9, 10
Any comments Wayne?
Here it is the Station List hope it is good you were close Chris.
2 Avenue Local/ 8 Train 2 Avenue Express/ 10 Train
Gun Hill Road River Park Towers
210 Street Jerome Avenue
204 Street Webster Avenue
200 Street Third Avenue
Fordham Road Crotona Avenue
180 Street Southern Blvd
Claremont Parkway Boston Road
168 Street White Plains Road
156 Street Westchester Avenue
149 Street Brunckner Blvd
138 Street Lafayette Avenue
133 Street/ Bruckner Blvd Rosedale Avenue
125 Street/ Manhattan Hunts Point Avenue
116 Street Longwood Avenue
110 Street 149 Street
103 Street St. Ann's Avenue
96 Street 138 Street
86 Street 133 Street
77 Street 125 Street/ Manhattan
68-67 Streets 86 Street
59 Street 68-67 Streets
42-44 Streets/ United Nations 42-44 Streets/ United Nations
33 Street 14 Street
28 Street Houston Street
23 Street Canal Street
14 Street Vessy Street
East 8th Street Court Street/ Brooklyn
Houston Street Bergan Street
Grand Street Utica Avenue
Canal Street Eastern Parkway
Bowery Street Empire Blvd
Chambers Street Winthrop Street
Vessy Street Church Avenue
South Street Beverly Avenue
Court Street/ Brooklyn Avenue D
Jay Street Farragut Avenue
Bergen Street Avenue H
4th Avenue Flatland Avenue
Prospect Park West Avenue N
Franklin Avenue Flatbush Avenue
Brooklyn Avenue Floyd Bennet Field
Utica Avenue Beach Channel Drive
Hi Chris
This is my Second Avenue Line as I have it so far:
Broadway transfer 1,9
St.Nicholas-Douglass transfer A,B,C,D
Lenox transfer 2,3
Lexington transfer 4,5,6
116th Street
106th Street
96th Street
86th Street
72nd Street
(the line going down Broadway diverges here)
47th-Hammarskjold Plaza
Kips Bay (34th-36th St)
Turtle Bay (23rd St)
East Village (8th St)
Grand Street transfer B,D
Chatham Sq-Chinatown (Canal)
Fulton St-South St.Seaport
South Terminal (Water/Whitehall)
I'm not 100% sure about the NE Bronx part, not that I don't agree
with the concept, I'm just trying to digest the logistics of it.
Are we talking an IRT line up there? I was under the impression that
the built parts of 2nd Ave would all be "B" division type construction, that is, IND/BMT compatible. Maybe you and C.James
can hammer out a combined service between you two.
As for the map, I'm just picking at it right now. Letter routes
only. Done w/Bronx & all Manh. above 34 St. The fun part is yet
to come. Dave P has requested photos so I'm scanning stuff too.
Hope to hear from you!
AND FEEL FREE TO E'MAIL ME, Okay? We're all on the same track here!
Wayne
WLWhitehorne@compuserve.com...
Wayne, your mixing the 125th St. Crosstwon with main line? And maybe, 2nd Ave can use IRT/IND type cars.
Crosstown
Broadway (125th St.) 1,9
St. Nicholas Avenue (125th St.) A,B,C,D
Lenox Avenue (125th St.) 2,3
Park/Lexington Avs. (125th) 4,5,6 & Metro North Railroad
Connects with main line at 125th St. (2nd Avenue)
2nd Avenue Main Lines
125th Street (2nd Avenue) Express Stop
116th Street (2nd Avenue)
106th Street (2nd Avenue)
96th Street (2nd Avenue) Express Stop
86th Street (2nd Avenue)
79th Street (2nd Avenue)
72nd Street (2nd Avenue)
59th Street (2nd Avenue)
50th Street (2nd Avenue)
42nd Street (2nd Avenue) Express Stop
34th Street (2nd Avenue)
23rd Street (2nd Avenue)
Avenue C line diverts from main line onto L route tracks.
14th Street (2nd Avenue) t/L and Express Stop
St. Mark's Place (2nd Avenue)
Houston Street (2nd Avenue) F
Grand Street (Chrystie St.) t/B,D,Q and Exp. Stop
Chatham Square-ChinaTown
Avenue C line reconnects into main line
South Street Seaport (Peal Street)
Pine & Wall Streets (Water Street)
Whitehall Street (Water Street) N,R
Avenue C Division
1st Avenue (14th Street) L
Avenue B (14th Street) enters at Ave. B
8th Street (Avenue C)
Houston Steet (Avenue C)
Grand Street (Pitt Avenue)
Essex Street (East Bwy) F
Eldridge Street (East Bwy)
reconnects with main line near Worth Street
Bronx lines
Third Avenue and Lafayette Avenue
Hi all,
I hope someone had a chance to take photos of the Franklin Av Shuttle before the line is renovated and post on the internet!
I would do it, but I'm in Colorado :o(
Michael Adler
USPS Letter Carrier in Denver, ColorFUL Colorado
I have read books and looked in this site and all I see is R- followed by the model and all I want to know what does that R stand for? The nuber at top I just used them at random.
Hello James
The "R" stands for "Revenue", in Contract R-143, and all other
"R" contracts, since the first one (R-1) was let in 1931.
It was supposed to designate "Revenue" equipment only (i.e.
passenger cars), but, over time, it has come to encompass ALL
equipment purchased for TA use - cranes, work cars, utility equipment
etc. etc., even for non-rolling-stock items (i.e.R-106 thru R-109
are for Design Studies, not equipment).
A COMPLETE LIST OF ALL "R" CONTRACTS MAY BE FOUND AT:
http://www.quuxuum.org/~joekor/rroster.htm
Wayne
Pretty cool list there! Any chance you could add dates to it?
Dave,
That you would have to take up with Joe Korman.
I'm sure he has an E-mail address somewhere in his site.
Myself, I find that document indispensable.
Wayne
Actually, despite all the posting tot he contrary, the 'R', I'm told, refers to RAPID (Transit). R as in R-3 was used back in 1932 to identify an (Non-revenue)electric locomotive purchased for the IND.
Sounds logical to me Steve. But then, there's the R8-A which was a non-revenue revenue car. :-)
-Dave
The R stands for Revenue. That was the terminology used by the Independent Subway System (IND) for all purchases related to subway cars and related equipment purchases. After the unification the practice stuck. The contract number (i.e. 143) is actually the last 3 digits of the full contract number.
Nostalgia Break --
Back in the 50s through the 60s, extra stopping mark signs (those signs with numbers which tell the motorman where to stop based on the train length) were introduced on the BMT. These were for the 'R-series' cars (originally IND cars temporarily assigned to the BMT, later for the R-16, R-27/30, and R-32), which were only 60' long compared to the 67' BMT Standards. These signs were square and yellow with black letters/numbers (compared to the BMT stopping marks which were round, blue with white numbers, except for the 8).
If I recall correctly, they had a diagonal line running upper left-lower right, a letter 'R' in the upper right corner, and a number in the lower left, sort of (I know my ascii art isn't great):
-------
|\ R|
|8\ |
-------
The southern division (lines which ran though DeKalb Ave.) only had
'R' stopping marks for 8 cars, I recall seeing 'R-6' stopping marks on the Nassau Loop and Broadway-Brooklyn/Jamaica lines.
There is a photo of such a sign in Under the Sidewalks of New York. It shows a circular sign with a "5" denoting the stopping mark for a 5-car train of BMT standards, along with a square sign with 6/R, for a 6-car train of 60-foot R units. Ed, did BMT standards ever run in 5-car trains? All I remember is seeing 6-car trains on the Canarsie line.
Speaking of nostalgia, there used to be placards in BMT stations during the 60s, when the old numbered routes were being phased out and letter designations were starting to appear. It started out with, "Know trains at a glance - by the large letter in front". It proceeded to list the new letters along with the old Brooklyn titles:
M - Nassau St. Express
N - Sea Beach Express
Q - Brighton Express
QB - Brighton Local via Bridge
QT - Brighton Local via Tunnel
RR - 4th Ave. Local
T - West End Express
TT - West End Local
No numbers were cross-referenced.
I remember seeing these placards along the Broadway line in 1967; after the Chrystie St. connection opened, they were removed. The Shoreline Museum has one in the maintenance barn.
I remember these! 1966, at the 49th Street Station (Easter Sunday,
April 10, the time I got lost on the Broadway Line, wound up at
Union Street Bklyn - ALONE! I'll tell the whole tale another time)
I wonder why the "M" was the only Eastern Division line to get a
letter - and couldn't wear it (most of the time) - they were running
those B-type BMT Standards, weren't they? I didn't see letters on
the Eastern Division until Dec.23, 1967 on the way back from a trip
through tne new Grand St. station. ("D" to "F" to "QJ" home)
And wasn't the Nassau Loop express via Bridge (if there WAS one -
via Culver?) known as "M" too (ran in 1964 or so?)
Wayne
The Eastern Div. did get the letters at the same time--with the delivery of the R-27's in 1960. They were all on the rollsigns. The Eastern div. didn't get any of the new cars yet, so the letters didn't appear, and they used the "M" for both Southern div. Nassau specials.
Wanye
I just recently heard of the "Banker's Specials" also. I had a hard enough time understanding the good old "Myrt" showing up on the "Brighton" and then the" West End" (or did I just reverse the sequence). A loop through the Montague and over the Manhattan had me wondering how it ever got to Metropolitan.
R = Rapid Transit
When it looped around, it didn't do to Metropolitan. There were two separate services. Metropolitan service was still called #10 and only went to Chambers. Even though the M was intended for this service, it was used on the southern division loops because the southern div. had the newer cars with the letter designations. When Chrystie opened, the loop service ended and the letters became universal for the B division, and it then designated Metroploitan service. It would still be another 5 years before it reached the Brighton, though, replacing the QJ
In a previous posting, I alluded to the placards which were prominently displayed on BMT station platforms during the 60s when numbered routes on the Southern Division were being phased out and letter designations were being implemented. The M was referred to as the Nassau St. Express, which would have been applicable to the Bankers Specials as well as the #10 Myrtle Ave.-Chambers service which eventually was renamed the M. Of course, when the Chrystie St. connection opened, the bridge-to-Nassau loop connection was severed and the Bankers Specials were dropped.
I still find it odd that, although every BMT route had a number, this number was never seen on the train unless it was made up of multisectionals, experimentals (Green Hornet or Zephyr), Triplex units, or R-16s. (Since the BMT standards made up the vast majority of the BMT fleet, you know what I mean.) Even maps didn't always print associated numbers. For instance, my 1948 Hagstrom's BMT map has no number references at all, and even omits the Culver line service description! My mid-60s Hagstrom's map shows letter names for BMT Southern Division routes, but no markings for Eastern Division routes.
At least on the Southern Division, riders had 7 years in some instances to get used to the new letters. On the Eastern Division, the change was much more abrupt. Lettered routes were officially implemented in November of 1967, and even then, Canarsie trains didn't carry LL signs until the R-7/9s began running on that line in early 1969.
I've never seen a map that used te BMT numbers. Southern div letters first used in a TA map on a second printing of the World's Fair edition and the IRT numbers (except 8 for 3rd Av el) were first used in the early 1967 pre-Chrystie map, Basically, letters and numbers seemd to be more for operational use before Chrystie St , when they were pushed as the new universal route identifications. Only on the IND did they become familiar before that.
I have a 1931 BMT map which has, on the back of the map, a full list of the 16 BMT numbers, with descriptions of service using the numbers. Interestingly, the route listings with stations (very much like later strip maps) have additional route numbers, never used except on these maps, so far as I know. Thus, '1 a' is Brighton local, "normal operation, via Montague Street Tunnel"; "1 b" is "Theatre service via Manhattan Bridge," express from 57th Street in Manhattan, across the Bridge, and local in Brooklyn--'Theatre' hours were 7:45 p.m. to midnight; and "1 c" is Brighton Express service from Times Square to Brighton Beach (rush hours and midday on weekdays). Similar listings are for 2 a (Fourth Avenue, Queensborough Plaza to 95th Street), 2 b (a short line midday service, M-F, from 57th Street to Whitehall Street); 3 a. West End Broadway, 3 B, West End Nassau Loop; 5 a. Culver subway, 5 b. Culver el.
The BMT 1939 World's Fair map service listings (on the back of the map) also used all of the numbers, including the lower-case letters, and the list called route 9 "World's Fair--Flushing" instead of "Flushing." This map also has the three 'Special Express Services'--the Fulton--14th Street-Canarsie express as well as the 4th Avenue-Nassau Loop and Brighton Beach-Nassau Loop; none of those listings has a number, though.
For those interested in the Brighton-Franklin service (before the TA did its job on it), this is from the 1931 map (with almost identical language in 1939): "during winter months operates between Franklin Ave. and Prospect Park on week days. On Sundays between 12:40 p.m. and 9 p.m. trains operate between Franklin Ave. and Brighton Beach. During summer months trains operate to Stillwell Ave., Coney Island,using express tracks, except in p.m. rush hours on week days when Coney Island bound trains use local tracks."
The BMT Flushing express service operated from Main St. to Queensborough Plaza 6:34 a.m. to 10:37 a.m. and 11:09 a.m. to 8:09 p.m. leaving Queensborough.
The discussions on car efficiency that have mentioned making reasonable service available at many times other than the crowded times (rush hour) is something that's really been lost in New York, especially since the TA took over. Where are the Sunday expresses to Coney Island, for example, or the evening expresses from central shopping areas that might convince people not to drive to suburban malls, or the specials from the ball parks?
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Oh yeah, how could I forget about that? (I have a 1990's reprint of the 1939 World's Fair Map,) That one did use the numbers with the lowercase letters. The 1910 The Tracks of New York map also has numbers, but except for the Brighton (via Fulton el) being #1, they are all different. Manhatttan el edition also. I don't know if these were official though.
The station lists on those old maps also have transfer information--Sands Street station on the 13-Fulton St. Line has (5) (6) (11) (12) (T) (IS) (Fulton Ferry)--5=Culver, 6=Fifth Avenue-Bay Ridge, 11= Myrtle, 12=Lexington, T=Trolley, IS=Independent System [IND], and the Ferry. West 8th Street on the 1 a-Brighton Local has (5) and (T) for the Culver and the Trolleys; at Atlantic Avenue (Brighton) the list has (LIRR), (IRT), and (T).
I'm not certain I know the 1910 "Tracks of New York" that you mention; some old publications use contract numbers or unofficial indicators for routes. The BMT numbers were not "official" until the PSC assigned or approved them around 1925, but it is possible that there was some set in use prior to that and the BMT might have simply asked for approval of what they were planning to do anyway. I can't imagine some bureaucrat in Albany making the decision that #9 rather than #8 should be Flushing or that #16 should be 14th Street-Canarsie rather than 14th Street (even though the 14th Street Short Line didn't run to Canarsie).
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
I was thinking that might actually be a good idea to run more trains into midtown during weekends for the holiday shopping season, for instance. You can also do things like extend the M train to 6th Avenue during this time, terminating at Queensbridge along with the B.
The eyes of an old man are frustrating. Sorry. I swore I corrected the transposition of NY to YN. Its not a strange name to me. I have a nephew, Wayne
> Ed, did BMT standards ever run in 5-car trains? All I remember is
> seeing 6-car trains on the Canarsie line.
I never saw a 5 car train of standards myself, just 2, 3, 6 and 8. But the way the Standards were designed and grouped into sets, any train length (including single car trains) would have been possible, so it is possible that (especially during the 1940s through early 50s when steel subway cars were in short supply) they ran 4 or 5 car trains.
Brings up an interesting point. In the 50s and 60s, it was normal practice to run shorter trains in non-rush hours. For example, I recall the RR (now R) in running 8 cars rush hour, 6 cars daytime non-rush, and 4 cars (R-units) or 3 cars (standards) late nights (and Sundays?). These days NYCTA seems to run full length trains all day and night.
Even though they weren't BMT Standards, the SIRT cars refurbished for the BMT (with the same basic outer measurements) ran in five-car trains, which really screwed things up for people waiting in the wrong spot for Culver expresses in rush hour. I doubt if most people realized that they weren't native BMT cars even with their more squared-off roof lines and their forward-facing seats. Their motors also sounded more like BQT 6000- or 8000-series trolleys than rapid transit cars (that's impressionistic on my part).
Those cars (numbered 2900-2924) were sometimes called "E" types (next letter in the BMT sequence of A, B, BX, C, and D; there was also a BT designation used for two-car sets 1924-1933 and again in 1959--the BT info is from Sansone's book on NY transit cars).
Five trailers (numbered 2925-2929) turned out not to be usable, otherwise the trains would have had six cars just like the Standards they were replacing.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
The SIRT cars had end vestibules with a single door on each side, as well as a pair of center doors, so naturally the door alignment was different than on the BMT standards, which did not have vestibules. For years, it was thought that the SIRT cars could run in m.u. with the standards; however, when those 25 motor cars arrived on TA property, it was discovered that they would not do so. Consequently, they ran only in solid consists.
As for different train lengths, it was also common to run shorter trains on weekends, especially Sundays. We went to the Museum of Natural History on two different Sundays in May of 1967, and AA trains were 4 cars long on both occasions. On Saturdays at 42nd St., I remember seeing 8-car A trains, 6-car E trains, and 4-car AA trains. As Christmas approached, 10-car A and E trains, along with 8-car AA trains became the norm.
The "electric portion", as installed on the 67-foot cars,
consisted of a "horizontal slide with fingers", no ?
The "e.p." on the SIRT cars looked more like the design
used on the "D-types" and "R-1 thru R-42, R-62 & R-68's":
a vertical 'plate' with buttons, protected by a cover which
would drop when coupled. Obviously, the two car types would not
M.U. because it would be mechanically impossible to 'trainline'
unless the SIRT cars were brought up to 67-foot standards.
Aside from this, were the propulsion and/or brake systems also
incompatible ? Were the "7-point jumpers" (door control)
also a factor ? What needed to be changed to allow M.U.
operation with the 67-footers ? Were the SIRT cars ever
tested for compatibility with the "D-types" ?
I read somewhere that the B.R.T. designed the 67-foot cars
because the P.S.C. had originally mandated that one type of
subway car design was to be used in N.Y.C.: that which the
I.R.T. was using. Supposedly, the I.R.T. had patented the
unique vestibule arrangement used on their cars, which meant
the B.R.T. would have to pay a "royalty" to the I.R.T. for
using this same design on anything they would operate. The end
arrangements of the SIRT cars looked like "Low-V's on steroids".
Did the SIRT (B.& O.) have pay the I.R.T. "royaltys" ?
Thanks.
If I remember from my days from working in the TA's Capital Budget office in 1980, there were other designations for contracts such as: E for electrical equipment, M for Maintenance of Way, S for signals, etc.
Know that, for example, the contract for destination signs which provided the first curtains with the Upper & lower case Helvetica type faces (back in 1981-82) was R-31463 and was known as R-63.
r =rapid transit
Hi all...
For 1-1/2 years, exactly what MTA will do on the shuttle line? list everything if you know :o) eg: convert to one track line? flatform locations? etc...
Thanks,
Michael Adler
USPS Letter Carrier in Denver, ColorFUL Colorado
Station by Station plans:
Prospect Park--ALready Renovated
Botanic Garden--major renovation plus free transfer to IRT 2/3/4/5
Park Place-- Total Rebuild, including ADA elevators.
Franklin Ave--Total Rebuild, includign ADA elevators and common entrance to IND and shuttle with glass enclosed bridge over fulton Street.
Bridges/Tracks--Total rebuild. There will be two track to Park Place and then one track to Franklin.
Guess: Dean Street remains will be totally removed.
**this info compiled from the Franklin Shuttle rebuild brochure plus some conjecture (Dean Street) which is my personal opinion.
Thanks for the info, what about landscaping?
Cheers,
Michael Adler
USPS Letter Carrier in Denver, ColorFUL Colorado
Are there other single-track revenue routes on the system?
And how many tracks are reverse signalled, besides
-Third track express tracks (i think these are only on the IRT
-turnaround tracks
-shuttle tracks (42nd street shuttle, etc.)
i surmise from this message that dean street is an abandoned station...are there any pictures of it anywhere on the net?
Sure are! There are a number of pictures of it scattered thruout this web site (while it was still in service, that is). I'm working on a new search engine that will easily allow these to be found but in the mean time just search for "Dean St." in the main search box on the Main Page.
-Dave
i was checking out the abandoned stations part of the webpage tonight...was looking at the 18th st and 91st st pictures...how the heck do people get into these closed-up abandoned stations to make the graffiti in the first place???
They probably enter at the nearest station and walk down the sides of the tracks. This is obviously very, very dangerous - but it can be done. There is usually enough clearance in case workers are in the tunnels - so you could use that if a train came.
When I was a kid (that makes me sound old) we would walk from one el station to the next along the side walkways on the tracks of the Market Frankford El - just for the hell of it.
In a previous posting, two half-hot cars were reported on the 'Q' line. Those numbers were reported to the General Superintendent of Coney Island. By this time, those cars should be repaired or awaiting repairs. Information like that is very helpful and despite the general public impression, most TA personnel do care about the quality of service. If you do observe a hot car (or any other significant defect), I would be happy to pass that info on to the appropriate maintenance facility. I am especially interested in the following lines: B, D, J, L, M, N, or Q lines.
Thanks, Steve. Just so you know, as of yesterday morning (7/23), 4342 hadn't been repaired.
David
On the local news a few months back, they showed a view from the news
chopper of an intersection in South Philadelphia. If I remember
correctly, it was around 25th St. and Snyder Ave., and there was what
appeared to be some kind of elevated structure on 25th St.. From the
view on TV, the structure appeared to be made of ornate concrete.
Can anyone tell me what this is or was? Was it part of an elevated
line that was never finished? Hope someone can answer this. Thanks.
This was part of the great Pennsylvania Railroad. The "branch" was called the Greenwich Branch, I think. It was the route of many a freight train going to the huge yard complex located just south of the stadium complex.
Years ago, the PRR would transform the freight yard into a passenger terminal for the annual Army-Navy Game on the Saturday after Thanksgiving. Into the 1960's, the PRR scheduled many trains to carry those going to the game into the South Philadelphia yard.
I may be mistaken, but I think the name of the yard was Greenwich. Some of those out there more familiar with the operations may want to correct me or add some comments.
Yes, the freight yard is called Greenwich Yard (in South Phila, this is pronounced as it's spelled, "green' which", not as in NYC, "gren'itch"). I think the 25th St line is called the South Phila Elevated. It was electrified until after the Conrail takeover, and many times during my high school years I could gaze out of classrooms a couple of blocks away and watch GG1's and E44's pull enormous strings of ore and grain cars up and down the line. Allegedly, both CSX and NS will share the line after the takeover to reach both the Greenwich Yard and other new intermodal facilities in the old Navy Yard. Stay tuned.
According to NY1 the MTA is on track to have a surplus of over 100 million dollars. I'm all for improving Mass Transit, but I do believe tha MTA-Bridge and Tunnel tolls are unfairly high. I would like to see the money used for more improvements, but maybe the motorists deserve a break too. I realize EZ pass gives discounts, but it's still expensive.
Spend it, and spend it wisely !!! If not then George Pataki has ways of using it.
-GarfieldA
Sorry, I disagree. Keep the tolls high and encourage people to take mass transit. The current glut of cheap oil is a SERIOUS problem. People are buying big vehicles again, and the Auto manufacturers have figured ways to keep their CAFE's (Corporate Average Fuel Economy or something like that) high and still sell big honkin' SUV's that get 12 mpg. What ever happened to carpooling? ...or those subway ads from the 1970's that said "Don't be Fuelish!"? We need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and metropolitan areas are the perfect place to start!!!
Again, I very much in favor of mass transit, but people have a right to drive too. NY State motorists already get shaken down with high insurance, registration etc. When I lived in NYC I always rode the subway to work, but during nights and weekends I don't think there's anything wrong with me driving my car. BTW - my car is a Honda Accord which can make it from NYC to Wash DC (240 miles) on 7 gallons of gas at 70 MPH.
Again I realize that having a car in NYC is sort of a luxury, and I'm very much in favor of mass transit, but fair is fair - and now I think motorists are treated very unfairly.
I both own a car and take public transit, and I think high tolls are appropriate **on automobiles traveling on routes leading to and from downtowns/Central Business Districts** in order to:
1) encourage the use of transit where it is most useful, which is in bringing people from over a large area to a small and densely-developed area.
2) discourage the use of cars where they are least useful, which is concentrating a large number of cars, which must be parked, into a small and densely-developed area.
When I'm NOT going into downtown Chicago (which I loosely define to include Lincoln Park and other dense neighborhoods though they are not central business districts), I drive. But I never drive downtown, not even on weekends!
I don't know where the MTA's bridges are, so this might be an answer based on a false presumption, but I presume the MTA's bridges are across the East River to bring autos and trucks from Long Island into Manhattan and vice versa.
[I don't know where the MTA's bridges are, so this might be an answer based on a false presumption, but I presume the MTA's bridges are across the East River to bring autos and trucks from Long Island into Manhattan and vice versa.]
Triboro Bridge - connects Queens, Manhattan and the Bronx.
Queens Midtown tunnel - between Queens and Manhattan
Brooklyn- Battery tunnel - between Manhattan and Brooklyn
Verrazano Narrows Bridge - between Brooklyn and Staten Island
Whitestone and Throgs Neck Bridges - between Queens and the Bronx.
All of these have a $3.50 toll in each direction, with the toll on the Verrazano collected westbound only ($7). There also are two tolls bridges connecting Brooklyn and Queens with the Rockaway Peninsula, the Marine Parkway (Gil Hodges) and Cross Bay. Tolls on these are somewhat less, not sure exactly how much.
The bridges and tunnels between New York and New Jersey are run by the Port Authority; these are the George Washington, Bayonne, and Goethals bridges; the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, and the Outerbridge Crossing (named after the first Port Authority chairman, Eugenius Outerbridge - it's a bridge, but Outerbridge Bridge just wouldn't cut it!) Tolls on these are $4, collected in the eastbound (southbound on Bayonne Bridge) direction only.
In your list of MTA crossings, don't forget the Henry Hudson Bridge, between Manhattan and the Bronx on the Henry Hudson Parkway. (Incidentally, all bridges between Manhattan and the Bronx with the exceptions of the HHB and the Triboro are free, including the I-95 Alexander Hamilton Bridge.) Toll is $1.75 each way.
Note that with E-Z Pass, most tolls are reduced. MTA crossings give 50-cent discounts (the Verrazano gives a full dollar off); PA crossings give 10% discounts.
Staten Island Residents with EZ Pass pay $3.20 round trip THE BEST DISCOUNT the MTA gives out (well the 30day unlimited might now beat that for some).
Same with Rockaway residents they pay a discount for the Cross Bay and Marine Bridges with EzPass but I don't know how much it is.
There are discounts with the PA too for the Jersey crossings but I am not up on them as well.
I also was doing what a always thought was the responsible thing of not driving into Manhattan. I usually use the Bronx-Whitestone, Throgs Neck or Triborough Bridges between The Bronx and Queens, again during off-hours. I usually traveling from the West Bronx to Fresh Meadows or Queens Village in Queens. Using my car I can make this trip in 30 minutes or less especially late nights. If I took the subway. It means taking the D train into Midtown and then the E or F to Jamaica and then getting on a bus. If this sounds like it takes a lot of time - it does. The subway portion alone is 1 hour. It's not too bad during the day, but during late nights most 24 hr. NYCT buses operate at 60 minute headways and then the subway after that.
Singapore charges motorists an additional "fee" to enter the CBD during peak hours. Cars must have a sticker affixed to their windshields to enter the CBD. This additional fee is not cheap. Taxis pass some of this cost onto passengers if they request to enter the CBD during peak hours.
Any other cities have this? This was my first, and only time, I experienced it.
--Mark
New York City has an unofficial policy of raising the cost of driving to Manhattan by restricting the availability of parking. New buildings are not allowed to have accessory parking in the areas of Manhattan south of 96th St. New public parking lots and garages are not permitted. As parking lots are developed, the supply of parking shrinks. In theory, you can't park, you can't drive in.
A major study of this has yet to reach a conclusion, but the policy seems to have failed. More people are driving in, and they are double parking or cruising for spaces. More through traffic is passing through to avoid the tolls (Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg and Queensboro, and most Harlem River bridges free). About one in seven people driving to Manhattan have a permit to park free on the street -- most are public officials. Office loading bays are being used for building manager parking, even as trucks double park on the street to deliver packages.
And, the policy prevents new luxury residential buildigns from having parking, so residents can keep a car for recreational use. Toll the bridges, I say. But that would not please those public officials who park for free, now would it? I'll bet most haven't seen the inside of a subway car since they were elected/appointed.
[About one in seven people driving to Manhattan have a
permit to park free on the street]
Larry, where does this "one in seven" number come from? There are something like 1.9m auto trips to the Manhattan CBD every workday. Some are trucks, taxi's, etc., but even so, 1/7 is going to be a number like 50,000 or 100,000. Are there really that many "permit" parking spaces in the CBD?
[Toll the bridges, I say. But that would not please those public officials who park for free, now would it? I'll bet most haven't
seen the inside of a subway car since they were elected/appointed.]
Yo're on. Stand outside the entraces to the City Hall station for an hour starting at 4:30 and watch. Of course, it's hard to know who is a public official unless you know all of the public officials, which means that statements like yours are inherently unverifiable. Thus, my criticism. Foley square is certainly an unusual neighborhood in terms of parking, but plenty of officials who work there take the subway all the time).
I have on other serious quibles with your post. The ability to build parking is determined by the zoning regulations. Under the zoning code, some buildings must provide parking; others may not have parking. It's not as one sided as you make it seem. Moreover, during the 1970's, it made economic sense to replace old buildings with parking lots rather than have the City take the buildings over for failure to pay property taxes. Huge areas downtown and elsewhere were flattened into parking lots. The City eventually moved to limit the concentration of parking lots in the CBD, to much of the criticism that you would imagine. When the economy changed, however, the parking lots were often the first to be built upon. These lots can be replaced, under the zoning law, with another parking lot, so long as the total number stays constant and within the upper limit for any given area. The reason that they are not being replaced is that developers can make much more money with buildings than with parking lots. The exception to this is in poor residential neigbhorhoods, where expensive & high density building isn't feasible. There, perfectly good housing is being torn down to make . . . yup, parking lots.
In other words, the problem is one of economics and land scarcity. The City's policies may exacerbate or alleviate the problem, but the essential problem is still scarcity, not elected officials who want free parking.
--mhg
(City parking policy) Believe me I know this -- I'm in the business. I try not to discuss zoning issues because, as a employee I get to voice my opinion inside (to no avail) so its not quite ethical to voice it outside (in my opinion).
Accessory parking is strictly limited in Manhattan Community Boards 1 to 8, and public parking garages and lots are not allowed, except by a special permit which is impossible to get. I did a little regression analysis, comparing the number of cars entering the CBD over time and the number expected if driving was bumping up against a capacity constraint (ie not enough parking) and the change in CBD employment. The results were inconclusive. Base on the factors I presented, I believe driving is constrained by capacity, but not by the number of parking spaces. People will drive in until the street system is so overwhemled that traffic becomes a nightmare. Then businesses will leave until equilibrium is restored. That's why I advocate limiting vehicles by raising prices at the portals, rather than letting vehicles into Manhattan for free and, in a game of parking space musical chairs, making it hell when they get there.
Outside Manhattan parking is required, but if fewer than a given number of spaces is required, none need be provided. And since you can divide a development into a series of zoning lots, each of which is allowed to waive parking, none need be provided.
As to the one in seven figure, lets just say it is unpublished, and please don't quote me on it just yet.
One point that's often overlooked is that a significant percentage of daytime traffic in Manhattan consists of vehicles _other_ than private cars. Between taxis, buses, trucks, and so on, you're probably talking about a third or more of all vehicles. All of which means that attempts to limit private vehicle use in Manhattan won't make traffic much lighter no matter how successful they are. Now lessening truck traffic - I sure can't see any easy solutions for that.
(Reducing truck traffic). I agree there is no way to limit truck deliveries without limiting economic activity, although peak hour pricing could shift deliveries to the midnight hours by offsetting the cost of having a loading crew and deliveries in the middle of the night.
On the other hand, the truck toll on the Verranzano Bridge westbound is something like $60. The Upper East River Bridges are something like $30 each way. But by taking one of the free bridges into Manhattan, then going out through the Lincoln or Holland Tunnels (tolls eastbound only, none westbound), one can save the tolls. So you get trucks from all of geographic Long Island (8 million people) passing through Manhattan to avoid the tolls.
From an environmental and economic standpoint, all the crossings leading into Manhattan should be tolled, and the tolls should be higher. The tolls on the peripheral bridges should be lower, especially off peak, and not just for SI residents.
I sit and watch Canal Street traffic all day. (Well, actually, I can see Canal Street from my desk). The amount of containerized truck traffic passing along the street, and presumably across the Manhattan Bridge (which I can't see) is enourmous.
I don't know what's in the containers, obviously. But it seems that a lot of it is coming from Newark/Elizabeth and going to Long Island. Two ways to limit truck traffic through Manhattan would be to reopen the Brooklyn waterfront to shipping or to provide a direct rail link to the Island from the N.J. ports. That would also improve Canal Street.
As for local deliveries, I'm not sure I want those tolled at all. Most people agree that, regardless of how traffic problems are addressed, delivery trucks must be allowed into Manhattan. The existance of a toll is not going to discourage that kind of truck traffic, and indeed why should it be discouraged at all? There is no other way to get orange juice, e.g., to the supermarket, and no real reason to charge everyone $.10 more per carton. In other words, local delivery trucks should be given free access over all bridges and tunnels.
If that sounds strange, try replacing "truck" with ambulance.
-mhg
Also, heavy truck traffic at hight is going to keep a lot of people from having a decent night's sleep. There is no easy solution.
That's true. When I mentioned lower truck tolls at night, and asked who could possibly object, someone immediately mentioned the Brooklyn Heights Association, some of whose members live in luxo-dwellings over the Promanade (and the BQE). But, of course, if there were tolls on the Manhattan Bridge, and a reduced toll at night in the Battery Tunnel, some of those trucks would take the tunnel instead of going out of their way under Brooklyn Heights to take the bridge. The mix of tolled and non-tolled crossings is inefficient.
I'm glad you are driving a high milage vehicle (and it could be a lot higher milage if detroit and congress weren't reactionaries about that issue) but it still pollutes and uses roads. Without getting into a discussion of pollution, etc., I am willing to bet that even in NYC street maintainence is subsidized from general funds. ie, MTA bridge/tunnel tolls and the $$$$ from the gas taxes, etc., do NOT cover the costs of maintaining the roads. Joe taxpayer makes up the difference.
Insurance is expensive, but to a large degree, this reflects the fact that driving is dangerous and therefore expensive.
Hey Larry - got any figures on how much NYC spends maintaining streets (those #s are hard to deconvolute since the departments overlap, etc.) And how much of that comes from user fees? I would not be shocked to find that Subways are no more subsidized than roads...thats why amtraks subsidy does not bother me....
I agree with you - cars can be more efficient. As much as NYC tries to keep cars out of the city it would be in trouble if all of the cars suddenly dissappeared. Remember, NYC takes in loads of money in parking fines and let's not forget the hefty tax for parking in garages/parking lots.
As mentioned in a prior post, the big social cost of a car is the land, and that cost is greatest at peak hour. Off peak, a car is less inefficient.
Moreover, according to a 1990 paper by the Worldwatch Institute, a typical car with one occupant produced many times the pollution per occupant as a full transit bus, but a full car produces only slightly more pollution per passenger than a full transit bus. As for the pollution per passenger of a mostly empty diesel transit bus, well, lets say mass transit doesn't exactly save the planet in that circumstance.
So if you are traveling off peak with your entire family in the car, and not traveling to the central business district, a car is efficient. Of course, that just happens to justify the way I use my car.
Then I guess I'm one of those environmentally unfriendly guys. I always take mass-transit to/from work. BUT, other time I drive around Staten Island solo in a '98 Lexus, but it is a smooth ride! And I love to crank up the air-conditioning on days like today too! Awful, ain't it?
I've had to drive around Staten Island far more than I'd like counting the number of cars parked in commercial parking lots. Boy, the parking lots at the Staten Island Mall are big.
Those lots are big. Richmond Avenue is where all the big-box stores are locating. The NYCDOT is cutting through Forest Hill Road from Richmond Avenue from Yukon Avenue to Platinum Avenue. As I said, I enjoy driving, but there is no place left for all these cars to go!
Transit use allows not having two or three cars per household. One car for nights and weekends is norml. Out here most families have two cars sometimes more. Using transit for commuting and only having one car can allow more family speding for housing and families can live better than without transit. Do you have stats on that Lary? I have seen the calculations from Peter Calthorpe but I don't remember how much more house you can afford if you only have one car instread of two.
For off peak the bus will run if anyone rides it or not so the emmissions are constant. If you ride rather than drive you don't create emmissions and you save your car for more important trips and enhance the resale value. Besides when I park at the mall I have to walk to far because I have to park way out on the edge so I don't get dings in my doors.
According to the 1990 Census of Population, NYC households averaged 0.6 vehicles each, whereas U.S. households averaged 1.62 vehicles. That's a saving of one vehicle per household. Interestingly, there were so such savings in the suburbs. I guess if you're rich enough, why not have three cars even if you ride the train? Go to spend all that money on something. And the NYC suburbs are very, very rich.
According to a PUMS run, in NYC childless young singles and couples and the elderly did not have cars regardless of income, and the poor did not have cars regardless of household type, but most families with children who were not poor did have cars. Similarly, we bought our first car just before having our first child.
What is the value of the one car saved? According to the American Auto Manuafacurers Assn, each car cost about $5,000 per year to operate in 1996 -- but that assumed buying relatively late model cars and keeping them for a limited number of years. According to the Consumer Expenditure Survey, $3,500 per year per car is more like it for the national average. On the other hand, that includes just $713 for insurance, and I pay $1,620 (not driving a car to work, having never filed a claim, had accident or a ticket, only 7,500 miles driven per year, $1,000 deductible, car alarm, accident prevention course, etc).
So the average NYC household is saving $3,500 (U.S. average) to $4,500 (with NYC insurance prices) per year by not owning the extra car -- balanced against, perhaps, the purchase of a monthly Metrocard ($750) or two ($1,500). GOOD DEAL! In fact, when I get the usual call here (we're thinking of relocating to NYC -- what's the relative cost of living) I always list the ability to live with one car as an offset to higher housing costs.
[According to a PUMS run, in NYC childless young singles and couples and the elderly did not have cars regardless of income, and the poor did not have cars regardless of household type, but most families with children who were not poor did have cars. Similarly, we bought our first car just before having our first child.]
Could the rates for singles and childless couples be related to borough of residence? Cars are more of a burden and less of a necessity in Manhattan than in the other boroughs, and Manhattan appears to attract a lot of singles and maybe couples without children.
Larry,
But some of us don't have the option of using transit.
For me the car trip in 1/2 hour, by transit it gets multiplied by three, i.e. LIRR change at Jamaica, at Woodside change to Pt Wash line, then get a bus at Flushing ... just doesn't make sicne.
Now don't get me wrong I ENJOYED my 11 yrs on the LIRR to NYC, but now I don't see that I have much choice.
P.S. Re the threads (Peter) about Manhattan residents, Eye agree many there don't even have a car because it such a pain.
P.P.S. Eye have FOUR cars in my driveway & since I'm poor-white-folk none were made in the 90s (20 to 30 K purchase price). If it wasn't for "leases" a lot more folks would be driven to transit, the auto mfg companies know this & therefore offer leases that are cheep to start but rip you off lone term. They haven't hooked me with this YET.
Mr t__:^)
Larry, as an entirely carless person, I applaud your analysis, but I must say it doesn't quite capture all the costs of the mass-transit lifestyle -- costs that the government would do well to mitigate if it wants to get cars off the roads.
For example, when you need to go somewhere that is impractical to reach via mass transit, and you don't own a car, you sometimes end up taking a taxi. It gets to a point where there's almost no choice, such as when you have luggage and kids in tow. Same goes for late nights or other times with spotty transit service.
So you're out the cost of a taxi ride plus tip. If you have to leave NYC to get home at 3 a.m., even if you're just across the river in Jersey City (like me), that gets very expensive because of all that "double the meter" stuff.
This encourages people to hang on to that extra car.
When I was a newspaper reporter, I interviewed a guy, a planner or social scientist or some such person, who had found that the kind of almost-good-enough mass transit we seem to settle for in most of the U.S. isn't enough to push people past the tipping point and away from car ownership.
This person found that when the owner of two cars sees that by using mass transit, he can get to work, and maybe go out after work, he starts to think about ditching one car. But then he finds out he can't stop at a certain store on the way home from work ... and the whole deal's off. The second car is retained.
The planner ... or maybe it was myself ... went on to say that this is an inevitable flaw in a basically market-and-politics-driven transportation system such as the one that NYC has evolved from competing subway companies.
If you refuse to run trains except where they'll be packed full ("Oops, ridership's down on this line, better cut service!") you ultimately damage the whole regional system. Whereas if you CONSISTENTLY, reliably, run enough service to enough different places so that people see they can virtually always get where they need to go, they'll make the commitement to go carless and become loyal riders in the long run.
"This person found that when the owner of two cars sees that by using
mass transit, he can get to work, and maybe go out after work, he starts to think about ditching one car. But then he finds out he can't stop at a certain store on the way home from work ... and the whole deal's off. The second car is retained."
That's where the unlimited pass comes into play. It makes it convinient to use transit because you can stop off and do those errands on the way home and not pay a penalty. It makes using transit more effective for the users.
"Not enough mass transit to discourage car ownership/extra car."
As discussed earlier in the thread, however, for many trips the car is the most efficient mode from a social cost point of view, especially when you're traveling in a group and especially with cars becomming less polluting. For example, my in-laws live on a former farm in the Catskill Watershed. Can't expect the subway to go there.
I think the point is different -- that rental cars are an important part of a transit-oriented lifestyle. Unfortunately, too many anti-auto crazys are stuck in the auto-bad bike-good mindset. And government policies here in New York have pushed up the cost of renting a car, relative to other places.
We calculated the guesstimated cost of renting cars or taking taxis when needed while relying on tranit, vs. buying our car for recreational use. It was close, but the car won out. If it was easier to rent a car, things might have been different. And of course, if we didn't have the car but did have the unlimited pass, some marginal off-peak trips now made by car would be made by transit. But it still doesn't make sense to buy two cars rather than one, even if you ferry around a carload of kids.
In 15 years, when the kids are gone and the car wears out, we'll face the same choice.
Larry, I always like your thoughtful remarks, BUT, yea there is alway a but ... let me make two points:
1. Auto-bad bike-good .... the rest of the world, where the cost of car ownership is a lot more uses bikes alot, why not in Manhattan, etc. ? The "privates" were asked to install bike racks (that will hold two at a time) some time ago, but nobody cares. This seems like a great low tech/low cost idea that could have realy go somewhere.
e.g. delivery boys with unlim MetroCards .... salesmen
2. Two car families required to ferry kids around ...
When the kids grow up they need the car to get to McDs, K-Mart, i.e. their job. Then mom has to fight for her turn in the car. The point is the NEED for the car changes, it doesn't go away. At my house mom uses it in the AM & daughter uses it at night for college. Daughter did try the bus, at my insistance, after all my old car might breakdown sometime.
P.S. It is a two bus trip with a change at Hempstead, not the best place to be late at night.
Mr t__:^)
"So the average NYC household is saving $3,500 (U.S. average) to $4,500 (with NYC insurance prices) per year by not owning the extra car -- balanced against, perhaps, the purchase of a monthly Metrocard ($750) or two ($1,500). GOOD DEAL! In fact, when I get the usual call here (we're thinking of relocating to NYC -- what's the relative cost of living) I always list the ability to live with one car as an offset to higher housing costs."
I'm afraid your estimate is really, really low. If you're talking about Manhattan, you need to factor in about $300/month for parking. (I'm not kidding +$3600/year - that's what all the lots around me start at). Assuming a really cheap lease of $250/month, and cheap insurance of about $200/month, that's about $9000/year not including gas, and repairs on the car. Which would all be more here than elsewhere. (My guess 30% more)
I'll check when I get to the office, but I know total spending on transportation in NYC has fallen to just over half (that's right, half) the national average for local government, as a share of the income of NYC residents. And there are no state road crews in NYC to my knowledge, so state spending does not make up the difference.
The bottom line is, the biggest problem of the auto is that it requires so much land, and the biggest cost of the auto is the land (for movement and parking) it occupies. It is difficult to value the land occupied by roadways -- you would need one lane for deliveries and emergency access and sidewalks even if there were no autos. Still, it is expensive. And adding more land for more autos in built up areas is so expensive it basically isn't done anymore. So you pay in time (traffic), not in money. I see car-transit subsidies as paying those with an equal right to use scarce road space not to use it. And the perfect response to any objections is for every transit rider with a car to exercise their equal right by driving to Manhattan on the same day.
As to the surplus, as an economist and transit fan I'd like to see the money put toward long term improvments, or diminished debt. Something for the future, for me (I expect to be living in this city a long time) and my children. But politically, I see no chance of that. Political power is in the hands of people who have been moving out of the city, and who have no concern for the future. None of the so-called transit advocates are interested in the future. The only organization advocating investment is the RPA, which wants better service to the suburbs so everyone who counts can move out.
Moveover, "adding service" ia not a reasonable option at peak hour, when most lines are constrained either by full rights of way or rolling stock shortages. As for alleviating the former, see the above paragraph. The Pres. of the TA, when he came to my agency, noted that while they can't add trains at rush hour they can always throw more buses out on the street. Evidently, the TA has the same attitude toward scarce but free road space as car drivers!
So I'd like to see more service off peak, if ridership rises. I'd also like to see a one-third fare Metrocard for kids, valid only during off-peak hours, as I've said before. Off peak toll cuts would be a good idea -- I can't believe the TA is paying a consultant big bucks to "study" it. For the same money, they can try it for a month and see what happens.
Finally, I think it might be time to reopen the TWU contract, and give the workers some much deserved bonuses in exchange for the productivity the have produced, and perhaps some agreements to increase productivity in the future. It would do a great deal for morale, and makes long term economic sense.
Meanwhile, the MTA should use some of the money for a showdown strike with the predators of the LIRR. I'm tired of having money sucked out of the TA by the MTA to pay for those featherbedded SOBs.
[Meanwhile, the MTA should use some of the money for a showdown strike with the predators of the LIRR. I'm tired of having money sucked out of the TA by the MTA to pay for those featherbedded SOBs.]
A showdown with LIRR unions recently has been discussed a lot on nyc.transit. I agree with you, the unions have gotten way too big for their britches and need to be taken down a peg or two. And I'm not talking about paying them minimum wage - just bringing LIRR pay and work rules into parity with Metro North would help a great deal and would be no hardship. This could be done gradually, by keeping existing workers at current levels but putting new hires on a lower tier (the airlines have been doing just that sort of thing for years). Unfortunately, MTA management is terrified of the mere possibility of a strike, and as a result will give the unions anything and everything to avoid one. Meddlesome politicians don't help either.
To give you an idea of just how strike-adverse management is, an MTA executive (posting in his personal capacity) said that an LIRR strike would be worse than the current GM strike! Sorry, but there's no comparison between a few thousand people out of work and maybe 60,000 inconvenienced, vs. 200,000+ out of work.
The state won't take an LIRR strike because LIRR riders won't put up with it. And LIRR riders will not put up with it because the MTA shifts the cost of unproductive LIRR workers onto those who are less politically powerful. Ie. NYC transit. Negotiating with 200 unions doesn't help either -- you are screwed by whoever is the most selfish, so no one union has an incentive to cooperate.
I suggest than in the next strike, the LIRR be allowed to go "bankrupt." A new public transit agency -- call it Metro East, could take over the tracks and trains after a couple of months of receivership. Its employees would no longer be able to strike. The new agency could then begin hiring new employees to civil service positions.
If Pataki wants to continue to allow LIRR workers to earn more and do less than Metro North or NYCTA workers, I suggest that the entire difference be made up with higher LIRR fares.
Actually, I think the largest cost of driving is global climate change (aka greenhouse effect) but once again, this is not the place to debate THAT ONE. Also, the costs of this are *really hard* to put a number on...
Who is the RPA???????
(Who is RPA)
The RPA is the Regional Plan Association, a non-profit planning think tank funded mostly by businesses. It is the only organization advocating large scale transportation improvements, but unfortunately it is not advocating public works that city residents will find useful. In this region, regional means the city pays and the suburbs get. The did this whole cazillion dollar regional transporation plan, and did not even mention the Manhattan Bridge -- or Staten Island. They did advocate direct, nonstop through service from Long Island to New Jersey for cross commuters, however. As my boss says, what they don't know about mass transit is you need a mass.
Moreover, they've taken on Al Appleton, the DEP commissioner from the Dinkins Administration who announced at the time that (from an environmental point of view) we have to face up to the fact that the regional transportation infrastructure is built, and will not be improved. He's now advocating replacing a the Gowanus Expressway with a tunnel, regardless of the cost ($2 billion, $10 billion, either way its a good idea, he says). Ah yes, I remember the Dinkins Administration. DOT's comment on a transportation chapter to one of our reports we we shouldn't invest in roads because it just attracts more cars and trucks and we should invest in rail because it is too expensive. The city's entire transportation strategy, therefore, should be based on bicycles and ferries.
How about taking it a step further and raise the tolls, gas tax, registration fees etc. and eventually make it impossible for anyone NYC resident to own a car. Then of course we'd have another problem. There would be no cars for all of those Traffic Enforcement agents to ticket. Their salary comes from taxpayers too.
I've never heard anyone say that their taxes, tolls, train fare, insurance premiums, etc. etc. etc. are too low. Maybe it's just never come up in polite coversation, but I doubt it.
As a result, the argument that money should be allocated one way or another because someone thinks that he/she pays too much is pretty weak.
Got any other ideas?
--mhg
Yes,
I have another idea - how about someone else take (perhaps a private company) take over tunnels/bridges under MTA-Bridges and Tunnels and we'll see if such a fund surplus materializes again. Obviously you can't drive so I guess you need to stay on the bus and the motorists will continue to subsidize your ride. "Weak argument"... give me a break!
Motorists subsidize transit riders? Ain't so. Motorists use a lot of very scarce land, especially at rush hour. They pay off the transit riders to give up their share of the road, as far as I'm concerned.
As I've said, the one way to guarantee that drivers understand the value of mass transit to them is for every transit rider to exercise their equal right to drive on the very same day. The drivers will be begging the subway riders to get back underground in the blink of an eye!
Motorists do subsidize mass-transit through gasoline taxes and tolls. The car is here to stay, even in the mass-transit capital of the USA. Although I also can't see why anyone would want to drive into Manhattan in the rush hours. A bus/train ride is usually less stressful.
In general they don't, but in the case of MTA-Bridge & Tunnel crossings - they certainly do. Remember MTA-Bridge & Tunnels is quite profitable.
Wayne,
Thanks for your response, I guess. My point was, everyone wants to pay less and keep more money. Indeed, the usual post on this topic by a disgrunted car driver is just that gripe. Seldom do they say anything more creative or sophisticated, however. I was hoping you would.
Everbody in this country who pays any kind of tax whatsoever -- income, use, sales, estate, transfer, etc. -- subsidizes someone else to some extent. That is as obvious as it is inevitable. Don't want your tax money to go towards nuclear weapons? welfare? farm subsidies? the CIA? AIDS research? mass transit? Ken Starr? flood insurance? You're not alone.
If you wrote "I shouldn't pay $30 in taxes this year because I disagree with the government's subsidies to [insert target here]" how much weight do you think that carries? Zip, of course. Is what you originally posted any different? Not really, I say. It _would_ be different if you said "My MTA toll unfairly supports subway riders" or "the MTA tolls are too high in return for the benefit given to the bridge users." But, to say that, you'd have to know among other things what the subsidy was, what the alternative would be if the toll or the subsidy were reduced or eliminated, and whether you as a driver receive any kind of subsidy in return. That's a lot of work, and would take a lot of time to sort through conflicting information and opinions to try to get to the facts, so I understand if you just want to gripe. But please, don't try to pass off a gripe as something else.
--mhg
I'm not trying to pass it off as something else. As I said - I'm very much in favor of spending money to improve mass transit and - In as far as the motorist and straphanger catagory goes, I'm very much a straphanger as I do the vast majority of my driving on the weekend. You're right 0 it would be very difficult to figure out exactly how and where the revenues are spent. I can't remember, but not more than three years ago I remember a news segment that stated that the true cost of a TBTA crossing was a lot less than the toll. My point here is that, IMHO motorists using the TBTA (or MTA Bridge & Tunnel) crossings are grossly overcharged, but of course that's just my opinion. That's really all I wanted to say. Also, I'd like to apologize to you (and the SubTalk family) for my prior flamage - It's not something that I normally do and I know that this is no place for it.
Wayne Johnson
Wayne,
No apologies needed, but thanks for offering them. You are right that TBTA users are charged more than the actual cost of maintaining the bridges & their connecting roadways. How much more is a matter of some debate, because the number changes depending on whether you include the cost of maintaining the highways that connect to the bridges, etc., how you capitalize or amortize construction and maintenance costs, and how you account for sources of funding that the NYS and Fed. gov't provide, which change from year to year.
What the MTA (and the Port Authority) does, though, is shifts money from its profit making operations (brigdes, tunnels & airports) to its money losing operations (mass transit, parks & recreation). Both agencies have the authority from the NY (& NJ) legislatures to do so, provided that the tolls are either "reasonable" or "proportional" (I can't remember the precise wording) to the way that money is spent on non-bridge & tunnel services. There is also a law called the Great Bridge Act, which was passed by Congress about 100 years ago, that mandates thae bridge tolls be "reasonable" or something to that effect.
Anyway, the point of this is that so far, every toll increase by both the TBTA and the PA has passed muster in court in terms of whether the subsidy to mass transit is "reasonable" or "proportional" (or whatever the standard is). In other words, both the public agency and the Judicial branch of the government have determined that bridge & tunnel users get a "reasonable" or "proportional" benefit from the tolls they pay, even though they pay more than the actual cost of using the facility. Obviously, this is a source of some disagreement, but the question has been decided, for better or worse, by the authorities that are entrusted to make the decision.
If you'd like to read the court opinions concerning the various challenges to bridge & tunnel tolls, please let me know and I'll email you copies.
--mhg
With regard to the Port Authority, it's interesting to note that most of their operations - bridges/tunnels, airports, seaports, and WTC - are money making. The only money losers are PATH and the Port Authority Bus Terminal, and probably the latter could turn a profit if it weren't for the strange rent arrangements with some of the bus lines. With the MTA, in contrast, the bridges and tunnels are the only money makers. Everything else is a dead loss. All of this is probably why tolls on PA bridges and tunnels are $4 for a round-trip compared to $7 on most TBTA facilities.
We wrote up a little criticism of the PA here at City Planning a few years ago, which you might have heard about.
Basically, until the late 1980s the MTA and the Port had the same deal -- toll payers subsidize the financial cost of transit in exchange for transit riders leaving them more room on the road. The MTA was also funded by taxes, and PATH was also funded by the World Trade Center. Cross Harbor transportation and the WTC broke even as a group.
When the recession hit, transit and toll revenues fell as costs rose. The MTA had to hit up the customers, and tolls and fares rose by a whopping amount. The PA, on the other hand, hasn't increased tolls and fares in years -- they've fallen way behind the rate of inflation. So they've drained money from New York's airports to make up the difference. Ripoff.
If PA fares and tolls increased to MTA levels, cross harbor tranport plus the WTC would again break even. And the PA could use the airport profits to fund a direct rail connection to the airports, without the encumbered passenger facility charge. If New Jersey and its government funded the PATH to the extent that New York City and State fund the MTA with taxes, that would also be true.
Basically, JFK and LaGuardia generate profits because their fees are so high compared with other aiports -- this hurts the city (and helps Newark Airport). In the 1980s this money was squandered on economic development projects on both sides of the river. In the 1990s, its been grabbed by NJ. The amount is $200 million per year.
Larry, Non-transit Q, re: "their fees are ... high compared w/other airports"
Is their a idelogical reason for this, i.e. the airports are too busy so if we make the fees high they'll go to Boston or ship by boat ?
It would seem to hurt the economy of NYC. If I was a shipper overseas and wanted to export to the US I would find the cheepest port. Hay, Boston, Phily, Atlanta all have good local transportation systems ... yea yea NY has 10 M people, but Boston/Philly is just an overnight trip away and they both have lots of customers there too.
Eye certainly hope the answer isn't that the PA doesn't care about the economy of NYC.
Mr t__:^)
(Why more expensive).
A report I've read said that federal law does not allow airport revenues to be used for non-airport purposes. But the PA was grandfathered since it already was using the airports to subsidize other facilities. The report also claimed that the airports are featherbedded. Some say the Mob is involved. And of course, like all workers, airport workers in the city earn more.
The main reason is, I think, that they collect what the traffic will bear, and use it for other things ie. NJ. And it has hurt the economy of the city. If people are going to NY, you have to fly to NY, but you don't have to use it as a hub. So no one uses JFK or LGA as a hub, and does maintenance here, anymore. We've lost a lot of airport jobs.
Larry, I worked for Pan Am for 15 yrs at JFK. A LOT of jobs went by by when they went under ! Mr t__:^)
The main criticism of the Port Authority with respect to the airports is that the rent paid to the city for LaGuardia and Kennedy is *far* below market rates.
It's really not true that PA mismanagement has hampered development of LaGuardia. The airport is under FAA restrictions on the number of takeoffs and landings, and in any event has only two, intersecting runways. It is highly unlikely that operations could be increased significantly. On the positive side, the airport has not lost any meaningful amounts of traffic to other facilities.
Kennedy is also under FAA capacity limitations, though I believe there is some room for expansion. It has lost some business to Newark, though more recently total traffic has increased nicely. Kennedy's main problem has been rundown terminals and other facilities, and it looks like these are finally being addressed. By the way, Kennedy's air cargo business is among the largest in the world and is growing.
The Mayor's intentions are obscure. He says he wants to cut the airport fees, build direct airport access, and improve the airports using the surpluses which are now drained to NJ. Another point of view is that transportation investment is a low priority for him, and he really just wants to use the high airport fees as a hidden tax (by collecting increased rents) to cut taxes for which he takes the rap. Isn't that what Whitman did by forcing NYC to fund PATH through the Port Authority?
Larry, Case in point, Rudy just cut the ____ out of the DOT, transportation divion !
Mr t__:^)
I don't think that it's helpful to focus on what Guilliani says, since it's usually a gloss intended for people who don't know enough asses it critically.
But Guilliani is right, I think, that the PA has spent more, proportionally, on Newark airport than it has on the two NYC airports. Indeed, both of the PA's planned 4th regional airports were located in NJ, although those plans have fallen through, for now. On the other hand, both LAG & JKF operate at close to capacity, and the claimed need for a fourth airport is real, at least insofar as there are delays at peak times at all three airports, and one solution is another airport. But, for all that Guilliani moans about lost revenue, you don't hear him talking that loudly about all the airport noise that is now in NJ.
The costs at Kennedy v. Newark in part not comparable. For one thing, gate fees and similar use charges must be approved by the federal gov't (FAA, I assume, but I don't know), and are typically imposed for some stated project, such as building a monorail or modernizing the terminals. That is a different cost that the labor costs, delays at customs, and corruption (mafia) at Kennedy. I suspect that those kinds of costs are similar at Newark (the mafia in NJ? No!)
--mhg
Speaking of Giuliani, running up the debt and running down the infrastructure are the only things that he, the City Council, Pataki, the and the state legislature agree on. When Giuliani came in, he cut operating assistance to the TA in half. When Pataki came it, he eliminated state support for the TA capital plan. The City Council finally got up the guts to take the Mayor on on the budget. So what do they do? Cut TA capital funding by $100 million for next year!
If you want a nationally competitive transportation system, there really isn't anyone to vote for in this town.
Larry,
My view is that Pataki & Giuliani's actions, dollar cuts to transit, was politicaly motivated. They saw a cash cow to milk that would help to balance the budget and ensure their (both) re-elections. His (the Gov) action at DMV (fee incr [you now get charged a fee just for showing up in court to complain about a ticket], ticket cost incr, troopers ticket writting campain) also brought in $$$. Now that that's secure maybe they might consider a transit grand plan. Is there anything of interest in Virgial's 5 year plan ?
Mr t__:^)
Mark (Wayne & Peter),
I think the answer is more fundamental i.e. doesn't relate to "reasonable or proportional".
It relates to "what the traffic will bear". The bar is set as high as they think they can get away with it to:
1. Fund, the money loosing, transit ... that's good
2. Discourage car use ... that's good too
The bar can't be set sooo high that it adversely effect commercial access to NYC (so why don't they charge more for cars, i.e. a rip-off price for single passenger & some kind of discount for commercial ?
They could easily build it into the "E-Z-Pass" system)
Mr t__:^)
Thurston,
Actually, I don't think that the tolls are set at the highest level that the MTA/PA think they can get away with, subject only to their concern about losing their jobs or something like that.
When the tolls are set, both agencies are obligated to go through a fairly complicated accounting that shows where the toll money would be going and how much is needed to compensate for losses on mass transit. The tolls-setting process is regulated, and usually challenged by either the Amer. Auto. Assoc. or whichever of the Molinari's is in office at the time. (Thus the "reasonable" standard of review). Therefore, the accounting has to be pretty good, and I think that we could expect it to be on the level and accurate, at least if you agree with the assumptions they make.
--mhg
Mark, Thanks for the follow up info !
My problem, sometimes, is that I listen to the political bla bla and don't take the time to read the detail, i.e. NY Times, etc.
So I guess you're saying that commercial (trucks) have to pay so much more because of their ability to distroy (wareout) the roads & bridges? But doesn't this JUSTIFY a RxR tunnel big enough for freight so the highway infrastructure life is extended ? As opposed to $$ being spent on passenger transit ?
I know we've talked about this before, Mahattan Bridge thread, but I couldn't resist mentioning it.
Mr t__:^)
Thurston,
Yes, the rationale for charging trucks more than cars is that they wear out the roads faster. In fact, they wear them out very very much faster -- I don't have figures handy but as the weight of a motor vehicle increases, the damage it does to the road increases exponentially. Therefore, a single truck is equivalent to dozens of cars.
I think that reducing damage to roads is only one reason put forward for a freight-rail tunnel from NJ to Brooklyn. The other reasons include:
- less congestion on the highways & fewer accidents.
- less air & noise pollution.
- better quality of life in neighborhoods near roads.
- it's easier to expand our trans. infrastructure this way.
- bringing freight-jobbing jobs to Brooklyn.
- making the NYC area more competitive and easier to do business in.
- encouraging new businesses to locate in NY rather than NJ.
- to engineer is human.
I think the thing should be built.
--mhg
Hate to say it, but having analyzed the rail tunnel in a professional capacity, I can tell you that the advocates overstate all the benefits, not that there aren't any.
First of all, unless freight is going to be delivered to its final destination by ricksaw, the vast majority of the city's truck traffic will remain even if all the freight moves in by rail. But the advocates are telling people the rail tunnel would mean the truck on their street -- which goes to their supermarket -- would disappear. So you're really talking about getting the trucks off the GW, the Hudson tunnels, the Verranzano, and few highways. And if the capacity and traffic on those crossings is restricting driving, what you're really saying is if we built a freight tunnel more people could drive. So noise and air pollution don't really go down in the long run.
The advocates don't talk about bringing more trucking terminal jobs to Brooklyn and Queens (which could happen). They talk about high wage manufacturing. In fact, the city has had a policy of discouraging wholesale in its industrial park because it doesn't provide "enough" "good" jobs. But the counties in NJ with rail terminals have lost just as high a share of their manufacturing as Brooklyn and Queens.
I certainly don't agree with a one-track freight-only connection to Brooklyn, which based on the grades would have to come up in the middle of the borough, with trains doubing back to the waterfront. Very little capacity, and very little service, for the buck. Plus (a la Robert Moses) they talk about the cost of the tunnel, but not about the cost of raising every bridge over the Bay Ridge division and tearing up the tunnel in East NY.
That said, there are both cheaper options and better (but more expensive) alternatives that will do more things (but are not under consideration because they weren't planned in 1921 -- the good old days).
You could build a multi-track crossing at Tappan Zee, and provide both freight service to the Bronx and commuter service to Grand Central from West of Hudson. On the plus side, you get the commuter connection, a bridge is much, much cheaper, and both CSX and Norfolk Southern (and Canadian Pacific) could connect in. On the downside, you only get one freight track south of Tarrytown, which slows things down, and trains from the south still have to go north and turn around.
Or, a three track tunnel -- two passenger and one freight -- could come over from New Jersey to Manhattan at 34th St, with the freight tunnel continuing deep down onto Long Island City and the Montauk Branch. It would be big bucks, but it would be more direct, and NJ would be more capacity into the CBD. It might make sense if NJ paid for most of it.
I just hope the rail tunnel isn't built in place of something else which would have a greater payoff.
> raising every bridge over the Bay Ridge division
> and tearing up the tunnel in East NY.
Speaking of which, I saw this for the first time on Saturday. From the L station at Atlantic Ave., it looks like there is a platform area at the mouth of the tunnel. Was this ever (meant to be) a station for passengers? It looks like the line out parallel to the "N" could have handled stations as well (e.g. at Ft. Hamilton Pky., a joint station between the subway and Bay Ridge line looks like it was planned for...). Also, when did the electrification come down?
-Dave
The one thing I know about passenger service on the Bay Ridge is in WWII passenger trains from around the country delivered soldiers to the Brooklyn Army Terminal, where they boarded ships for the other side. I'll be going to see the movie about what happened on the other side this weekend.
I don't think there was passenger service as far west as where the Sea Beach (4/N) cut joins the LIRR/NYCRR tracks (who owns those tracks these days, by the way?)
Wasn't Andrew Culver's original route from Long Island City via Canarsie/Bay Ridge LIRR branch/Gravesend (later, McDonald) Avenue to Culver Depot at West Fifth Street? That would have had passenger service all along the Bay Ridge branch except for McDonald Av to around New Utrecht Avenue. (That would have before the Culver extension north to Prospect Park.)
Sea Beach trains ran to the waterfront before the open cut was built and the connection was made to the new Fourth Avenue subway. There are photos of the construction in various print sources. The elevated station on Third Avenue with its joint track for streetcars and el trains makes for interesting pictures, but nobody seems to know exactly how it operated.
The concrete ramp bottom from Third Avenue and 68th Street/Senator Street for the trolleys survived (with rail) into the mid-1950s, when it was all torn out for construction of a medical building.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
(...from my memory, at the office...)
The original surface Culver Line route was from 20th Street and Dahill Rd, also a trolley terminus.
Later an aggreement led to it using the newly contsructed Union Depot of the West End RR.
When the 3rd Avenue El was built and the 9th Avenue Cut was redone (around 1920 I think), the route to Sands St/Park Row was established. After the 4th Ave Line was constructed, West End used that and the Sands/PR service was to 3rd Ave/65th (#6 train) or Kings Highway/Culver Terminal (later moved to the Stillwell unified terminal).
I mentioned in an earlier post that I would have to check a number of sources, so until then I'm sort of on hold. But it is right that
Andrew Culver's Prospect Park and Coney Island did start at 9th/10th Avenue and 20th Street and run down Gravesend Avenue.
What may be confusing things in my mind is that on old maps, the New York and Manhattan Beach Railroad is shown running from Long Island City (probably the old LIRR ferry terminal) through East New York and then south along the NY&MB right-of-way a bit east of the Brighton line. I think that Andrew Culver might have been a stockholder in that route but in addition, the LIRR might have had trackage rights to run to Coney Island via Gravesend Avenue.
A part of all this confusion comes from the statements found in some histories (covering the BRT/BMT) about the track connection between the LIRR and the BRT "at Atlantic Avenue"--is that downtown or East New York?
Culver service did run to Park Row/Sands Street before the line was elevated; after the original Brighton cut and embankment was built, Sea Beach, West End, and Culver trains used third rail on the el and trolley poles on the surface. The first BMT Standards had temporary trolley poles for testing.
Will keep searching, hoping that my mind didn't hopelessly mix up facts.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Culver sold his line to the LIRR as I recall.
As to the Manhattan Beach service -- as I recall there was service (originating from ?) to the Race Track (about Ave U I think) and points south, including freight (eg: Ave S. coal siding). There were
various permutations including services that used the (then, several switches) connection at Parkside Junction (Ave I/Gravesend-McDonald Ave), to/from Bay Ridge-65th Street Pier station.
The Manhattan Beach ROW ran along the Brighton Line, and is evidenced today by the rather late period row houses (good pun heh?), along the eastern bank of the Brighton embankment/El.
BTW, anybody know where the ROW started (north)? And if there are any other more concrete vestiges to be seen?
Gravesend Avenue must have been a great place for train watchers to be on before the elevated line was built (except for the mud--in fact, it's only in relatively recent years that they've paved the section under Ditmas Avenue station)--with trolleys coming from Prospect Park (and maybe downtown as well), el trains on the same tracks, and South Brooklyn freights. The junction under Ditmas station into the 1950s was fairly active with McDonald Avenue trolleys running through, Church-McDonald return-looping, South Brooklyn freights following under the el in both directions, and subway car deliveries on the surface. (I don't think there was ever any northbound subway car movement on the surface--anybody ever hear of any?)
By the way, does anyone have a list of the original BRT/BQT trolley route numbers? I vaguely recall Church-McDonald being #8 and Church itself #13 (or the reverse). I know that #35 was used for Church after PCC cars were assigned there, but that was in the bus era. (The early bus route numbers are still at the core of the present numbering.)
Thanks,
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
The possibilities of using both tracks were in fact very wide in the past. There we a couple of crossovers, a team yard near Culver Terminal, the spur from it to Coney Shops, the 2 tracks and many sours under the abandoned 37th St. part of the Culver El, leading to the 36th St. yard, etc.
I have prepared a Bahn 3.40 simulation of B-Q Plus in the 1930s which includes all these freight goodies, even carfloats.
I'll be releasing in soon...
(I still am waiting for more *HARD* testimony about whether the westmost ramps in the 37th St. Culver cut were used to access the 5th Ave El. - more serious evidence indicates that the yard ramps and track were always used that way, except perhaps temporarily during the redoing of the cut - ANYONE?)
According to old maps, the ROW connected to the Bay Ridge LIRR right above Av. I. Riding northbound on the ROW next to the Brighton Line led to the Bay Ridge LIRR eastbound. Most of these maps also show E. 16th St. not built between Av. I and the LIRR. It may have been built very recently, but I'm not sure. The west side of E. 16th St. is occupied by newly constructed and subsequently abandoned 1 or 2-family houses.
Bob Sklar
One qualification: the track connection at Flatbush and Atlantic Aves. to the LIRR was from the IRT, not the BRT. August Belmont had it put in so he and his guests could take his private subway car, the Mineola, out to Belmont Park for an outing to the racetrack from the basement of the Belmont Hotel on 42nd St. Belmont served on the LIRR Board of Directors for a time, if I'm not mistaken.
I know there was an underground IRT to LIRR connection at Atlantic Avenue downtown, but there was also a connection from the LIRR to the 5th Avenue El--part of the girderwork had survived for many years and could be seen east of the LIRR station into the 1960s, I think, but it may not still be there. I think the connection was built to allow LIRR trains to operate to Park Row, but I'm not certain if they did; references I've seen haven't always been clear.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
This connection allowed BRT elevated trains to enter the LIRR Atlantic Ave. line and travel to the Rockaway peninsula. Another connection existed at Chestnut Street in East New York from the Broadway elevated to the LIRR on Atlantic Ave - also for beach service between Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the Rockaways. Both connections were out of service by 1917.
It was ripped down around 1990 +- 2 yrs.
I wished I had photographed it.
Also, a pice of the 5th Ave El accross 6th Ave (!) remained till the late 80s!
Anyone out there have old Brooklyn El photos - I REALLY would like them and I'm sure Dave would love to post them!
With regard to pictures of old Brooklyn els (or "L," as the BMT tried to convince people to use), Greller and Watson's "The Brooklyn Elevated," published by NJ International in Hicksville, has lots of good pictures, with, unfortunately, almost none of them dated. I bought mine in February of 1994; the ISBN code is 0-934088-20-9.
Overall the book is a really useful addition to the literature on New York transit. But, as an aside--it is sadly full of typos and out-and-out mistakes; I really wonder if they even did a spelling check, let alone proofreading, on it. (That's something that seems to be common in transit books--perhaps because of low potential sales or because those who publish such books think we have no commitment to standard spellings and usage. Yet rail people are responsible for things like 'standard' time and 'standard' gauge.) Thus, 'Hudson Avenue' becomes 'Hudson Street,' even though the original track map reproduced there uses 'Avenue,' while the extra detail map added uses 'Street' again (page 110; the picture caption says that street "provided a strait line to Myrtle Avenue El"--Hudson might have "strait and narrow," or perhaps someone was thinking of a "strait jacket," but a direct route is not 'strait.') Indications for pictures are frequently wrong, also--I've used a magnifying glass on a "lower left" picture to find what's talked about only to realize at last that the picture is the "lower right." Other examples are "Small stations aide the traveler," "west end" (for the line), "Tomplains" for "Tompkins,"
and others.
The maps are also undated--the 38th Street cut track map seems to be pre-Dual Contracts, so the question about whether the Culver el trains used the westmost ramps will have to be answered elsewhere. Perhaps someone who rode the el trains when they still ran downtown will remember.
Ed Alfonsin/SUNY at Potsdam
I'm afraid you're right - all too right - about grammar, spelling, style, etc. in transit and railroad books. I also often find mistakes in foreign books these days, although books published in England are still a pleasure to read. It's not only local, privatly published books but also some fat volumes on trains, especially from a prominent California publisher, that are a real torture to wade through. Rail publishers seem to believe they either don't need copy editors or can't afford them, but then if you look at advertisements and recent American fiction, it's clear they aren't alone. The "New York Times" had an article recently about editing of trade books in the U.S., noting that editors are becoming a rare breed, and anyhow most of them can't spell anymore. Is this the fault of publishing economics or our schools?
Speaking of misinformed authors, my classic for this year is the introduction to a recent Morning Sun Books title.
I quote,
"To some of us with a bent for nostalgia, a city's mass transit system represents a logo, of sorts, that gives identity to that city. Who can deny that the Cable Car is the symbol for San Francisco, the New York subways have become an institution, with songs written about the A Train, Charley on the MTA and, of course, New Orleans with its "Streetcar Named Desire," just to name a few?"
Ed, do you remember seeing Kendall Square Station on the Rockaway Line? Thats the only New York line that I can think of that required an additional fare to leave.
On another note. About a month ago I was sub-talking regarding the alleged third track level at Grand Central. I had located a William Middleton article with diagrams from "Passenger Terminals and Trains". You identified Middleton's Book, and by dating John A Droege's work you present a possible clarification of the "Future Construction" label on one of the level's loop track
BTW the magazine article listed the level with track numbers less than 100 as being the "Lower" level. I'd like to know where this error originated Was it Droege, Middleton, or Trains Magazine.
Marty in Latham (odd--I'll be in Albany Monday through Thursday this week) raises some interesting points. I don't remember Kendall Square in Rockaway (sounds more like Boston) but one book I haven't yet bought is the one on the LIRR--'Change at Far Rockaway,' I think it's called. That should have information on old or alternate names.
Very early in the twentieth century, there was an extra fare charged on the BRT el lines to Coney Island--I think the histories talk about the near-riots it occasioned. And there was the zone fare across the Whitestone Bridge.
I still prefer systems where you pay as you get on and don't have to worry about carrying movie-stub sized tickets or hoping you don't lose your last bit of change if you have to get off in the next zone.
Getting Boston's and New York's MTAs has gotten even more complicated with Los Angeles, Baltimore, and others using the acronym. Last week, there was a history program on weaponry, if I recall, which was narrated by Walter Cronkite who kept talking about the importance of the St. Lawrence Seaway during the American Revolution and the equal importance of the Lake Champlain--Hudson River route. (Of course, the Seaway opened in the late 1950s and Lake George got lost in the script for the program.)
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Ed...The Title is "Change at Ozone Park"
I have a few photos by the late Francis J. Goldsmith at the JoeKorNer.
Currently there are Culver, 5th Ave and Fulton St and some yard shots.
The URL is: http://www.quuxuum.org/~joekor/fjgoldsmith/index.html
[> raising every bridge over the Bay Ridge division
> and tearing up the tunnel in East NY.
Speaking of which, I saw this for the first time on Saturday. From the L station at Atlantic Ave., it looks like there is a platform area at the mouth of the tunnel. Was this ever (meant to be) a
station for passengers?]
You can see the Bay Ridge line from Atlantic Avenue on the L? I've been there a number of times and as far as I know all that's visible is the LIRR's line to Flatbush Avenue with the East New York Station.
Well, I *think* that's what it was. Haven't gotten the pictures back but the tunnel mouth (on the west side of Atlantic Avenue's westernmost platform) has an engraving that says something like "NY Connecting RR Grade Crossing Elimination 1914". I think it's the Bay Ridge line. The line would be the same as that which parallels the Canarsie line further south past Sutter.
-Dave
That certainly is the NY Connecting Railroad branch, which you
can ALSO see running alongside the "M" station at Metropolitan Ave.
It branches off the Hell Gate line at 50th St. and Borough Place
(alongside the BQE) in eastern Astoria/northern Woodside. Then it's
down past the "M", past the "L" at Wilson and Atlantic and on to
Bay Ridge. Note: my Hagstrom shows it marked as "L.I.R.R." but I
don't think any passenger trains ever used it. There's also a branch
that parallels the "L" running to Bushwick Terminal, runs just south
of Wyckoff Avenue, but don't know whether it's in use or abandoned.
We both saw that engraving over the portal. It is visible from the
north end of the s/b "L" platform at A.A.
Wayne
In addition to the NYCR, which runs north through Lutheran Cemetary from the last M stop, and the Bushwick Branch, which runs to Bushwick terminal, the Zoning Map shows a Evergreen Branch which parallels the L train south of Wyckoff. What shape is that in?
It's mostly built over, either with garages, or small houses north of Myrtle, and the Wyckoff Foods supermarket (formerly Waldbaums) on Putnam. There is no rail in these areas, but looking down from the M, you can see on the side of a building next to the ROW a porch that looks like it could have been a station! Down by Halsey, you can see rails crossing the street, but the ROW is gated off.
(Evergreen ROW built on). Rats. I'm of the increasingly minority point of view that you should never allow a ROW to be broken. Break it in one spot, and the whole thing is worthless. And NYC has so few ROWs, especially grade separated, per person and per job.
You know there are people right now who feel that since nothing will ever be built (NIMBY liberals, budget conservatives et al) we might as well allow retail development to break the Rockaway line ROW! Make a quick buck for the LIRR to spend outside the city.
The A to Far Rock ends across a shopping center from the LIRR to Far Rock. I assume that these were linked at one time, and the link was broken in a deal back in the 1950s. Well, last time I was out there the supermarket that anchored the shopping center was abandoned. Meanwhile, back in the 1980s 10,000 market rate housing units were planned for the abandoned beachfront land at Arverne, but it never happened. The possibility of a fast trip via LIRR rather than a slow
slog via the A might have made a difference. And now you might have heard of "Destination Technodome", which a developer has proposed for the 300 acre Arverne site. LIRR service could have made a difference there as well. Ain't gonna happen.
[(Evergreen ROW built on). Rats. I'm of the increasingly minority point of view that you should never allow a ROW to be broken. Break it in one spot, and the whole thing is worthless. And NYC has so few ROWs, especially grade separated, per person and per job.]
That's why Metro North bought the old Maybrook line in Putnam and Dutchess Counties. While there weren't any solid plans to begin service on the line, Metro North's management realized that if they didn't snap it up quickly, the ROW was likely to be built upon. Had that happened, it almost certainly would have become impossible to ever begin service.
[You know there are people right now who feel that since nothing will ever be built (NIMBY liberals, budget conservatives et al) we might as well allow retail development to break the Rockaway line ROW! Make a quick buck for the LIRR to spend outside the city.]
I believe the city owns the Rockaway ROW, not the MTA.
.
Peter Rosa mentions that "the city owns the Rockaway ROW, not the MTA." Doesn't the City own the subways (especially since the people of the City paid for it all)? Does the MTA itself own anything in the City? or outside the City? Does the State own the LIRR? Who actually owns the Metro-North tracks, equipment, in NY or in Connecticut? Grand Central?
If the MTA owns any of it, how did it pay for it?
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Didn't the original Culver route use the tracks from Long Island City through Maspeth and Canarsie en route to Gravesend (McDonald) Avenue and Coney Island?
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Ed!
You and Larry are going to make me dig out my old maps of the city. When I first began to commute back to the city from Albany in the mid fifties I used to zig zag through Maspeth to get to the Triborough Bridge. I don't think I can name any of the streets. I just picked it up from watching Dad. I had no idea that the Culver originated in this area.
I'll have to dig through the histories (if someone doesn't do it before I get the chance) to give some references to old Andrew and his train.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Thanks Ed
I've been looking at a Rand McNally
I spot Rust off of Grand; I assume 58th was one because I remember skirting the "New Calgary" to get to Queens Blvd , then probably 31st to get to the Bridge near Astoria Blvd.
BTW Where is the Bushwick Terminal? Is it near Johnson & Bushwich or a bit NE at Varick and Flushing. Varick and Flushing, "THE FREIGHT YARD," another area where only parents realized the danger that lurked behind our fun-seeking trespass.
Bushwick Terminal is located at Bushwick and Montrose Aves. It was originally the terminal for the South Side Railroad (an early competitor of the LIRR) and opened in 1868. For more info, see my website at http://www.pipeline.com/~robertwa/ssrr.html
[Bushwick Terminal is located at Bushwick and Montrose Aves. It was originally the terminal for the South Side Railroad (an early competitor of the LIRR) and opened in 1868. For more
info, see my website at http://www.pipeline.com/~robertwa/ssrr.html]
Is it still in use?
I don't think the line to Bushwick terminal is still in use, although there are a couple of old boxcars along the ROW from Bushwick to Fresh Pond
My memories of the Bushwick Branch is of line of stock cars serving the slaughterhouses on Johnson Ave,
The line from Fresh Pond should still be active.
The Evergreen Branch, from East NY past Wyckoff, etc. was abandoned to a point just east of Varick Yards (are they still there???), a number of decades ago.
Anyone have more info? Photos of old LIRR in NYC.
Was the "Evergreen Branch" the official name of the Branch that ran between Irving and Wyckoff from Flushing and Varick(and Irving) to the Bay Ridge Branch at Cooper?
In his book "The Brooklyn and Rockaway Beach Railroad", W.W.Fausser references the 1878 Narrow Gauge New York & Manhattan Beach, being built on the franchise of the Glendale & East River, from Quay Sy, Greenpoint to Flushing Ave. At Flushing, he states, that it continued on the franchise of the Brooklyn & Rockaway Beach to East New York. Would you know if the second franchise above, was the "Evergreen Branch"? The route of this line parallels Evergreen Ave, Brooklyn, but is about 4 and a half blocks north of this street.
My grandmother is buried in the cemetary, at Wilson Ave on The Canarsie Line, which my mother always refered to as the Evergreen Cemetary. I believe this cemetary entrance is a bit south (maybe two blocks) of the connection with the Bay Ridge Line, but the cemetary itself extended north to Wyckoff. Actually, I believe there are many continuous cemetaries beginning here and running east to Forest Park.
I remember this brach being cut off at Troutman St on it's western end at the end of WWII, but I think the portion east of Gates (or Myrtle) survived for a bit longer. I seem to recall an industrial plant (near Halsey St) on this section that had something to do with outfitting "Walters" Fire Trucks.
I probably witnessed the last service along the branch without realizing itt, since I spent the first twenty years of my life at Hart St and Irving Av. I remember being a kid that always ran up the block to watch, whenever a train was in the area.
h
The LIRR Branch south of Wyckoff has been out of service since the early fifties. I remember that it was used as an active siding between Flushing and Troutman, and I think active from Myrtle to Cooper.
There was (is?) a coal fired powerhouse (I believe subway related) south of Wyckoff between Gates and Myrtle. It was served by this branch. One day, on a return from one of the movies that were located in this area of Myrtle (The Parthenon, The Ridgewood, The Madison) me and a couple of friends decided to use this as a shortcut home since the doors on Myrtle were open. Well leader of the pack, Vic, was lucky that Eddie and I were at his side as he stepped into the under the rails coal hoppers that took us all by surprise. At DeKalb, the r-o-w was used for automobile parking lots for several blocks. We had no knowledge of bunkers at the time, and the, what we felt innocent, trespass almost had disastorous results.
>One day, on a return from one of the movies that were located in >this area of Myrtle (The Parthenon, The Ridgewood, The Madison) me >and a couple of friends decided to use this as a shortcut home since >the doors on Myrtle were open. Well leader of the pack, Vic, was >lucky that Eddie and I were at his side as he stepped into the under >the rails coal hoppers that took us all by surprise. At DeKalb, the >r-o-w was used for automobile parking lots for several blocks. We >had no knowledge of bunkers at the time, and the, what we felt >innocent, trespass almost had disastorous results.
SIR has something like this in the vicinity of Dongan Hills Station. The bridge over Seaview Avenue, and the ROW form there to the Dongan Hills station has a third track (rails intact!) with trees growing through it. There are grates over what appears to be holes, and from the street,where the RR retaqining wall serves as a back fence to the backyards of the houses along (Bear?) St, there are several chutes, which I would put good money on their being connected to the hoppers above. I wish I could get my hands on a pre-VZ Hagstroms.....
-Hank
What with my curiosity having been piqued, after work today I took the L out to Atlantic Avenue. And yes, I sure did see that tunnel portal :-) What's interesting is that the portal is completely invisible from the Manhattan-bound platform, which is at least 100 feet away from the Canarise platform.
I'm wondering if the old LIRR electrical substation located under the Atlantic Avenue station was related to the Bay Ridge line. At first I thought it had been used for the Flatbush Avenue line, but then I remembered reading that the Bay Ridge line had been electrified until ~35 years ago. Removal of electrification would account for abandonment of the substation. Quite picturesque, in a way, with some of the walls now ivy-covered.
What I couldn't tell was whether the Bay Ridge line is still in active service. I had some time to kill before getting the LIRR at East New York, so I took the next Canarise train to the end of the line. There were three boxcars along the Bay Ridge tracks south of Atlantic, I think near Sutter Avenue station. But further north, around Wilson Street, I noticed a burned-out car hulk lying on the Bay Ridge tracks that seemed - I couldn't be certain - to block them. The hulk clearly had been there for a long time.
The Port Authority and DOT were kicking around the idea of using the Bay Ridge ROW as a "freightway" some years back. The idea was to have two lanes for trucks and a middle track for trains, with yards to interchange between the two. The truck lanes would hook in at Linden Blvd, and would allow trucks to go from JFK & Sunrise HWY to Conduit, Linden Blvd, the freightway, and then onto the Gowanus in the Bay Ridge cut and over the Verrazano. Twinning the Goethals and adding a truck lane to the Staten Island was part of the idea. Trains would come in over the New York Connecting Railroad, unload in the Flatlands Area or Sunset Park, and circulate around Brooklyn on the Freightway by truck. City Planning pointed out this idea in a couple of planning documents as an investment which would help industry in Brooklyn, and JFKs air freight.
Well forget it, the NIMBY is such that no one would dare proposed it. It may also be impossible just to increase rail service. Run more trains through Glendale?
You know, that idea doesn't sound half bad. It might produce some of the benefits that _supposedly_ would be generated by the proposed cross-harbor freight tunnel, but at a fraction of the cost. Why would the NIMBYs object? It seems to me that the idea would substantially reduce truck traffic on the area's roads. And at least as far as the Linden Yards, the Bay Ridge line appears to run mainly through commercial/industrial areas.
The Bay Ridge cut runs through middle-class white neighborhoods from the point where it departs from the Sea Beach ROW until the point where it enters the Flatlands Industrial Park. This includes parts of Borough Park, and the Ditmas Park/Midwood border. It runs behind Brooklyn College, for example. Its a small number of people, relative to those who would benefit, but the system is set up that a small number of people can block any change.
Since more rail service may not be a "change" legally, we might be able to get away with it. Then again, perhaps not. The Queens Borough President got the state to agree that Queens trash would go out through Brooklyn by truck, rather than by train from, say, the isolated Rust Ave area.
Yes, re. NIMBYs, all it takes is a few to delay or even kill a project. However, it seems from the postings here that rail, whether subway, commuter rail, or freight, is a particular target of NIMBYism in metropolitan New York. Here in Chicago, in the last 5-10 years, a totally new rapid transit line, partly through industrial areas but also through middle-class neighborhoods, was built, and an existing freight line with light traffic was made into a new (and quite successful) Metra line serving previously-unserved suburbs. In both cases, NIMBYism was light if not non-existent. So what is the deal with NY, NIMBYs, and railways?
[Yes, re. NIMBYs, all it takes is a few to delay or even kill a project. However, it seems from the postings here that rail, whether subway, commuter rail, or freight, is a particular target of
NIMBYism in metropolitan New York ... In both [Chicago] cases, NIMBYism was light if not non-existent. So what is the deal with NY, NIMBYs, and railways?]
It isn't altogether certain that rail really *is* a NIMBY target in the New York area. Most of the postings regarding NIMBYs have been of the "what if" variety.
(Rail only a hypothetical target). Tell that to whoever suggested adding a third track on the Harlem line through Bronxville, Scarsdale, etc. Or tell that to whoever suggested a cross-river rail bridge at the Tappen Zee (ie. near the artsy town of Nyack). On anyone who dared to suggest restarting the Rockway Division to Whitepot.
[(Rail only a hypothetical target [of NIMBYs]). Tell that to whoever suggested adding a third track on the Harlem line through Bronxville, Scarsdale, etc. Or tell that to whoever suggested a cross-river rail bridge at the Tappen Zee (ie. near the artsy town of Nyack). On anyone who dared to suggest restarting the Rockway Division to Whitepot.]
You are right about the Harlem line. I recall that there was a good deal of community opposition to the third track, though I really don't see what their gripe really was.
As far as I know, the rail bridge and Rockaway ideas have never gone beyond the "what if" stage. That's a bit too early to make any sort of conclusion about NIMBY opposition.
There's something else about NIMBY. The real reason public projects get killed is because decisionmakers knuckle under, not because the existance of a backyard gives anyone the right to prevent the government from building things there.
NIMBYists can, by themselves, delay projects. They cannot, by themselves, kill them unless the decisionmaking agency screws up its environmental review process or whatever review process is required. Even then, in almost all circumstances, the review process can be redone to satisfy whatever critria were not properly done the first time, and the project can proceed over the protest of whoever's backyard is affected. A large part of the blame for NIMBY lies on the other side of the fence. Instead of bemoaning NIMBY, I think we should spend more energy on discrediting spineless govenment employees and elected officials.
--mhg
Sure, I'd like it if the higher ups and politicians were willing to denounce NIMBYs as selfish self-dealers who benefit from public facilities in other people's backyards but won't take them in their own. And sure, I'd like it if an all out effort were made to stomp them. But lets say someone did take that approach. He or she would be immediately denounced as -- what -- another Robert Moses!
One thing I've discovered as a parent is that it makes sense to pay attention to good behavior and shun bad behavior. Here in NY, however, the squeeky wheel gets the grease and everyone else gets the drive shaft. It would be a good thing if people who said "gee, this will negatively affect me, can you minimize the impact" were compensated and those who said "not in my neighborhood" were stomped, but that's not the way it works in NYC.
A long enough delay will kill a project eventually. The current system suits a) lawyers b) people who can afford lawyers, thus stopping anything negative, or possibly negative, in their communities. There was a time when you could at least get things done by sticking it to the poor ala Moses, but that's not so easy anymore.
The worst part is how appointed community boards, self-appointed advocates, and public hearings (where the same bunch of self-promoting loud mouths show up on every issue) are considered democracy, while elections are not. Perhaps because we don't have real elections. Maybe they should put slates of public works on referendums, or something, to show that the loudmouths are not representative of the general public.
Larry,
While I agree with the spirit of what you've said, your post contains so many generalities that I can't really agree with any of it. And, there's really nothing I can say about "the higher ups" and "the lawyers" and "the system" because those are not real people who did real things that could be examined and discussed.
I will say, though, that I disagree that NYC is so different from the rest of the country in terms of how people react to change. The NYT in the last few days had articles about people with (what seemed to me rather silly) fears about napalm disposal in Texas and the sale of forest land in Maine. Both groups were saying "NIMBY." There is always someone whose interest will be negatively affected by a government decision, and therefore always someone willing to incur the personal expense of fighting the decision.
The law allows this, and probably with good reason. "Stomp the poor" is no longer acceptable. The problem with the new system, though, is not what I think you believe it to be. The truth is that something like 95% of all projects requiring federal Environmental Impact Statements go forward with no change or very minor change costing very little. Obviously, the larger and scarier the project, the more opinions get voiced. But clearly, the NIMBYists are not derailing (sorry, couldn't resist) every project that comes along, or stopping "everything negative" in their communities. And just as clearly, plans to do things like dispose of nuclear waste or house the criminally insane in wealthy neighborhoods are going to create a lot of furor. That reflects human nature, and not a subset of people with backyards to fight about.
The biggest single problem with this system is, I think, that planning and review are not done properly in the first place. Courts cannot prevent the construction of "negative" projects simply because they are "negative." Then can tell the government to do its job properly, usually because the job wasn't done right in the first place and often because the decision was made before the EIS and the latter is created to justify the former. Blame for this does not lie with NIMBYists, and frankly I think that it is unfair to criticize people who have learned to exploit the government's persistance in screwing up.
I don't mean to ignore the fact that people with political clout throw it around to suit their constituents. However, I am getting at the idea that the choice is not between stomp the poor or get nothing accomplished. It is between do the process right the first time and accept that some delay is inevitable under the law and the realities of politics, or do it wrong and be forever doomed to fight a losing battle where your allies may lose interest or their offices. It's this latter option that gives NIMBYists something to do and keeps others in business decrying them.
--mhg
[I disagree that NYC is so different from the rest of the country in terms of how people react to change.]
You are correct about that. NIMBYism is a nationwide phenomenon, and for all I know it might be stronger in other parts of the country.
Where New York does seem to differ elsewhere is its bumbling incompetence at accomplishing public works projects. As always, the Second Avenue subway is Exhibit #1.
Peter,
I agree with you. It's incredibly frustrating to watch.
Let me give a different perspective, though. There is a great book called "The Unheralded Triumph, City Government in American 1870-1900" by Jon Teaford. It chronicles the history of NYC goverment (in particular) and describes the battles that occurred to provide municipal services in the growing metropolis. It is interesting for two reasons. First, it shows that "la plus ca change, la plus c'est la meme chose." It was difficult to get things done then, and difficult to get things done now. The problems that city planners faced then are identical to those they face now. Second, the book shows that despite these problems, a remarkable amount was accomplished by the city governments in those 25 years or so. Thus the title. The book suggests that the balance or power was struck during the 1880's between private and public rights actually worked out OK. So the question is, what, if anything, is different today?
--mhg
I'm interested in seeing that book too.
We were writing this charter-mandated document some months ago which (in another example of spinelss bureaucrats not doing anything) was never published after I spent weeks writing and revising it. One of the chapters was "New York's Public Works Failure." I proposed two causes: funding priorities (the data I spout off when I get cranky) and the out of control public review process and litigation.
The second cause touched off big time objections from our review divisions, who claimed that what the review process has frustrated was new highways, which no one really wants anymore because of the disruption, and not other public works on my failure list (with subway improvements at the top, of course). As bad as it is, they claim they the process can be made to work. And a lawyer claims that the city has never thrown all the resources of Corp. Counsel into a war against delay litigation to blow it away, and could if it new what it was doing. I guess you agree with this point of view.
The problem is, the NIMBYITES are so used to winning they sue on everything. And the bureaucrats are so used to losing (ie winning the lawsuit six years later, after the project is dead) that they don't propose anything -- except as the conclusions to studies which have no legal or budgetary consequences.
Well, I do think that part of the problem is that the City is not agressive enough in dealing with NIBMY lawsuits and similar problems. The difficulty lies in large part with insufficient staffing, too many cases per lawyer (most filed by prisoners) and too little salary per lawyer. Although the people at Corporation Counsel are, in my experience, dedicated and conscientious, they just aren't up to this sort of task.
The other thing, though, is that it's hard to measure how "difficult" or "time-consuming" it is to do things under our system of government. The big difference between now and 100 years ago is really in _who_ may challenge a government decision and _who_ gets to decide the final result. 100 years ago, the entire process was run by the wealthy and by politicians, typically machine politicians. Today, the process is much more open to ordinary people, and politicians are much more vulnerable to attack by those same people. The point of The Unheralded Triumph is that the former situation was not necessarily bad, because things did get accomplished despite the delays and fighting that occurred. Because of the scale and complexity of modern public works projects, I'm not sure how to compare 100 years ago with today. Better or worse, I don't really know.
--mhg
People here believe that if they are in a position to obstruct something, they can demand "compensation." So they obstruct things even if they are in favor. The other thing in NYCity environmental law, which makes it easy to sue. And a whole cadre of lawyers who make their living suing.
Rail and transit are less are target of NIMBY than most other things. Everything is a target of NIMBY.
According to a proposal available some years back from a NY based group there was at one point in the 20's passenger service on this line but... The ptoposal was for an LRV operation to make multiple crosstown connections with existing NYCT lines and improve intraborough transi in Bklyn especially. The pamphlet showed possible locations fort platforms etc,and suggested in the case of Bklyn College addind ramps to bring the line closer to both the campus and IRT terminal. NIH no action what a surprise! The sad irony here is that the newest CTA line to Midway was almost entirely built on excess ROW of freight and/or former passenbger routes within the city. AND people use it!
The electrification came down in 1974. I've never seen any photos of the stations, but from various readings and old maps some may have been at the following locations - Parkville (McDonald Ave), Kouwenhoven (near Utica Avenue), Ford's Corner (Canarsie?). Don't know if any remnants remain. If anyone out there has a good source of info about this forgotten line, please post it.
Mark, I couldn't agree more ! But I wouldn't want it to make room for more cars !
Mr t__:^)
I think that more cars are inevitable. There are ways to keep people out of cars, of course, but I think that we are unlikely to see such measures for many years, if ever. Meanwhile, the need for transportation will continue to grow as the population expands. If a siginficant number of trucks were removed from the highway, there would be more room for other highway users. Can we build more roads? No doubt, if we begin condemning property and chopping up neighborhoods again. Can we build more rails? More easily, I think, since the rights of way already exist.
So, who will volunteer to explain to car drivers that they would benefit from new rail lines? I nominate the Molinaris.
--mhg
But is it too high when driving in general - anywhere in the USA - is so heavily subsidized?
Although I agree that driving uses scarce resources, and generates social costs like pollution, lets not get carried away. Since almost everyone is a driver, most of the subsidies for driving are also paid for by drivers. There simply aren't enough non-drivers to exploit.
The biggest cost, in my view, is all the land the cars eat up. You could say future generations are victim of all the paving, but its gotten so expensive to build roads that drivers themselves are paying for the space they use -- in time, due to traffic congestion.
You pay, one way or the other.
Ok, I see your logic - I drive hardly at all (I usually bike) but someday I will and I like the fact that the groceries I buy are cheap and non-rotten, which has a lot to do with cheap fast transportation.
On the other hand, we all pay for and benefit from our armed forces. Yet I am not happy about $600 toilet seats, because they are a waste. Likewise with much of our transportation system. Like the $600 toilet seat, there are reasons that we have (in the US outside the northeast, at least) a vastly overbuilt and wasteful highway system - the contractors make money on both....
Motorists subsidize transit riders? Ain't so. Motorists use a lot of very scarce land, especially at rush hour. They pay off the transit riders to give up their share of the road, as far as I'm concerned.
As I've said, the one way to guarantee that drivers understand the value of mass transit to them is for every transit rider to exercise their equal right to drive on the very same day. The drivers will be begging the subway riders to get back underground in the blink of an eye!
Which reminds me: a friend gave me a book called "Great Planning Disasters," and one of the disasters mentioned was the BART system. BART was hugely expensive, but few people use it. Yet people supported its construction. Why? Because it was sold as a way to reduce traffic congestion. Drivers were willing to pay taxes to build BART because they wanted the other guy to take the train so they could continue to drive!
Chris J Brunson recently posted the following regarding Co-op City:
> I'm proposing two services to Co-op City. One diverting off the 1/9
> lines in the Bronx (238th Street). Operating along Van Cortlandt
> Park South, Gun Hill Road, and Burke Avenue. Connecting the 2/5 at
> White Plains Road, and the #5 at Esplande. Ending at Co-op City
> Blvd.
I recently went on the Manhattan Els tour, and thr guide, Joe Cunningham, mentioned that the original terminal of the first subway line (today's 1/9 line) in the Bronx was not supposed to be 242nd St/Van Cortlandt Park. There was a plan to have the line turn east at E 238th ST and run along just the route Chris proposed, though not as far as where Co-op City is today.
So my questions:
- anyone hear of this before?
- if you did, where would this line have gone? What caused the plans to change to have this line terminate at 242nd St?
--Mark
Never heard it before. It sure would have been a better plan; reducing bus travel that is extremely bad for the environment.
Another plan includes: once the second Avenue line is built, two sytems in the Bronx should be constructed. Above 125th Street, one line will ver into the #6 at Brook Avenue. It will follow the #6 route until Hunts Point Avenue. Then, it run along Hunts Point Avenue and turn onto Lafayette Avenue terminating on East Termont Avenue. Stations between Brook Avenue and Hunts Point should not be built to provide faster service (operating below current #6 line). Also, reducing construction costs.
Note: the 2nd Avenue Line should be built as a four track system below 125th Street, similar to the 4,5 and 6.
On the Other Hand, the other 2nd Avenue line should travel on the old 3rd Avenue route. Connections with the #6 at 3rd Avenue, #2 & #5 at 149th Street, and D train at Grand ConCourse should be made. Terminating at Grand ConCourse.
As for Manhattan, a 125th Street crosstown line should be created. It should terminate on St. Nicholas Avenue connecting the A, B, C, and D lines. Further connecting lines would be 2 & 3 on Lenox Avenue, and 4, 5, & 6 on Lexington Avenue finally turning onto 2nd Avenue.
Below 15th Street, one of the 2nd Avenue lines should ver from 2nd Avenue route (becoming a two track system) following the L path (connection at 1st Avenue). Note: this line should connect L train track, using the same station platform. Then (vering off of L train tracks), it should travel along avenue C (presently not being service by subway service) until East Bwy. Next, it will operate along East Bwy (connecting F train at E. Bwy Station) until Water Street of which a reconnection with the 2nd Avenue line will occur. Terminating at Whitehall Street.
The main line should continue as a four track system (125th St. to Whitehall Street) until Whitehall Street. Connections with the F at 2nd Avenue (Houston Street),and B, D, and Q at Grand Street should be made.
Three lines should operate along this route (9, 10, 11), one vering off the main route onto Avenue C. Whether it should be a IRT type or BMT/IND type, I'm not sure. I guess, I will prefer it to be a IRT type since it could interchange with #6 line. In reference to the 63rd Street tunnel, maybe, they can be cars specially design for both IRT & BMT/IND types around the doors where passengers enter the train. In other words, the foot step at the doors should be designed to extend automatically.
The D train should be extend either to at White Plains Road (connecting #2 & #5 at Burke Avenue) or Co-op City.
Question:
I like the ride of both the Lexington and 7th Ave express lines in Mnhtn. The subway cars have this nice bouncy effect and feeling due to in part of I guess a good suspension coil system that the cars are equipped with. But on other subway cars, I don't get this feeling hardly ever. Is it something to do with track layout or is it just the car's suspension system itself.
-Garfield
All NYCT cars (except the R110s) use the same suspension. Therefore, if the ride feels different, it's got to be due to something external. If you look, the IRT uses ballasted track while the BMT/IND use Concrete roadbeds in the tunnels. That might explain the differences you feel.
I rode up on the Metroliner from Baltimore this morning. Off to the
side at the Wilmington shops are about 20 of the old MU Metroliners,
some in their original pre-Amtrak Penn Central colors! A few of the
rebuilt "Capitoliners" which I believe ran in the early eighties are
lying dormant in the same area. Some of these cars have been reborn
on push-pull trainsets around the country (you can tell by the remnants on the roof where the pantagraph was mounted). If anyone has
any further comments, please post.
The best thing about those metroliners when they were in Keystone service is when we had a AEM7 go bad on us we never did lose the hotel power >G< during the 4 hours it took for a rescue engine to get to us.
The "F" line, between Avenue "X" and West 8th Street, operates
on a structure radically different from the segments it connects to.
This section consists of a relatively deep "open-lattice" type
of construction. Why ?
If this section opened during the late 1920's (part of the Dual
Contracts ?), why didn't the City use conventional construction
(track beams comprised of steel plates) ?
Was this structure "new" or was it "recycled" from another location
and reassembled here ?
I would assume an open-lattice structure would be even more difficult
to maintain considering it's situated a few hundred feet from
the beach. Salt water is not very forgiving if steel isn't kept
painted.
Thanks.
Regarding the Culver structure below Avenue X, folk wisdom at the TA in the mid-1950s said that it was steel that had been moved from Fulton Street when that el was reconstructed east of Franklin Avenue as part of the Dual Contracts. It almost looks as if the part of the Culver below the entrance into the yards was an afterthought, but the histories never suggest that--the Culver was a major route to Coney Island and truncating it at Avenue X/86th Street would have been an absurd thing to do.
Other than that word-of-mouth from old BMTers on Jay Street, I don't recall ever seeing other references to the reason for the difference in steelwork. Shell Road was not a street at the time the elevated opened; I doubt if it was anything more than a streetcar (former el-on-surface) right-of-way that was cleared and paved probably in the early 1930s. Perhaps no one thought it would become a throught street and they went cheap.
I've always had some suspicions about this whole story of moving steel from one elevated area to another--it almost sounds like the tales of the 6th Avenue steel being sold to Japan to make airplanes to attack Pearl Harbor.
Ed Alfonsin/SUNY at Potsdam
The latticed structure of the Culver Line was new construction as part of the Dual Contracts. It was not "recycled". If you look carefully, you notice that although the structure is latticework, it is built to much heavier standards than any of the late 19th Century latticework els, and was designed to support the weight of steel sybway cars. The structure amounts to quadruple lattice stringers supported by semi-lattice bents on solid built-up "H" section columns. The structural "E" factor of this structure is the same as for the Dual Contract plate girder construction. The reason that the structure is latticework has to do with the soil conditions in this area. The soil will simply not support both the LIVE and DEAD loads of a solid, plate girder construction, and the contractors resorted to the use of the LIGHTER DEAD LOAD latticed structure to meet the local civil engineering requirements. Maintenence of a lattice structure IS much more intensive than solid plate girder construction. Although initially cheaper to build (since steelwork is sold by weight), total cost over the life of the structure is MUCH greater.
Thanks to Frank Gatazka for a reasonable explanation of the lower part of the Culver; as I mentioned in my post, I was always a bit suspicious of the story about recycling and the explanation confirms that.
But that poses another question--did the eastern part of the Fulton el (Franklin to Atlantic/East New York) get all new steel or was the older structure simply strengthened? And could that rebuilt section hold heavier cars? It would have been a bit strange if that were the case because the sections west of Franklin and from Atlantic/East New York (the old "City Line" to Grant Avenue) were never upgraded. (East of Grant is Dual Contracts, which is why it could used by subway cars from the Fulton subway.)
Eastern or Southern Division, the old BRT/BQT/BMT still intrigues.
BTW, the people calling for a Canarsie/Broadway (Brooklyn) route are actually asking for restoration of another one of the TA's typical "improvements"--elimination of the Rockaway Parkway/Canal (Centre) rush-hour service.
Ed Alfonsin/SUNY at Potsdam
Although the original steel for the Fulton Street El was not recycled for the Culver El, it was reused in rebuilding itself! The original Fulton Street El was a unique structure consisting of three longitudinal stringer girders (latticed) 60" deep supporting two tracks. That is, the two outside girders were approximately under the outermost running rails of the two tracks, with a third girder between the two tracks supporting very heavy 12" X12" crossties. Typical deck girder two track El structures would have used four girders, one under each running rail.
When the Fulton El was rebuilt to Dual Contract standards, widened from two to three tracks (to provide express service), the original three stringer girders were incorporated into the rebuilt structure which used new bents made from plate girders and built-up "H" section columns. The three "new" stringers were conventional 60" deep plate girders.
The rebuilt sections could handle the weight of steel subway cars, in anticipation of the completion of the BRT's "Triborough" plan. This plan never materialized, and the changing fortunes of the BRT (remember Malbone Street?) doomed the plan to tie the Fulton Street El into the subways. Unfortunately then, the entire structure was never rebuilt to Dual Contract standards, so that the rebuilt portions were "stranded" between un-rebuilt portions that were built in the nineteenth century and could only take the weight of El cars. That is why the Fulton Street El operated to the end with lightweight wooden El cars, or the lightweight BMT Multisection cars after it had been truncated at Rockaway Avenue. The portion from Hinsdale Street to Grant Avenue at City Line was never rebuilt. There is a plate in Clifton Hood's book, "722 Miles", which clearly shows the melding of old and new stringer girders in the rebuilt section of the Fulton El between Franklin and East New York.
I have a question, maybe you have the answer, re. the Fulton El
portion between Hinsdale and Grant -
a. How many tracks?
b. Platform arrangements?
I'm trying to picture this line in my mind's eye and I keep coming
up with Crescent Street on the "J" every time.
Thanks for any info you may have,
Wayne
It was 3 track to Pennsylvania Av., then two until the rebuilt section. That station was an island platform, but the others were outside. What was similar to the J line was the tight curve onto Euclid Av. as it switches from Pitkin to Liberty Aves, just like the J switches from Fulton to Jamaica on Crescent St.
The two track structure east of Pennsylvania Ave was a very narrow latticed structure on round, cast iron columns in the street. This was somewhat different from the Fulton El on the "downtown" portion on Fulton Street proper. There the El was supported by long bents that, generally, extended to the curbs, leaving the street free of columns. The spindly nature of that portion of the El earned it the nickname "The Black Widow of Fulton Street". The structure over Pitkin and Liberty Avenues was also different in that, on this portion of the El, the stringer girders were based on a Warren Truss style instead of the simple 60 degree lattice of the "downtown" portion. Just east of Grant Avenue (which was an island station), the structure changed alignment slightly to the north, and became the Dual Contracts plate girder structure of three tracks. This was continued all the way to Lefferts Blvd. A remnant of the truncated Fulton El still exists at the curve before 80th Street (Hudson Street) Station where the IND was tied into the Fulton El extension.
Thank you Frank and Eric B for the information! Now, if only there
were some photographs of this long-gone elevated...
Were the curves at Euclid/Pitkin and Euclid/Liberty as tight as those
at Crescent/Fulton and Crescent/Jamaica?
Thanks again
Wayne
Probably tighter. Those streets over there are even smaller. It probably never would have accommodated B div. cars, like the Jamaica el was upgraded to handle.
With a twist, Ed - combine the old "JJ" with the old "KK" and send
it up 6th Avenue (express Eastern Pkwy to Marcy Avenue) - in my hut
we call this the "K" train (with an Orange sign).
Wayne
Wayne's suggestion isn't too far off what the TA originally inherited from the City B of T's plans for the Chrystie Street connection--that envisioned 'BB' service (which ran from 168th/Washington Heights to 34th Street/6th Avenue) extended to 168th Street/Jamaica Avenue. Explaining that would have been as much fun as the two 36th Street stops that the current 'R' makes.
(As an aside--does anyone know why the TA deleted the Houston/Chrystie/Nassau connection from the 1940s-1950s master plans? It sure would have saved some of the trouble caused by the Manhattan Bridge closings since Houston Street trains could have been rerouted through Nassau and through the Montague Street tunnel--perhaps skipping Court and Lawrence to move service along a bit.)
Ed Alfonsin/SUNY at Potsdam
That was probably because it would have been duplicative of the Bridge route, and they just didn't think of it as a possible emergency replacement at that time.
Right, the Canarsie - Broadway el service was the rush hour 'JJ' service on the 1968 subway map. It terminated at Broad Street? The service proposed by visitors to this site would terminate somewhere along the 6th Avenue line.
Right! Some JJ's terminated at Crescent, some at 111th, some
at Canarsie. Before becoming "JJ", it was formerly known as the
"15", I think. My 1964 World's Fair map describes the following:
Broadway Bklyn Local -Mon.Fri p.m. rush hours
Canal St (Centre)- Crescent St (Jamaica line) or
Rockaway Parkway (Canarsie Line)
The AM counterpart service originated at 168th St and ran
skip-stop with the Jamaica Express (today's "J").
I don't have the 1968 map handy (i'm digging it out)...FOUND IT!!!
Nope, this one's the "KK" edition... still looking for 1967 map...
no luck...
anyway, I DO remember seeing this service marked as going to
Canarsie, however I don't remember whether it was PM only or both
AM and PM. Next time I'm at the TA museum, I'll have to spring
$20 for a 1967 map (at least!)
Wayne
No, the old Broadway-Brooklyn Short Line was the No. 14, running from Canal St. to Eastern Parkway, Crescent St., 111th St. or Canarsie. The No. 15 was the Broadway-Brooklyn Express, running from Broad St. to 168th St. in Jamaica (express from Essex St. to Eastern Parkway).
Thank you for the information! I had the same erroneous assumption
in my Canarsie Line page and I have e-mailed Dave with the correction.
I could NEVER keep those route numbers straight!
Wayne
I forgot to note one terminal of the Broadway-Brooklyn Short Line: Atlantic Ave., even long after the Fulton St.-Lefferts Blvd. line was closed (with a connection to the Short Line at Atlantic Ave.).
But the "JJ" from Canal to Canarsie was actually called "KK" on R-27-38 signs! Of course, those cars didn't run there then, but still, I wondered why they didn't use the "KK" instead of "JJ".
Hi Eric
By the way thanks for your input on the new route plans.
I'm drawing up a proposed (partial) map - but I have one
question - I've seen "A"s divert to the "F" route and vice
versa (during construction and emergencies). Since "A" can
go to Houston Street and "F" can go to Chambers, can't the
"B" go from 8th Ave to Bway-Lafayette & Grand - or is a
switch missing (i.e. only could go by Rutgers tunnel)?
My first encounter with a "JJ" going to Canarsie was in passing -
we were on a "QJ" going in opposite direction when I saw it at Eastern Pkwy on Jan.12, 1968 during the early PM rush. It was an R-16 and had a bright Orange "JJ" sign up top AND in the window rolls. R-16 and R-32 had multicolor signs for all routes, I think. (My father has a full end roll courtesy of #3628, and it has an orange "JJ" AND a green "MM" - wonder what THAT would have been. plus a blue "TT") I think R-38 had them too, but the letters had squarer corners. Saw them on "E", "EE", "F", "GG", as well as "D" and "N". I know that R-27/30 did NOT - they they had plain black signs from day one. Was "JJ" part of that roll? I guess not. ("RJ" WAS on that roll but NOT on the multicolor) I only saw R-16s on the "JJ".
Thanks for the feedback. E-mail me if you wish.
Wayne
I can't see the B using the A tracks for two reasons. One, what about Central Park West Local Service? Also, don't forget the need for the BKLYN western line, unless the MTA is willing to replace the old shuttle route from Ditmars Avenue to 9th Avenue.
That's exactly right. You cant get from 8th Av. to Grand. You can only do it in the other direction, and with two switches. (That's why when the D is diverted to 8th Av. southbound, it is more complex)
The MM was to go from Metropolitan to 57th. It was part of the original Chrystie St plan, but was never implemented. (I'd like to see that today on weekends). The TT was the West End local, and in the first few months after Chrystie St. they continued to use it as the Night&Sunday shuttle to 36th St,until they made the whole thing the B
I rode a JJ once, on a Sunday in February or March of 1968, between Elderts Lane and 168th St. and back, and the cars were R-27/30s. The conductor didn't keep the doors open very long, either - maybe 2 seconds at the most. And, no, the R-27s and R-30s never received the multicolored bulkhead roller curtains - only the R-16s, R-32s, and R-38s, and the R-16s also received colored side route roller curtains. Some R-16s and R-32s kept their plain route roller curtains. There is a photo of a QJ train of R-16s in East New York Yard in New York Subway Cars with its bulkhead signs set to QJ/168th St. Jamaica. I remember seeing the R-32s sporting a magenta AA sign, as well as a black B sign.
Interestingly enough, the R-27s and R-30s had J signs on their roller curtains, but the R-16s never did. The R-16s were originally delivered with numbered route signs, since they were intially assigned to the BMT; some ran on the Jamaica route for their entire careers. (I rode a #15 train of R-16s back in 1967) R-16s running on the J line in their final years used the orange JJ signs. They were even more creative on the R-7s and R-9s: when the KK became the K, they simply put black tape over the left hand K on the roller curtains, and when the QJ became the J, they taped over the Q. (At least it's better than painting over Coney Island on the destination curtain I have!)
Speaking of the MM, I have a side route roller curtain from an R-7 or R-9 which wound up on the Eastern Division, and it has an MM/Ave. of Americas Local sign. One would be led to believe that there must have been a 6th Ave.-Myrtle Ave. service planned, but never implemented. This curtain also has an SS/Shuttle sign which was glued to the canvas - it's very stiff.
I use to ride the J train alot in the early 80's. What cars did it use before it switch to the box 40's?
From 1960 to the mid-80s (that's when the R40M/R42 took over completely) the "QJ"/"J" line ran R27s and R30s. These cars are
the BMT counterparts of the IRT Redbirds, built by St.Louis Car.
They were originally dark charcoal grey, but got painted red,
then later grey/blue. There were other cars there as well:
R7s & R9s (1936) and R16s (1955) as well as some R42s (the 4800
series cars). Before R27/R30 (dont hold me to this - from the
history books, not from my experience, being born in 1954)
it appears that the lower-numbered BMT Standards ran there.
Could have been some R16 too from 1955 to 1960 as well.
Wayne
I remember the J being one of the most ugliest trains during the 80's. It was also very slow, and had many break downs. Even the M (also using older cars) was better.
The R27-30s were in their "phaseout" period during the 80s. Some of
them (R30A, 8300 series) were actually rebuilt, repainted etc.
but not air-conditioned (units would not fit under the car roofs)
and I believe they were found on the "M" and later the "C".
The last of these were retired in 1992 or 1993. But the stragglers were a sight for sore eyes, full of graffitti, rust, etc. R-7 and R-9 (the ones with the whirling fans) were pretty much gone by 1977, replaced by the R46. They were awful too at the end.
Wayne
I wish they never got rid of the red C trains. Somehow, after they were painted, the speed on those trains really improve. And yes, the M were using those trains as well. Except, they were slow and had plenty of graffitti on them. As for the J, they seem to be in worse shape. When you walk into the train, it seem like where the train map was, it came out. But nothing was as bad as the green C train. I wonder why they were running them so long. They rattle, and were very loud.
The MTA gave us better trains, but at the same time, worse service. It's a trade off.
Before I go to bed, do you notice something wrong with the 68's. If you sit at the end of the train, doesn't it appear warmer in the summers.
Those green C trains you speak of were the last of the R-10s. In 1985, 110 of them were hand-picked, cleaned, fixed up, and painted dark green. They weren't overhauled as were the Redbirds; repairs were mostly cosmetic in order to keep these cars running until the R-68s arrived. The C ran only during rush hours back then, so that was the only time you would see the R-10s. You're right - as a whole, the R-10s were noisier than most other cars. On the C, if one or two cars had noisy trucks, the noise level was really loud.
The R-10s were originally assigned to the A line, and spent so many years there that they became synonimous with that route. A handful - 30 or so - were sent to the BMT Eastern Division lines in 1954 and ran on the #15 Jamaica line; by 1959, they were all back on the A line. Originally painted two-tone gray with an orange band, six were painted red in 1962; in 1966-67, they received the white-and-teal scheme which I loved. Later, they sported the MTA silver and blue, and the remaining 110 were painted dark green.
For a time in the 50s, when 50 R-16s were assigned to the A line, the R-10s occasionally ran in mixed sets with them. There is a photo elsewhere on this website of R-10s and R42s coupled together, but for the most part, the R-10s ran in solid trains.
I miss those cars. The A line will never be the same without them.
Is That's the same train that you had to open the doors from the outside? And, if so, did the conductors fall off of them occasionally?
Yes, I remember those cars from the mid-1980s. The conductor rode on stirrips between the two cars. It was January, I recall, in a cold winter, and the trains came into Jay St with half-frozen conductors. Back then the C went outdoors to Rockway. I guess the IND was all indoors when the R10 was designed.
Those stirrups you referred to are called step plates. The R-10s, along with the R-1/9s, R-12s, and R-14s had external trigger box door controls. The step plates were serrated, and had ridges, so they weren't as slippery as you might expect. The one undesireable aspect of being a conductor on those cars was that it subjected you to the elements and forced you to move in and out of the cars a lot - when the train was moving to boot. Obviously, one slip and you were a goner.
When the R-10s were ordered and delivered, the entire IND division was underground except for the bridge over the Gowanus canal. There had been a ground-level spur line to the 1939-40 World's Fair, but it was torn up after the fair closed; the Van Wyck Expressway occupies the ROW today. Technically, the R-10s were designed specifically for use on the IND or BMT, since by then the city had taken over the IRT and BMT, and since IND and BMT tunnels were built to the same dimensions.
Although the R-10s could run in m. u. with all subsequent cars (except the R-11s) through the R-42s, they ran in solid trains for most of their careers; consequently, conductors had to deal with the elements until the end. The R-1/9s could not m. u. with any other cars, so it was the same story there. The R-12s and R-14s originally ran in solid trains on the Flushing line, so once again conductors faced the same scenario. When the WF R-36s arrived, the R-12s and R-14s were transferred to the mainline IRT routes; however, they were always intermixed with later cars in such a way that they were never used as a conductor's station.
Even though the R-10s will forever be associated with the A line, they saw duty on just about every other IND route at some point in time; in their later years, they ran mostly on the rush hour CC and subsequent C route. I once rode a D train of R-10s.
My own historical observations have turned up R10s on the following
lines:
"A" (up until the first convert to R40, maybe late 70s)
"AA" (before it became the "K", around 1973 or so)
"B" (once in a blue blue moon)
"CC" and "C" (in their green period)
"D" (just once!)
"E" (early 80s)
"F" (also early 80s)
"GG" (very prominent in the early 80s, esp 82 and 83 -
"GG" #3033-UGH! like it was being pulled by oxen!)
"HH" (numerous times on shuttle, even up to mid-80s.)
I never recall seeing them in the Eastern Division, except for
#1575, which as we all know, wasn't really an R10, just looked like one. Ditto for the "N"/"QB"/"RR/R" group. However, the farewell
trip (Nov.29, 1989, I think), I saw it going through Fulton Street
BMT station marked "QT". #2974 was in the lead.
Wayne
Don't forget the two trains of R-10s that were shipped over to the BMT Eastern Division (Broadway and Jamaica service) around 1954 or 1955 to get train crews ready for the arrival of the R-16s. They stayed a few years--I think there was some reference to them here recently. I rode them from 168th Street--Jamaica Avenue.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Oh, Lord! I was just 0 years old then! (maybe 1!) I forgot all
about that! Anyway I was speaking strictly from my own experience,
which dates probably from July 27, 1963 to date.
Wayne
No need to fret about the wanderings of R-type cars. Even though I'm a BMTer, I always like the R-10s and I saw either them or the R-12s or R-14s being pulled on the surface on McDonald Avenue when they were delivered through 36th Street car floats and the South Brooklyn. I remember the color because it was so different, but can't remember whether there were three or four sets of doors on each side. (I was just a pre-pubescent kid at the time, so details like that didn't necessary register.)
If you were dealing with R-1s, you could add their operation on the Sea Beach before the 8th Avenue line opened and also their use on the 4th Avenue Local in the late 1940s/early 1950s. The IND got the 400 new R-10 cars and the BMT got the 150 or so oldest IND R-1 cars.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
In 1954, 30 R-10s were sent to the BMT Eastern Division; it's very possible that their purpose was to prepare crews for the R-16s. I believe there is a photo on this website of a #15 train of R-10s, painted olive drab, at Myrtle Ave.-Broadway; this same photo can be found in New York Subway Cars. They were sent back to the IND in 1959.
The R-10s were regularly seen on the CC by the late 70s after being displaced from the A line. In 1980, they traded places with the R-46s on the E and F lines because of the cracked truck problems those cars were experiencing. Once in a while, they would pop up on the A line during that time; the last A train of R-10s I rode was sometime in 1979-80.
BTW, I still think the doors on the R-10s opened and closed faster than on any other cars. They were the last cars to have air-operated doors.
Thank you to all the responses from those individuals concerning my all-time favorite NYC subway car fleet, the R-10's. It makes myself so glad and proud that even though the R-10 cars have since retired from that last E.R.A.-operated fantrip on Sunday, October 29, 1989 (the same date that the 63rd Street Extension route officially opened), they are still remembered quite and excellently well in memory to this date (especially myself as a major influence in this lifelong hobby I have had to this day).
By the way, the very first R-10 car, #1803 (with its four sets of side doors on each side), was delivered on August 19, 1948 to the Coney Island Shops in Brooklyn, and was later accepted for service about one month later. All 400 cars were delivered by June 30, 1949, and all were accepted for service by July 18, 1949.
On Saturday, November 20, 1948, the very first ten-car R-10 train was placed in customer service on the IND "A" line between Washington Heights-207th Street (Manhattan) and Broadway-East New York (Brooklyn). Eight days later, on Sunday, November 28, 1948, the IND "A" line was extended towards Euclid Avenue in Brooklyn, with the debut of Pitkin Avenue Yard in Brooklyn in service. On that date, some 70 R-10 cars were already placed in service.
By the middle of 1970, cars #1803-1852 were renumbered as #2950-2999 to provide and insure a straight continued numeral series within the fleet.
The first batch of IRT R-12's (with three sets of side doors on each side) were delivered on June 11, 1948, and the first train of these cars were placed in customer service on the IRT #7 line on July 13, 1948.
I will now end this message by making a request to our web site host...would it possible if you can add an *interior* car view slide/photo to the illustrated section of the R-10 page in the near future? Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
(given the nickname "Mr. R-10" by members of the E.R.A. and the Urban Transit Club).
> I will now end this message by making a request to our web site
> host...would it possible if you can add an *interior* car view
> slide/photo to the illustrated section of the R-10 page in the near
> future? Thank you very much.
Glad to if I had one. Hint hint.
-Dave
There is an interior car view of R-7A #1575, which was rebuilt into the R-10 prototype.
This car can be viewed "in the steel" at the Transit Museum.
It is in wholly IMMACULATE condition, lovingly restored.
Meanwhile, there are only just two R-10 cars in existence today.
Car #3184, which is a fully restored unit in its original 1948-49 exterior paint scheme, is now in outdoor storage at Coney Island Yard in Brooklyn. It could be viewed from a passing southbound IND "F" train when leaving the Avenue X station towards its next station stop at Neptune Avenue.
Car #3189, which once had a three-to-two cross-seating BMT AB-style configuration, is now a combination R.C.I. Yard Office-School Training Car stationed on Track 8 at the Linden Boulevard stub end of Pitkin Avenue Yard in Brooklyn (nearby Grant Avenue). This car, which currently has a solid blue paint scheme and a standard size household type air conditioner installed on one of its side windows) is stored underneath the apartment complex that was built over the yard tracks.
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
Funny thing: I never saw 1575 in revenue operation. Believe me, I would have noticed it - you couldn't miss it. It definitely stuck out like a sore thumb next to its sister R-1/9s. I'm curious about one thing: how fast did its doors open and close? I always felt the doors on the R-10s opened and closed faster than those on the R-1/9s
Believe it or not, #1575's side doors exactly closed and opened just like the R-10's within the same speed and manner. However, I do remember distinctly (if memory serves me correctly) that air release after the doors closed did have that same sound as the R-1/9's (they probably did have the same type door leaf motor engines).
Please check out the R-7 illustrated section of this web page for views of #1575 in regular service at http://www.nycsubway.org/cars/r7.html.
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
On the R-7A illustrated section of this web page, there is an interior view photo of the prototype car #1575, which was taken at the Transit Museum (its home there since July 1976), that was built much similar to the subsequent R-10's.
However, there are few noticable but *cosmetic* differences between #1575 and the actual production model line of the R-10's (which could be viewed in comparative photos). The former's original fans were designed and built each with a 10-inch diameter base (which was to be specified in the original building contract), but was soon changed after to the standard 12-inch base to be later applied on the production assembly of the IND R-10's and IRT R-12/14's.
It would answer the next obvious question as to why #1575's fans look at though are in a hanging or droopy position, because there was not any real back ventilation space for these replaced enlarged fans...so they simply some modifications and adjustments in the connecting electrical sockets.
Also, the interior side door panels of car #1575 each have a pressed square-edged frame surrounding each of the round-corner windows(in the manner as that of the R-7/9's), whereas the actually R-10 (and to the extant of the R-12/14) interior side door panels do not have this *decorative* feature (just typical ordinarily none and flat).
There are other differences as well between the interiors of R-7A car #1575 and the actual R-10's themselves, but that would be to much in length detail to discuss here. I am pretty sure that you probably get the idea as to what has been explained here.
However, I always had said in the past in previous E.R.A. and Urban Transit Club meetings and slide shows (including my two presentations in August 1991 and September 1992) this following personal thought:
#1575...its car body is built like an R-10, looks like an R-10...but mechanically and techinically (in terms of operation and how they sounded with their compressors and motors)...it isn't an R-10!!!
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
Come to think of it, you're right about those fans (I have two photos
of #1575 in front of me) It looks like the little arms that hold them
in place are different than those I remember on the production R10s.
The production R10s fans were on shorter arms and were also bigger
(as you have noted). Also looks like the ceiling lights are ever-so-
slightly different (didn't the production R10 have little ridges down
the sides of the center light fixture?). Wasn't the nave of the
ceiling on the R10 narrower as well? (We could all go on and on...)
By the way, don't you think that #3184 deserves a little enclosure
to protect her from the elements? Carbon steel can take just so much
from the elements. When they restored her, did they repaint her
interior? Methinks she's still that ughly shade of bottle green,
and the last interior paint job I saw on ANY R10 was beige (Yuk!)
Maybe they could let her spend a little time at Court Street museum...
Did you get a look at the R16 at the Museum (#6387)? I was so surprised to see one there - I thought for sure they were all gone.
I got goose bumps and all walking round inside, suddenly it was 1970
all over again and I was riding on the "EE".
Glad to see that the R10 is still beloved.
Wayne
Thank you for your comments on the R-10's (my all-time favorite cars) that were posted and directed to me. Those cars are still best and fondly remembered even to this day (including myself) by all the transit buffs and friends that I come in close personal contact.
The ceiling light lenses on #1575 are slightly different than the actual production R-10's in some aspects. #1575's fixtures on the side of the car had originally sort of a lop-sided frosted look, while on the center ceiling strip they displayed an equal-sided (but a bit somewhat thinned) frosted look. As for the actual production R-10's, their original light lenses were all of the slightly not really much thicker frosted style. However, any replacement light lenses (when were performed on a sporadic basis as warrented) were of the clear variety first introduced on the BMT R-16, but were somewhat designed and modified to conform and configure with that of the light fixtures as originally installed. In terms of the "nave" of the ceiling on the R-10, the actual production car is virtually and basically identical to that of #1575 (with the exception of the real noticeable design changes of the interior air vents and of an additional light fixture strip located at each end of the car near the motorman's cab), but the roof and ceiling design of the IRT R-12/14 is however much narrower.
Car #3184, currently in outdoor storage at Coney Island Yard in Brooklyn, should not only be placed in an enclosed area always from nature's elements, but it also should placed on public display in the Transit Museum as well IMHO. The only time to date that this car was shown in its restored glory in front of any type of visitors was at an employee open house held there in September 1994. It personally annoys me to no end that those involved individuals (may it be those directly connected with MTA NYC Transit or not), who were so dedicated and responsible in fixing this car back into its 1948-49 paint scheme, are letting #3184 to simply deteriorate in a very undignified manner. I have written a previous letter to the Transit Museum in suggesting to perhaps placing #3184 on display to commerate this upcoming November 20, 1998 the 50th Anniversary of the R-10's debut in regular passenger service, but I have heard no absolute response to this matter (as if they really would care about it themselves).
By the way, although I myself had not been inside the car yet, I had been informed that car's interior was repainted with its original grey wall panels, dark blue door, and white ceiling. However, #3184 was said to still have its replacement plastic seating and vintage-1988 side and front roll sign curtains, and missing its two A.C.F. builders' plates. It was a real miracle to find and restore its original side exterior car number plates back into their original state (orange numbering against a grey blackground). One additional fact though that #3184 had a air compressor installed that originally came from an R-30 since of all the original ones from the actual production line were scrapped (and the replacement rotary screw types are now being used as surplus parts for the IND/BMT R-68's built by Westinghouse-Amrail).
I have seen the museum R-16 car (#6387) on display, and there are but a handful still in existence. I personally know that #6305 and #6398 (another fully restored unit there) are in outdoor storage at Coney Island Yard in Brooklyn (along with other "museum" cars as well), and #6452 (painted in the same fox red scheme as that of the former GOH R-30's) is used a School Training Car for MTA NYC Transit employees stationed in the playground yard of the former P.S. 248 in Brooklyn.
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
Hello William
To whom may I address my own letter of displeasure? (address, please)
Maybe we should go up one level of authority (the NYCT museum may
have little control over the matter?) and direct the inquiry straight
to the folks at Avenue "X". In the meantime, the weather has been
relatively dry, so any further deterioration to the car may be
deferred, for now.
Were the seats originally a mix of green/yellow wicker, or were they
red leatherette? I seem to think that the R16s had red leatherette
originally, and 1575 shows the above wicker seats. They must have
been replaced sometime in the 1960s, as my first experience with an
R10 dates from November 1964. At that time, the seats (in the car I
rode in) were red leatherette. By 1969, they were grey fiberglas.
R10 and R16 had the same straps, no? (shaped like a stretched-out "6")
Wayne
If you wish to address this situation about the current status of #3184, you may attempt to write them at this address (but there is no guarantee that will address upon this matter):
New York Transit Museum
Program Department
c/o MTA NYC Transit
130 Livington Street
9th Floor - Box E
Brooklyn, NY 11201
You may want also sent a copy of this letter addressed to Mike Hanna, Senior Mechanic of the Transit Museum train fleet (but now retired from NYCT payroll I believe) at this same mailing address, because he was greatly responsible in getting that car restored back into its original glory (of sorts).
All of the original seating on the R-10 were of the yellow with green "chain" look made of a wicker fabric known as Velon (not rattan or straw). If they were any red leather seating on the car back in the early 1960's, they most likely have been periodic replacements as warranted. The straps on the R-10 and R-16 were somewhat molded in the same design, but the latter had a much curved grip and straight top ceiling base. The R-10's strap grips were some rounded, and their ceiling bases were curved and at an angle.
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
I have an idea. If they haven't done so already why don't they rotate in a couple of cars periodically from CI for display at the museum? That way people can appreciate the various car types stored but not normally seen by the public, up close and personal!
This is a good idea. However, there are a number of cars that haven't been restored as of yet. 3184 should be in the Museum, but they have no place to put her. 1575, on the other hand, is more unique, considering that she's the only R1/9 to have an R10 body, so I'd prefer that she'd stay there. Go out to Coney and you'll see most Museum Cars have gotten quite a bit of rust on them....Another thing you should consider is that to move the equipment costs money, which may or may not be a problem for the Museum. The question is who is willing to take the responsibility of doing the transfers?
As a note of interest for all who go to the Transit Museum, I was told by sources in the Museum that Car G will be coming down from Branford September 17 (tentative). Go out get your pictures, buffs!!! G is coming in on a truck to 207 St Yard and then will be moved by rail to the Museum. This a lease for 5 years. No one will be admitted on the car once it is in place.
They have two tracks leading into the museum station; can't they
use ONE of them as a lay-up for some of the cars if they are going
to rotate some in and out? Suggest using the north-side track
for lay-up...would security be an issue? Switching an issue?
Wayne
Security is definitely an issue. All cars have to stay behind the gate. Someone might decide to walk in the tunnel and do inappropriate things. As far as switching is concerned, the Museum needs sufficient space to get cars into and out of the area. Moving Lo-V 5290 and 92 out required the switching of diesels on A1 and A2 tracks to shove the other Museum equipment into some kind of order. 4902 and Diesel 10 were turned around at Pitkin Yard so we could see 4902's painted side (rusted on the other side)and the instrument panel of the diesel. The BUs and Steeple Cab 5 came back to the Museum the day after 5290 amd 92 were taken out.
Cheers,
Constantine
"Support your favorite Museum"
I had heard that they did used to store cars on the track leading to the museum, but then they got rid of them.
Also, what i'd like to see come down from one of those other museums is the SOAC cars!
That would be reaaly cool but there are no R-46s left that it can M.U. with.
The tracks leading to Court St., as well as the station itself, were used for storage in the immediate years after the HH shuttle was dropped in 1946. The gates had to be put in for security reasons because anyone could just walk down one of the tracks and gain access to the station otherwise.
I seem to recall that there was enough room on the south track, where IND and BMT subway cars are kept, for another car, even after they managed to squeeze in R-16 #6387. You've got 6 60-footers, plus one 137-foot Triplex unit, plus one 67-foot BMT standard, on that track. That works out to 563 feet, if my math is correct. Standard IND platform length is 660 feet. How long is that work loco they keep on that track?
The diesel will be switched over to the BMT/IND platform once the G Car is in place. How long is the loco? 40 ft in length, perhaps?
The car was at the Transit Museum on the outer end of the display, but not opened for people to go inside. This was several years ago, and I remembered they had auctioned it off, and were waiting for the buyer to come and take it off the property. What ever happened with that?They should put it back in the museum and send 1575 somewhere else, since it is a one-of-a-kind oddball, and not really an R-10. I think one of the rail museums has the R1-9 with the false ceiling installed. Send it there. I also wish that they would preserve an R-22. I know it is very similar to the R-17, but still, the square end door windows, different hand-holds on most of them, and different ceiling vents make it different enough for me. The Transit museum or one of the other museums (a few of them have R-17's. Whay should only that model be preserved but not the 21/22?)
Also, is it true that one of the R-16's in the yard do not have the sloping walls? I've probably never seen one without that.
Think that one is #6339 - (check the museum car roster). The sloping
wall panels were absent for a time (when #6304 crashed, the photos
show flat walls in the car: 5/20/70) and then they came back. I'm
not sure if they were there originally (first encounter w/R16 was
childhood ca.1960/61 on the "15" - some cars had them others not - my father would pick me up in his arms so I could look out of the porthole front window) I do know that when they were (prematurely) retired, the sloping panels were present. I've been in #6339 three times between 1969 and 1971, all on the "EE". In early 1969 the R16s were still running on the "RR".
I am grateful for the existence of #6387, it holds good memories for
me, much as the R10s do for you.
Wayne (missing #6304 and others)
I read that they weren't added until the 1970's
The original door engines on the R-16s proved to be troublesome (among other things). In the mid-70s, they were replaced with larger ones, which resulted in the slanted door pockets.
I have an article which appeared in the New York Times in late 1986 on the demise of R-16 #6321. It's essentially a microcosm of the R-16 fleet, documenting the last year in the troubled life of this particular car. Door problems were just one of the maladies this car was suffering from.
If I'm not mistaken, there are only two R-17s still around: 6609, which is on display at the Museum in its original maroon livery (it was used in the shuttle sequence in The French Connection) and 6688, which is part of Shoreline's collection. It was painted Redbird red just before it was retired, and it's in great shape.
I don't believe any R-21s or R-22s were preserved. My guess is the Museum must have figured they already had an R-17, and since there were only cosmetic differences between those series, having an R-21 or R-22 would be redundant.
Hopefully not little known is that the original door operators of the R-16 were of the design of the R-17 with one exception... the corner doors (panels 1,7,8&16 were pneumatic because of the smaller seats. The time and reason they were replaced were to test the door operators intended to be installed on the R-44s a few years later. If you remember you could have one center door cut out with its adjacent panel cut in (unlike doors with the motors sharing 2 panels) The T.A> moved the motors behind the slanted swing panels with Westcode or similar operators for the prototype.
What about R21/22 in work train service? For instance I think the fare-collection train is made up of R22's. There might also be R17's used to carry workers around.
Gosh, I haven't seen an R17 work motor. Work motors are 22s on the money collecting train as well as the the motors that pull signal supply cars S-01 and S-02 from 207 St Yard. Work motors were replaced with the arrival of R127s and 134s.....
i saw one at naperano's last week!
I must be remembering work trains from a while ago. I do remember seeing an R12/14/15 car at Houston St. recently though. I'm fuzzy on the car type but it definitely was an older IRT car.
Car #3184 was auctioned and sold off to a private concern for a successful bid of about $3,000 during the fall of 1989. However, there were problems that later occur that are so complicated here it would be really difficult and to long and explain here (almost like a soap opera perhaps). To make a long story short, car #3184 finally was taken under the wing of senior NYCTA Coney Island Shops mechanic Mike Hanna and his group of private subway car preservation buffs in order to restore vintage rapid transit units into "museum" condition done on a volunteer basis at the Avenue X repair shops in Brooklyn.
Mike Hanna's group is also responsible of several R-1/9 cars stored outdoors at the Coney Island Yard, including car #103 (the one with the false ceiling).
Sincerely,
William A. Padro
OK, so that's where that one was. So then they should put 1575 in CI yard, and 3184 in the museum.
They should bring in 3184 to the Museum and park it next to 1575. Then we could all compare the two cars to our hearts' content.
R-16 6387 looks pretty sharp in its original olive drab. It would be nice to see numbered route curtains in the bulkheads. Those slanted door pockets don't do much for the interior, though. The door engines on the R-16s were replaced in the mid 70s with larger ones, necessitating the use of those slanted pockets. My sister has a photo of a passenger on the subway taken by a friend of hers; I checked it out and after noticing the slanted door pockets, said, "That's an R-16". "How do you know that?" "They had slanted door pockets." She just shook her head.
#6387 does look pretty sharp, but the rust bubbles under the paint sort of detract from its appearance 8-(.
You got that right.... The Museum rushed the car back in, when the side should have been repaired...
Yesh, 6387 - she's got a peeling ceeling (sic!) But you know, the
R16s I rode (esp. on the "EE" and "GG") ALL had peeling ceilings!
It must be something germane to the R16 - won't tolerate paint.
Anyway, it just adds to the 'ambience' of what is a quintessential R16. Plus I like the blue paint scheme way better than that ughly
shade of green.
Time to break out the Zud and the wire brushes, folks!
Wayne
I've mentioned on a couple of occasions that my Jeep's license plates say 8AVEXP in honor of my all-time favorite subway route, the A train. I should like to point out that one of my other choices for personalized plates was R-10. Maybe if I buy a second car someday... Of course, now that we have 7-character plates in Colorado, I could put in for A8AVEXP plates. As far as I'm concerned, the R-10s and the A line will be linked forever. I miss those cars.
I share your view of that same and exact statement too as well. I too deeply miss those R-10's (my all-time favorite transit vehicles of any type), which were the only fleet of subway cars in which I would really go out of my own personal way in riding and photographing where ever they went (particularly and especially on my all-time favorite route the IND "A" line).
Thank you for the early personal "Happy Birthday" greetings as well.
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
Got some pics for us, William? :-)
-Dave
There is some a good possibility that I may just look into my vast photo collection to see I have any suitable pics that could be used on this web page. If I see any one(s) that I could lend, I will try to e-mail personally only on this matter. Stay tuned.
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
If you have any photos of a southbound A train of two-tone R-10s at 42nd St., it would be a nice addition. I boarded A trains at that station for three years every Saturday. What the heck, any photos of A trains would be neat. It's too bad camcorders weren't around back then - I would have loved to videotape an uptown A train thundering past 81st St., then cut to a window view of that 66-block express dash, sounds and all.
I personally do not have a photo or slide of a southbound "A" train of R-10's at 42th Street-8th Avenue (that location you requested) in my own archival collection, but I do own a huge (too many) assortment of them at various stations (but not all) along this route in their many paint schemes. I am probably sure that there are other transit buffs out there who may have some photos that were taken at that particular stop...so stay tuned because they just pop up at any moment.
As of now, I am looking through my files to see if there any possible pics that are suitable for the web page are to be submitted in the future (include some decent looking interior shots without any passengers). When and if that should ever occur (and ready for submission), I will contact this web page's host directly through him personally by e-mail. It would certainly be the best I can do for those interested.
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
There was one other unique aspect on the R-10s: their air compressors. They had a sound all their own. The compressors on the R-12s and R-14s sounded similar; after all, they were cousins of the R-10s.
I still wonder who came up with the idea of those roofline roll signs on the sides of the cars. That didn't sit too well with the riding public. Believe it or not, I once saw one of those signs illuminated! Ironically, it was in 1987 or 1988, not long before those venerable cars were retired. I rode many, many A trains of R-10s, and never saw an illuminated side route sign. Once in a while I would see one on a train of R-1/9s, but never on the R-10s back then.
Maybe we could start an R-10 fan club; the two of us would be charter members. Wayne could start a slant R-40 fan club; Mr. Rivera could start an R-62 club. You know, "I love the R-10s/slant R-40s/R-62s" badges, the whole bit. Just an idea...
Ah, yes...those original air compressors on the R-10's. They were quite such a distinctive and very memorable sound for the cars, particularly (as an example) when I would personally be standing at the platform of 207th Street terminal in upper Manhattan. If you were fortunate to witness seeing two R-10 "A" trains, with one on each of the two tracks, in that station, they was no question at all that you were able to heard them very well each from of one them their somewhat characteristic pitch and sound at almost a full blast. As a matter of fact, on many occasions I would be standing on the downtown platform of my former home station (190th Street-Overlook Terrace), I could actually hear in the distance the R-10's air compressors on an uptown "A" train that was unloading its passengers one station away at 181st Street! However, as for the cars tending be infamously noisy overall in their operation, I am certainly not going to deny or argue against that fact at all (but I personally never ever complained about it and just simply overlook it for myself anyway).
I have no information as to who was the individual person(s), probably someone on the engineering staff of the NYC Board of Transportation, who came up with the concept of those roofline side roll signs for R-7A car #1575 and the R-10/11/12/14/15's, but their original roll sign curtains and boxes were manufactured by the Hunter Illuminated Sign Company in Flushing (Queens), New York. I do remember seeing the side sign boxes lighted up (in the color green) but quite rarely even back in the 1960's. I really never see any side sign boxes lighted as such during the 1970's and 1980's, until 1989 (!!!) when I saw such a box on each side lighted in the right terminal designation (in cool white) in car #3037 on a Bronx-bound "C" train (and even much later in museum car #1575).
Well, the R-10 fan club would be an idea, but I have been a card carrying member of four Northeast-based railfan clubs (associations)
in general that are mostly comprised of New York City subway and traction buffs, including the Electric Railroader's Association and the Urban Transit Club. At these clubs, the fellow members who have personally have known myself within the last fifteen years are very well familiar all about my personal admiration and fondness of the cars (I have been given the nickname by them, not me, as "Mr. R-10"). I do know personally of some other, but very few though, buffs who admire the R-10's too throughout the railfan community in America I have come in contact with (such as in Pittsburgh and Boston). However, the spirit and legacy of the R-10's has always lived on within these particular organizations, and each do indeed acknowledge its history and important contributions to the operations of the New York City subway system. In other words, these clubs never took for granted their existence and service life of forty years.
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
Believe it or not, the R-68's have flourescent light fixtures in the side destination signs. You can see them when a sign is missing. I don't know why they gave up on lighted side signs (other than the digital ones, of course)
It may have had to do with the trend which the slant R-40s ushered in. Their side signs were such that they were not illuminated; the R-42s, R-44s, and R-46s followed that trend. Lower maintenenace costs could have been a factor. Those R-7s and R-9s which were transferred to the Eastern Division lines had their light bulbs removed from the side sign boxes when they received BMT roller curtains. On top of that, the fluorescent bulbs used in the side boxes of the Redbirds, R-32s, and R-38s were also removed during overhaul.
Even back when side signs were illuminated, the correct sign wouldn't always be illuminated. Sometimes both signs would be lit!
I know I miss seeing "Coney Island" in green on the sides of the R-32s.
Probably the most unusual NYC car lighting was on the R-11s. They had lighting (I think fluorescent) behind the IND Division map at one end of each car that was supposed to be turned on when the train was on the IND and the IND routes on the map all glowed gold. The BMT Division map at the other end of each car didn't have the IND superiority complex built in; BMT lines were just plain yellow with no back lighting. I don't know if the IND maps had any special backing because of the gold; as I recall, when on the BMT, the IND map just showed IND routes in the wider red printed lines.
I'd love to have a pair of those R-11 maps in my map collection!
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
I LOVE IT! I'll start with a t-shirt with a shot of #4408 on it
(with the big grey "L" in the window, of course)
It will say I (L)OVE SLANT R40s! (with the "L" in Love being a grey
circle with a white "L")
Maybe we all could meet for brunch in town and then take turns
taking rides together on our respective favorite lines.
Wayne
Hey! What about R1/9 fans? We could have a T-shirt with R 1/9s
U
L
E
Wayne: Heading your way. Gonna rdie the rails Thursday next week; probably the F and A lines. CU
Jeff
I am riding on Fri Aug 21: My itinerary is as follows: 7:30 AM
LIRR to JAMA; "J" to Bway Jct; "L" to Wilson; "L" to Morgan;
"L" to Montrose; "L" to Bedford; "L" to Union Square (YESSS- another
photo shoot for my C'narsie Lyne Page) THEN - "N" or "R" to Canal;
then "J" up to Bowery; "J" or "M" to Essex; "F" to E.Bway; "F" back
to Bway/Lafayette; "B" out to 9th Avenue then if it's early enough
out to Coney for a Hot Dog and a Diet Pepsi.
Return is to be via "Q" train, surely a Slant R40.
Do you remember "1277 - Express To Heaven" a/k/a Hot Rails To Hell?
THAT was an R-6 if there ever wuz one! Nasty GE fans and all.
Wayne
You bet! As far as I'm concerned, you can be in more than one club. I liked the R-1/9s as much as the R-10s. While we're at it, we can certainly have a Redbird fan club, too. And a Hi-V, and a Lo-V, BMT standard (no thanks!), Triplex, etc., etc.
You bet! As far as I'm concerned, you can be in more than one club. I liked the R-1/9s as much as the R-10s. While we're at it, we can certainly have a Redbird fan club, too. And a Hi-V, and a Lo-V, BMT standard (no thanks!), Triplex, etc., etc.
For many years, Mr. Padron has been known as "Mr. R10 " in the NYC rail fan community.
It's nice to know that there's someone out there who feels the same way about the R-10s as I do. I said it before and I'll say it again: the A line just isn't the same without them.
I just reread your previous post in which you mentioned your birthday is on October 16. For some reason I thought it was last Friday, Aug. 7. For us Mets fans, October 16 is an unforgettable date - they wrapped up the World Series in 1969. Anyway, welcome to the Big Four-oh club - I joined it in November of '96.
Getting back to riding A trains of R-10s, I used to take that 66-block dash from 59th to 125th whenever we had some time before our bus left from Port Authority. Believe me, I never got tired of riding that stretch; as a matter of fact, I still go for a joyride up CPW whenever I'm in the city now. Of course, now I wait for an A of R-38s.
Well, even though the IND "A" line is now assigned with the R-38's and R-44's, that long stretch along Central Park West (particularly going uptown) can still be enjoyable and fun even today (provided that nowadays the conditions are considered allright for the trains to go fast and swift).
However, there was just really on one very rare and memorable occasion when I once rode a downtown R-10 "A" train (it happened in the spring of 1977) that it was able operate between 125th Street and 59th Street-Columbus Circle in an amazing running time of just five minutes (two minutes earlier than scheduled)!!! Needless to say, the train was held in the station because it did arrive too early there.
Thanks again for still the early birthday greetings. I actually am looking forward to that magic number of forty, as well to acknowledge in some form the 50th anniversary of the R-10's debut in service this upcoming November 20. I would like to extended my personal thanks to you and "Bill" for mentioning myself and my nickname of "Mr. R-10" in the previous postings on this date. I deeply humbled for these unexpected but welcomed comments.
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
You deserve the recognition which was "bestowed" by others in the railfan community, I thought those on this site should be made known of that fact. I have seen your photography at ERA & UTC functions & your photos & knowledge of the R10 is superb. I am a motorman for 18+yrs., & an avid rail fan for many years prior to that. The A line had a certain character with the R10's on it. They belonged there. Eventhough they were getting old, they never looked right on the C. I work some overtime when I can. I haven't worked the A line for years tho. Refuse to work R44's Cabs too cramped for a portly guy like me , and the brakes, I am told, are the worst of any car. I hope that after the IRT gets new cars & the B division can start replacing theirs, the R44 will be the first to go. I'm told their MDBF is bad, the cars need lots of man hours to repair & is costing the TA a lot of $$$ to keep them going. By then they'll be 30 yrs. od, with the TA being within its rights to send them away to be recycled into beer cans.
dont knock the r44 cause there the only one that i can easily defeat the field shunt coil modification and regain 50 mph so that makes them the de-facto fastest cars in the system ! ha ! this BUDS for U
I know which circuit breaker to drop also in the R40/42 cars which I generally operate too. Do I do It? Of course not. It borders on tampering with the equipment & because of the way the braking system is set up, you will need a lot more distance to stop the train. With the downgrading of the dynamic brake of the R-44, If you get that train up to 50 M.P.H., you had better judge your stopping distance pretty accurately, otherwise, you ain't stopping that animal. Maybe we can give you the honor of being called: Mr. R44?
Im not called the PROFESSOR for nothing! Not only do I put the field shunt coil back in the motor circuit but i unplug the dynamic brake lockout magnet valve creating an "air over dynamic" condition which fairly duplicates the original performance, but not quite. But NO I do not wish to be identified with the TA's R44 car. My favorite will always be the R46 the much improved 75' car. Viva la P wire!
Here is another Five Minute jump from Columbus Circle to 125th Street:
August 5, 1971, approx. 4:00 PM, northbound.
First car was #3194, a 'dark car' (emergency lites only, dim, right
by the fan poles, and some lit along the sides of the car). Never
have I seen an R10 run like that. And the bouncing! I felt like a
milkshake. He lit out again between 145th & 168th, too.
I miss the R10s!
Wayne
How ironic that you had mention car #3194 in your last post. It was that first particular unit on a personal record that I was able to ride and/or photographed on four different IND routes ("A", "CC", "GG" and the "HH" Rockaway Park shuttle). Car #3194 is considered my third most important and favorite R-10 unit on my own perferences list.
In case anyone asks, the very first R-10 car I ever photographed was #3141 at Lefferts Boulevard, but it was from street level towards the el structure. In subsequent times, I would constantly ride and photograph it on the "A" and "CC" routes. Car #3141, which was one of two that had an R-16 type storm door installed, is my number two favorite R-10 unit.
My all-time favorite and quite important #1 unit of the fleet was car #2974 (ex-1827), but it is for my own personal reasons that did not have any direct connection with its operation. How ironic this unit would be used as one of the eight cars used on that farewell fantrip train on that Sunday, October 29, 1989. As a matter of fact, it was also the same one and consist that was used in the movie "Jacob's Ladder" starring Tim Robbins (who also shares the exact same birth date as mine).
As for the riding on the "A" line with R-10's for myself, they do include all the stretches that you and Steve B have mentioned. There are a few more I could add here, but perhaps the very final fast buildup would occur on an uptown run is when the train leaves 181st Street descending downhill at a very rapid and accelerating rate towards 190th Street-Overlook Terrace (my former home station). The R-10's would arrive fast into that station and stop normally right on the ten-car marker (they usually never overshot the platform to the best of my memory). It cannot be done today because they are now timed signals along this stretch to prevent this sort of speed run.
Oh, yes...thank you again, Bill, for the comments! I do agree with you that the R-10's always did belong on (and in essence were associated with) the "A" line (and all the related statements you made in your message). The closest thing nowadays that the spirit of the cars lives on this route when the interior side route signs of the R-38's now say "A Wash Hts/8 Av/Fulton", almost like (but not quite) when the R-10's said "WASH. HTS.-8TH AV. EXP." on their roofline sign boxes.
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
Do you have a 'special' place in your memories for the following
fallen "A"ngels? 3062, 3333, 3274...
My father worked at the 207th Street shop, in air brakes and other
mechanicals, up until his retirement in 1983. I visited this
facility on numerous occasions between July 1970 and October 1981,
and, with a foreman and my father present, visited numerous parts
of the shop and yard. Especially interesting and poignant were my
trips to "death row", where the wrecks rested.
In late 1970, we saw R6 #986 and R10 #3062 there. Other wrecked
cars we saw were #3629, #4000, #4001, #4612 (under repair)
and R10 #3333.
I have #3062's dog tag and my father has her curtain sign. She was a
little smushed in the face but otherwise was intact.
I also have #3333's dog tag. We saw her on her funeral bed, a canvas draped over her shattered face. One look inside said it all.
Wayne
Well, I did see the wrecks of those car bodies and their aftermath of #3333 and #3274 (the Columbus Circle disaster of 1978) at the site of the incident, and later at 207th Street yard on the northern stub end tracks near West 215th Street (along with some out-of-service units such as #3041, #3102, #3162 and #3200 there in dead storage). I do have some photos/slides in my collection of those cars in regular active service on the IND "A" line included. Of course, I later had seen #3333 later with an undercover tarp over its front end, and I believe that car was eventually towed down to Coney Island Yard in 1980 for scrap (probably along with car #3192 which was languishing at the latter location for five years).
As for #3062, I had first seen the car in person six years after the Jay Street collision being placed on the scrap pile at Coney Island Yard in November 1976. While I do not have a photo of this car in revenue service, I have #3062 in my slide collection with its smashed front end after this incident, along with car #3113 (with an identical condition of a smash front end) and the complete burned up body of IRT R-12 car #5784. I did see the real gory details of #3062 when the car was wrecked inside the New York Daily News' photo centerfold the following morning of the accident.
I do remember and had known these certain cars and their untimely end from service. While these incidents did leave gaping holes in the fleet (no pun intended), I knew that they were still other R-10 cars still in existence back then that were just simply continuing on carrying passengers. In other words...the show must go on!!! By the way, I was able to acquire the car number plate of #3062 (along with #3055 and #3113) in August 1978 from the Whistle and Roll Sign Store at the Branford Trolley Museum in East Haven, Connecticut.
The first R-10 car *number* to be retired was #3135. This car was involved in a wreck of sorts with car #3035 on November 7, 1963 (but I have no location details where). It was later decided by NYCTA to splice a 6 foot front section off one car and welded to the other (there has been some confusion to date as whether it was #3135's front on #3035, or the other way).
Back in 1958, there was a side swipe involving two R-10 cars, #3029 and #3240, near Dyckman Street on the IND "A" line. These cars were repaired later by Pullman-Standard, and car #3240 received all-new bright R-17 type lighting with its clear lenses. The fleet numbered at 400 still until the collision I had mentioned in the paragraph above.
Even during the last years of its service life (as GOH green units), I had heard reports of a fire condition involving #3212 at 42nd Street and a collision involving #2959 (ex-1812) at Pitkin Avenue Yard. Somehow, these cars had managed to survive these minor incidents, and were simply repaired and returned to service. However, I have no details as to what really happened to #3047 when it had one of its front end smashed (but was repaired later and outfitted with an R-16 type storm door as a replacement).
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
Thank you for the information!
I have done something I thought I'd never do - that is, to update
my Master Numbers Book Number 4, the 1985 edition. That is the last
edition to have an R10 page. Currently I am maintaining Master
Numbers Book Number 7, which I christened two years ago next week,
and plan to maintain probably through the year 2005 or so.
I have a scanned picture of the two dogtags #986 and #3062. (tags.jpg)
May I e-mail this file to you?
Thank you,
Wayne
If you should wish to do so (i.e. e-mail me the image file of the car i.d. tags of R-6-3 #986 and R-10 #3062), you have my permission to go ahead and send it me. Hopefully, I will do my best to download and save on a hard disk. Thank you in advance, and you're welcome.
>William
Ah, yes, those roofline signs. I remember the "Wash. Hts./8th Av Exp." designation very well. And, yes, the route signs on the R-38s today come very close to matching that same description. Interestingly, the last A train of R-10s that I rode on had CC signs on 8 of the 10 cars; only the end cars had A signs all sround. They must have taken an 8-car train signed up as a CC, taken two additional cars signed up for an A, and coupled one car on each end.
Granted, I never paid attention to car numbers or marker lights, much to my regret, but of all the A trains I ever rode, I never saw an R-10 with a strom door from an R-16. That's something I would have noticed. I'm still sticking by my guns concerning the those R-10s with twin circular windows on the doors; I KNOW I saw them.
One other fast stretch comes to mind: the Rockaway line from Howard Beach to Broad Channel. The R-10s would race down that straightaway.
BTW, I never heard of that 1978 accident at Columbus Circle. Exactly what happened?
Before that 1978 incident almost the entire fleet did not have handbrake applied indication lamps. What happened with 3333 was its handbrake was applied enroute. When the train left over the switches south of Columbus Circle it derailed and its north truck tried to go 6th Avenue. The car was almost sheared in half. The Trnsit Authority as an emergency measrure put handbrake brake lights on all but the R-16 equipment.
While I personally have never seen, had rode and/or have first hand knowledge of any R-10's with the R-11 or R-15 type twin window side door panels, there are in existence of (including those in my personal collection) photographs and slides of the two R-10 cars (#3047 and #3141) each with an R-16 type storm door on each only one of its front end. There are those existing pics of IND R-10 #3138 and IRT R-14 #5952 each with all their side doors with the combination top glass (R-1/9 size) and metal grill air vent panels, which were all placed each one of them towards the end of 1950 (not factory installed as one may believe). However, if such an R-10 train ever had existed with this newer type of door paneling, it may have been a short-lived *experiment* of sorts. I might personally bring the topic of such the case to any veteran New York Division ERA member if he or she has ever heard, seen and/or photographed such a train in existence ever (i.e. if so, what were the actual car numbers). So, I would not really discard or discount such a fact of that manner...stay tuned.
It should be noted that all 400 R-10's were placed in service by July 1949, while the 10 R-11's first carried passengers two months later. The first IRT R-15 train was placed in service on the IRT #7 Flushing line on March 6, 1950.
There are a few other R-10 oddities (not previously mentioned) that could be placed on a list as:
#2959 - installed one red interior door guide light on each side of the car (and was to have been the actual R-10 museum car instead of #3184).
#3137 - one R-1/9 type motorman's front cab window welded on the body
(date unknown), but replaced with a raised squared plus round cornered one after its GOH rehabilitation in 1985.
#3221 - this was the unit was strucked by a "mad bomber" type device at 125th Street in 1960 (it was said that a young teenage girl was killed over the seat where it was placed). Supposedly, the damage sustained on this car was a big hole through its ceiling and roof, but it was subsequently repaired and returned to service (I personally could not find any visible evidence there on the car many years later).
As to the infamous 1978 Columbus Circle mishap, all the statements made by "damage inc." are indeed accurately correct. I will personally add to the fact that #3274 (which was coupled to #3333) look really "shaken" up as though if a California-style earthquake actually struck it with such force. Needless to say, there were no attempts to fix these two units, but the other six cars on that southbound "CC" train were eventually repaired and returned to service (although one car, #2975, did only suffer a bruised exterior air vent on its upper ogee-design roof).
>William
That's not bad. Did that particular train keep zooming along past 72nd? It must have. I'll bet the track was absolutely clear and that the motorman put that controller in multiple and just left it there.
I rode a downtown A of R-38s from 125th a few years back, and it was merrily zipping along the way the R-10s always did - until we got to 72nd St. From there, it c-r-a-w-l-e-d the rest of the way to 59th. There may have been a D train ahead of us; I don't rememeber for sure. The worst part was watching a C train which we would have beaten into 59th hands down zoom past us. So what else is new?
Conversely, in May of 1967, we were on our way back to Port Authority from the Museum of Natural History, and our AA of R-1/9s was running neck-and-neck with a D train, also of R-1/9s, all the way from 72nd to 59th. On top of that, the "Coney Island" signs on the sides of that D train were illuminated - quite a sight! (I just reset my IND sign box to D signs. When I turn the lower sign lights on, that Coney Island sign looks just the same as those signs on that D train way back when.)
Have they put in a timing signal at 72nd St. on the downtown express track?
those grade time signals have been there since the modernization of the signal system in 1988
To the best of my knowledge (and memory), the track was clear with no "D" train in front of the R-10 "A" train whatsoever (I was looking out the front window). I don't believe the motorman ever attempted to slow down any considerably or noticeably as it did past 72nd Street, but it was certainly a very good speed run with all the signals (and perhaps all of the ten-car train's motors that were really operating in high gear) that was working with him as a factor.
Today, there are timed signals on that stretch as well, just like on the northbound "A" line's downhill portion between 181st and 190th Street nowadays. You're right...so what else is new about that too?
>William
At least there are no timing signals (shhh!) on that express run southbound from 59th to 42nd as you approach 42nd. You and I know just how fast those R-10s would move as they passed the uptown platform. Even the R-44s move pretty well on that stretch.
Looking back, I seem to remember that southbound A trains always seemed to approach the downtown platform at a faster clip than locals. You could tell an A train was coming before you saw it, because the headlights would reflect off the rails first. Now, if a prewar A train with no headlights pulled in, you wouldn't know it was coming until you actually saw it. I remember the last time I saw a prewar A train pull into 42nd. I said, "Oh, goody" out loud, mainly because there were no headlights. As much as I love the R-10s, a ride on an A of R-1/9s was a special treat.
I used to get my R-10s and most equipment to about 40 before the field shunt mods at the time I hit the platform at 42 St although I was mostly a "CC" man. If you came from theQueens Blvd line the speed leaving 50 sT IS 10 M.P.H. until you hit the R10 sign well after the switches. I always like the outboard headlights myself
Did you ever have a chance to operate a rush hour E from the lower level at 42nd when they were doing so in the early 70s?
As for the lack of headlights, it made for an interesting phenomenon of nothing but tunnel lights and signals. The pillars between tracks looked like silhouettes. I miss that.
You're right...the southbound IND "A" line stretch towards 42nd Street is indeed a very classic example as to where any type of train (including indeed the R-10's) really *showoff* their strength and power while heading towards that station. I personally thought even with the R-10's operating on that segment of track that the train would just seemingly zoom by the adjecent uptown platform almost like though in a blurred viewing position plus the equal amazement of itself actually stopping (usually) on the 10-car marker. Arriving at a faster clip than the locals??? It is still such the case!!!
Speaking of those sealbeam headlights on the R-10's (first installed on the cars beginning in 1962), they were considered a very characteristic feature addition to the fleet, and even made them more identifible when looking at them from a distance as the train would eventually be arriving at the station platform you were at (including in the manner that you spoken of at that location of 42nd Street you had mentioned). You knew right there and then that a mighty R-10 was coming!!!
-William A. Padro
The actual numbered cars used on the ERA-operated fantrip on Sunday, October 29, 1989 were as follows:
s/#3018-3203-3182-2974(ex-1827)-3143-3045-3145-3216/n.
This trip began at 59th Street-Columbus Circle on that date at 10:10am (Eastern) and ended at Chambers Street-World Trade Center (the local platform) at 7:45pm, with a forty-minute lunch stop at Coney Island. This excursion covered a wide variety of routes, including the Franklin Avenue Shuttle, the Archer Avenue lines (both levels) and an unscheduled surprise trip on the 63rd Street Extension route (which had just opened that date in official customer service).
Yes, I was on this trip as well as all of the previous two other ERA-operated fantrips that were held on Saturday, October 23, 1976 with n/#2955(ex-1808)-3220-3231-3298/s and Sunday, June 8, 1986 with s/#3136-2966(ex-1819)-3101-3013/n. Details of the routes that each of these two trips had taken would be too much in detail here, except that in the 1976 fantrip the train then did inded made a very memorable round-trip on the Jamaica Avenue Elevated line to 168th Street (prior to its September 10, 1977 closing).
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
Ooh sorry about getting the numbers mixed up - that's the way I had
them written down in my old notebook - 2974 first. I guess I
copied them down right column first then left for whatever reason
(3018 was top of right column). And I mixed up the date too!
I was sure it was November... "QT" sign - I DO remember seeing
that - also window sign in one said "South Terminal"?
Wayne
You are absolute correctly, but the "QT" sign (along with its operating box) that was on the front of the train (in car #3018) was placed for this fantrip on that day only (which was also signed for such other routes during the excursion such as "DD", "E", "F", "JJ", "N" and "TT"). The front route sign box on the rear of the train (in car #3216) was the regular contemporary design (and signed up for such routes "A", "D", "Special" and "Shuttle").
The side destination signs in particular at the time did indeed carried the "North Terminal" and "South Terminal" reading along with the terminals for only the "A", "C", "D", "H", Special and Shuttle (this was probably also did apply to the front destination boxes as well). For the front destination sign, the "Rockaway Shuttle" reading was also found here.
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
I have a NYC Transit calendar for, I believe, 1993 which has a photo of that train of R-10s at Roosevelt Island; it was sporting a BB sign, which I thought was a bit odd. I thought the R-10s had B signs - at least there are photos on this website of R-10s on the B line in which they are sporting B signs.
The R-10's original front route signs did have both "B" and "BB" readings exactly like the older R-1/9 cars (they were manufactured by the same company - Hunter Illuminated Sign Company, Inc. of Flushing, Queens, NY). Yes, the R-10's did run in regular passenger service on that rush hour only line that operated between 168th Street-Washington Heights and 34th Street-Sixth Avenue in Manhattan. I did actually ride those cars (and even prototype car #1575) in regular service on that route and the "AA" line as well back then.
However, the roll sign used on that farewell fantrip train of Sunday, October 29, 1989 pictured in that 1993 calendar that you have actually came from an R-32/38 type car that was placed inside the front hood of that car (#3018) for that special occasion only. The R-32/38's original roll signs did have the "BB" reading, but not the "B" which would later be modified within these mylar-made curtains.
In case you are wondering, I was indeed on that trip. At the time when that photograph was snapped, I was inside the middle of the train inside car #3143.
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
I remember when the B line was introduced in November of 1967. R-32s were assigned to that line, and had B signs pasted over the BB markings on both bulkhead and side route signs.
I have my 1967 TA map in front of me as I write this. Your JJ services are correct. During AM rush hours, it ran skip-stop with the QJ, which debuted on Nov.26, from 168th St. to Eastern Parkway, and terminated at Canal St. During PM rush hours, it ran from Canal St. to Crescent St. or Atlantic Ave., with some trains continuing to Rockaway Parkway. The systen map shows an orange broken line for the JJ along the Canarsie portion; the strip map only lists Atlantic Ave. along with an asterisk and this footnote: "Mon-Fri during rush hours, some trains operate between Atlantic Ave. and Rockaway Parkway via the Canarsie line." At all other times, the JJ operated between 168th St. and Broad St. During this period, the QJ was a weekday, 6 AM to 8 PM service to Brighton Beach. On July 1, 1968, the JJ and RJ were dropped, the KK made its debut, and the QJ became a 24/7 operation as far as Broad St; during weekdays it ran to Brighton Beach intially, and after August 18, 1968, to Coney Island, switching terminals with the D (when the QJ wasn't running, the D ran all the way to Coney Island).
That 1967 map also has such favorites as the RJ and NX, even the TT. As for the RJ, its peak direction listing is vague. It says, "AM Rush Hrs Northbound; PM Rush Hrs Southbound". Did it run from 95th St. to Manhattan and onto Jamaica in the morning, or vice versa?
JJ service was provided by BMT standards carrying Broadway-Brooklyn Local signs, R-16s, and R-27/30s (which had JJ signs, BTW).
On the L line near Livonia Ave, there is a track going to the right, I assume it connects with the IRT 3 line.
There is another connection after this one connecting to two tracks without 3rd rails. I also saw a freight car on one of these tracks. Is it used for freight or part of the LIRR?
About the BQ Queenbridge line, what are they doing?
One last thing, why does the A/C on the older RTS useless. Feels like warm air blowing from the vents on a hot day. The air is barely cold
enought.
Does HVAC stand for "High Voltage Air Conditioning" or "Heat, Ventalation and Air Conditioning"?
The tracks you see leading from both the IRT "3" line and BMT (sic)
"L" line lead to the Linden Shops, which is a facility for non-
revenue equipment. Only diesels need enter here, since there is
no third rail. The shop is parallel to the NY Connecting RR, somewhere around Linden Blvd. and Rockaway Avenue, exact location
unsure of it. See BMT historical map for more details. (NYC Subway
Resources)
The 63rd Street tunnel's getting its tracks replaced. The track
they put in had no ties and now it's not up to specs. (Talk about "planned obsolescence!). They'll be done in Fall 1999, we think.
Other two - don't know; sorry.
Wayne
Quote:
[The tracks you see leading from both the IRT "3" line and BMT (sic)
"L" line lead to the Linden Shops, which is a facility for non-
revenue equipment.]
Here is a map from my track book that depicts what's what through the Junius St/Linden Yard connection.
Cheers,
Peter Dougherty
Publisher
Tracks of the New York City Subway book
I wonder why they never connected these lines. Connecting to the A and C(main line) is very difficult in Brooklyn from the 2, 3, 4, 5, B, D, M, Q, R lines. If it wasn't for the F and S, it will be totally impossible.
Chris Brunson wrote:
[I wonder why they never connected these lines. Connecting to the A and C(main line) is very difficult in Brooklyn from the 2, 3, 4, 5, B, D, M, Q, R lines. If it wasn't for the F and S, it will be totally impossible.]
Chris,
IRT clearances and BMT clearances are not the same. IRT cars are about 8 and a half feet wide, where BMT cars are 10 feet wide. A BMT train would take out an IRT platform. Also, the positioning of the train stop valves are different between the two divisions.
Cheers,
Peter Dougherty
Publisher
Tracks of the New York City Subway book
Thanks for putting up this site, Peter. I've been working on subway planning for many years; ideas for improving service. After reading the track map, I notice the Lawrence Street station sits right above Jay Street Borough Hall. Why isn't there a connection between the A, C, and F lines to the M, N, & R Lines.
That remains one of the better unanswered questions. It's possible that the general consensus was that such a connection wasn't needed or thought of - until now. With the Manhattan Bridge the way it is, such a connection would be very sensible. One possible problem would be: where do you put the ramps leading to the IND? Just south of Jay St., there is a major, 4-level (I think) flying junction which could make things difficult. If there is enough space between the A and F tracks, and enough room between Jay St. and where the A tracks turn to Hoyt-Schermerhorn, the ramps could come up and merge between them; otherwise, you'd have to bring the ramps to the outside and link them to the F tracks. Since scissor switches already exist north of Jay St., that wouldn't be a problem. Or, run ramps from east of Lawrence St. and tie them to the F tracks north of Jay St. You woouldn't have access to the Cranberry tunnel, but the Rutgers tunnel should easily accommodate at least one, if not two, additional routes, and the F could be rerouted through the Cranberry tunnel (what was that deal switching northbound before W. 4th?) if necessary.
The monies the MTA waste is horrific!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They could have use that same money to build a new second avenue line!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wellll, not exactly - BUT it does illustrate how good money is
being thrown after bad. From what I understand the Archer Avenue
line(s) have the same "tieless" track, which will no doubt need
replacement at some future date. I sometimes wonder who these
knuckleheads were who came up with the idea for "tieless" track.
And speaking of the "L" line - don't you think they should replace
the fallen wall at Wilson Avenue with panel tile (same pattern!)
like they did at various IND stations (Canal St.,Bway Lafayette,
7th Ave-53rd St). I know this isn't the most heavily used station
in the system, but what was lost WAS formerly beautiful, and it
SHOULD BE REPLACED.
Wayne
What happened this afternoon on the Lexington Avenue Line?
There was some kind of a service disruption, I know for sure, because everything was screwed up. Waiting on the downtown platform at Bleeker Street, there was an express train laying on the downtown express track with nobody on board. Then I heard an announcement over the station's PA about power being restored and for that train to procede. Finally, the downtown local showed up (after I waited about 20 minutes), and when I asked the motorman what was going on, he said that there was a "body on the tracks" (his exact words). At Brooklyn Bridge, it was another 15 minute wait for the #4 to Brooklyn. Meanwhile, announcements are being made about no uptown express service, restored service, and at the same time, I'm going nuts, trying to figure out what happened. I saw nothing on the news, heard nothing on the radio.
What happened?
There was a 12-9 (person under the train) near Brooklyn Bridge. I didn't get any details about the incident except that the 'body' was removed at 3:37 PM
Saturday night a D train hit a bike on the Brighton line near Beverly Rd, the train stayed on the rails but the 3rd rail was messed up so power was pulled for two hours.
What would the 12 code be for that hitting a Bike?? Nobody was seen on the ROW, just the bike or what was left of it.
There are two different codes, not specific to the situation you describe but adequate for the occassion. 12-2 is "Smoke or Fire on the roadbed" and 12-11 is "Serious Vandalism". Either would be acceptable. Rule #20 gives 11 such codes. They are:
12-1 Clear the air - emergency
12-2 Fire or Smoke
12-3 Flood or Serious water condition
12-4 Un-assigned
12-5 Stalled train
12-6 Derailment
12-7 Request for Assistance, police or fire
12-8 Armed passenger
12-9 Passenger (person) under the train
12-10 Unauthorized person on catwalk or roadbed
12-11 Serious vandalism
12-12 Disorderly passenger(s)
The Washington DC Metro is opening the final stop on its "Red" line
at Glenmont, in Suburban Maryland, to-day at 11:00 A.M.
Station location is Georgia Avenue near Layhill Road, just north
of Wheaton. It's an underground stop, but not as deep as its sisters.
This brings to 76 the number of Metro stations and leaves only the
Green line as being unfinished.
On a different note----On the official map from the WMATA which I received in the mail the other day---Once an environmental impact statement comes back and a vote from the appropriate jurisdictions--A 3-mile extension of the Blue Line will become officially incorporated into the planned system, making it a 106-mile system. The extension will go east from the current Addison Road station with a station called "Summerfield" which will be just inside the Beltway and a station called "Largo Town Center" outside the beltway.
Thanks for the information! Any ideas as to construction start-up
date and/or target completion date - ALSO- any other extensions
in the planning or concept stages - i.e. Yellow line south of
Huntington, link to Dulles from West Falls Church, etc.
Wayne
The only other extensions getting any serious attention are a branch off the Orange Line to Dulles and a possible rail (probably light rail) line linking the Bethesda area with Silver Spring and eventually White Oak---These are large employment centers (especially Bethesda and White Oak) and would enhance the suburb to suburb commuting patterns. Other extensions that are in the "dream" stage are a Red Line extension north of Shady Grove to Clarksburg, Blue Line south of Franconia/Springfield to Dumfries, Green Line north to Laurel, Green Line south to Brandywine, the Yellow Line south sown Kings Hwy. and the Orange Line east to Bowie--BUT--these have been in the dream stage since the original system was designed--The closest extension to being "etched in stone" is the Blue Line to Largo.
Hello, Mark
While we have our Metro hats on -
How are they making out with the link between the upper and
lower Green Lines? I know there will be two underground
stations, one at 14th & Columbia Road (Columbia Heights)
and another at the junction of Georgia, Iowa, Kansas & Upshur
(Georgia Avenue-Petworth) - any ideas when they will open?
Any idea on "architectural style?" (i.e. waffles/barrel vault/
other). Last time I was on Metro was Jan.1995 - but plan to
visit again late in August.
Thanks
Wayne
Wayne, the stations are due to open sometime next year--at that time, Metro plans to eliminate the "Green Line Shortcut" which now runs directly from Greenbelt to Farragut North (on the Red Line). This shortcut was designed to encourage ridership on the outer Green Line by providing a way to avoid the transfer at Fort Totten. This shortcut only operates during peak times each morning and afternoon. As for the station designed, they will be pretty much the same as all other underground stations. There are really two differences--the older ones like Judiciary Square have a serious of "waffle plates" that make up the arch, whereas in the newer ones, like Woodley Park - Zoo, have the same waffle plates, only they are larger and less expensive and you don't need as many to complete the arch of the station, but, the same general style---the two new stations will be like Woodley Park. As for the other portion of the Green Line not opened (south of present day Anacostia) it is currently under construction and due to open in 2001.
Is the structural construction of the tunnels done on the Green Line link? Boy, was 14th street a mess when that was being built.
How much does WMATA spend per mile to build there 2 track but very well built system?
Speaking of which...before I left DC, I took a bunch of pictures of the construction. This might make for a cool feature on a web page - the pictures along with a map of the construction and maybe pictures of how the area looks now. But I am no web page designer and I don't really want to put the time into it. Any volunteers? I could mail the photos off to someone with a map and some explanations.
This site would be a cool place to put it, though of course it is not NYC related. But its not every day that one watches a subway get built.
Send 'em along! I'd be glad to have them for the site.
Drop me an email and we'll get you my address.
-Dave
Were there ever any plans for the yellow line to the north/northwest/northeast of where it now ends? (along the green line)
Bob Sklar
Actually, in the original plans, the Yellow Line was to be joined with the Green all the way to Greenbelt. I guess the powers that be figured, why spend the $$$ to send two lines worth of trains all the way when one would do the job. Also, in the original plans, the Yellow was to go to Franconia/Springfield and the Blue to Huntington. When the Huntington segment opened, the Yellow Line only ran from Gallery Place to National Airport and in order for Metro to open the segment to Huntington w/o having to delay for a shipment of cars, they dedicated this portion to the Yellow because it took fewer cars to run it while terminating the Blue at its present terminus of the day-National Airport. This was only supposed to be a temporary measure until the leg out to Van Dorn opened up, then it would revert to Yellow and Huntington would revert to the Blue as originally planned. In fact, when Huntington & Eisenhower Avenue first opened up, you could see a blue dot under the Yellow one on the pylons--whether you can still detect these today, I don't know---Incidentally, if you get the chance, take a look at the Huntington Station--an architectural marvel they way it was built into a hillside.
Where is DC getting the money to extend its transit system?
"Where is DC getting the money to extend its transit system"?
It will get the money the same place most systems get their capital improvement funds, the Federal Government.
To make a little notation on that----in the original formula for the 103-mile system--each jurisdiction involved put in a proportionate amount of $$ to the system based on the milage within that jusrisdiction---This includes the District of Columbia, Montgomery & Prince Georges County in Maryland, Arlington & Fairfax Counties in Virginia and the imdependant municipalities of Alexandria, VA, and Falls Church, VA---Actually, none of the Metro goes through Falls Church but it skirted its borders and Falls Church got sucked into it.
But, as previously mentioned by the above post---You and I and everybody else from sea to shining sea put in the majority.
Mark,
My daily commute is from Silver Spring to Union Station and I've enjoyed having those trains that terminate at Silver Spring. With the Glenmont opening will we lose any of those trains that trun back at Silver Spring???
Wayne
Wayne--not that I've heard--In my opinion--if they wanted to eliminate them, they would have done it long ago and sent them all to Wheaton, plus, it doesn't seem as though they're expecting Glenmont to generate that many trips, at least not in the forseeable future--I guess we'll see.
As far as I know it will be the same as always, half to Glenmont, half to Silver Spring. The trains will probably start from Glenmont about 3 minutes earlier so they get to Wheaton at the same time and the schedules all remain the same.
Living as I do 7 miles straight north of the Glenmont station, I think it's a great station. The most crowded intersection in the area is the one 2 blocks south (@ Randolph) of the new station. If even 20% of the people that have driven through there park in the new garage, the traffic may dissipate at that corner. Also many who used to park at Rockville, Twinbrook, and Wheaton, now will park at Glenmont, freeing up a lot of spaces at the other stations. And instead of taking one of the world's longest escalators to Wheaton, I can now take one of the world's shortest down to Glenmont.
In an incredible case of mistimed vacations, I was at the Magic Kingdom in Florida on Saturday riding the Tomorrowland Transit Authority trains while the Glenmont station was being opened.
Hey guys does anybody know why the 110B March of Dimes benefit trip was cancelled?
The trip was cancelled because the R110B was experiencing brake problems. There had been proposals to use the IRT model for the trip, but the RTO (Rapid Transit Operations)was dead against it because of the gaps between the cars and the platform. I was told that the trip would be rescheduled in August.
P.S. They could have used R110A for trip. Solution: Have wooden boards near doors to be opened and use boards as gap fillers. Not every door has to be opened, being that it is a special train. The NY Transit Museum did this back in 1996 when the IRT Lo-Voltage Cars were operating on the A line to Rockaway Pk for the Nostalgia Special.
Cheers,
Constantine
The R110A is currently out of service due to cracked trucks.
Now I've heard that because of this (and Kawasaki sent new trucks and they cracked too) Kawasaki's part of the new car order is in jeopardy; we're only going to get the 600 Bombardier cars, and that the TA is looking into rebuilding some of the redbirds again!
Does anyone know if this is true?
Can everyone say R-46?
Aside from that, I don't see why those Redbirds with the least amount of corrosion can't be handpicked and kept in service. That's what they did with the R-10s in the mid-80s. I met a fellow from the TA at Shoreline in the fall of '89, by which time the R-10s were gone, and he mentioned that most of them were still in decent shape mechanically when they were finally retired.
I hope Kawasaki's order doesn't get cancelled. However, if the order does make it, I hope the trains will be in the shape to carry passengers for 3 decades (like most cars), instead of 6 years.
For the redbird fans (I'm into hi-tech stuff, but I like the redbirds a bit too) they should keep at least a few of them running, as long as they are in the shape to keep operations smooth and passengers safe. A post a few weeks ago said the TA was planning to keep 300 of them...that sounds good to me.
Is the R110A officially retired?? I've heard that this is true, but that 2 of the 3 R110B sets (3-cars each) will come back when brake repairs are finished. Is this true?? If so, when are these trains expected back in service. Are they going to run on the A or the C line when (if) they come back? I know this post is a mouthful, but any answers would be appreciated. Thanks-Nick
I saw the R110a running up the #2 line just recently (5 cars). The cars are definitely not retired. Otherwise, the TA wouldn't bother fixing them. The TA invested too much money to be scrapping those cars. They (R110s) are experimental; modifications can be made. Kawasaki's order shouldn't be cancelled. Might I suggest that the TA use the standard heavyweight truck that never fails? Thank goodness we don't have a bunch of them running around with cracked trucks (R46 days)! I have to admit I don't mind having a few redbirds around for a while longer. AB Standards operated 5 decades before being retired. Q Types operated six decades before going out. Why not operate the redbirds for 50 years?
Cheers,
Constantine
I saw the 110B on the F today on the center track near Ave P. The train was parked there.(presumably on the way to COney Island Shop?)
It looks like the 110B is running to some degree
I have seen new lines here and there and I have decoded to rate the lines on importance and need. Further more there has been a new Line proposed it is called the H train and if this line is created that could mean that the C train could be extended to Lefters Blvd and Beyond to 229 Street. Well less of this here is the list.
Tied for 1st. Second Avenue Line
Tied for 1st H line.
2. K line
3. P line
Make of list of the top three lines for yourselves and also to find out more go to the topic bring back the NX but call it the P.
Thank you Mr. Rivera for considering my plan. The "H" is a very important link to the Rockaways. Nonetheless, it will provide riders direct access to the 6avenue truck route (major business district).
Regarding the second avenue line, are you judging it by the current plan or, my proposed plan which includes the Bronx and the Lower Eastside (which also doesn't have trains service). Thanks again, I hope everyone writes in to get these plans implemented.
JFK Train-to-Plane
Time Seems Nearer
By DOUGLAS FEIDEN and JAMES RUTENBERG
Daily News Staff Writers
The Port Authority got the green light to move ahead with plans to build rail links between Manhattan and the city's two major airports yesterday after making concessions to Mayor Giuliani and Gov. Pataki.
After months of negotiations and decades of false starts, officials hope they can begin work on the 8.4-mile JFK link as early as September.
Work on the LaGuardia link is not expected to start until at least 2001.
"Gov. Pataki is moving forward on a train to the plane," said Pataki spokesman Mike McKeon. "The governor believes this project's been on the drawing board for far too long."
The Port Authority announced three months ago it was ready to move ahead with a JFK link — which would connect to Long Island Rail Road and E, J and Z trains at Queens' Jamaica station and with A trains at Howard Beach.
But Mayor Giuliani threw cold water on the $1.5 billion project, slamming officials for making travelers switch trains and for not doing enough to develop a one-seat LaGuardia ride.
Under the agreement — inked July 1 — the PA will study ways to develop the JFK rail link into a one-seat ride from Manhattan's Penn Station.
It also will fund a $12 million study looking into extending the N line tracks to LaGuardia and developing special airport train cars.
The state has committed $100 million toward the line, which is expected to cost between $600 million and $900 million.
And state officials will see to it that the PA does not reduce its airport rent payments to the city to cover any of the JFK link costs.
City Hall credited Mayor Giuliani's tough stance for making the deal happen.
"The mayor had to have certainty that the conditions that he was asking for be met before the city could agree," said Giuliani senior adviser Tony Coles. "Now the parties have met the conditions established by the mayor."
But officials still have an uphill battle before them.
The JFK plan must now go through a tough land-use review process — where it faces stiff opposition from Queens community groups fearful that construction will disrupt their neighborhoods.
That could take a year — though work on a link between JFK terminals likely will start this fall.
Also, airline industry executives are suing the Federal Aviation Administration for doling out $1.3 billion for the JFK project — money they say should be spent on direct airport improvements.
"There's still a long way to go," said PA spokesman Mark Hatfield. "But without this [agreement] it's like, don't dress for the dance."
Why Penn Station they can use Grand Central they would have to build pretty deep. Plus if they build at Penn or Grand they would have to build a deep tunnel by building under the Queens-Midtown Tunnel which is under the 7 line tunnel. There plan is to build on the L.I.E to the Van Wick Express. For the N train after the Ditmars avenue Station they would or could build a seperate line on Ditmars Avenue which gives a direct line to LaGuardia Airport.
The PA rail link plan really ripes away at the soul of CITY residence. I can't believe the logic in creating an entirely different system to the airports. Isn't their a subway called the "A" near the Airport. What about the possible extention of the "N" line (of course service would have to be improve considerably). Southeastern Queens could use a subway. What about extending the Lefferts Blvd "A" and or, the New Lots Avenue "3". Or, what about extending the E, J, Z to the airport. Finally, what about using the unused rails that lie beyond Rockaway Blvd and Woodhaven Blvd. These are all concerns to me.
Don't wory, I have complete confidence in the PA's inability to build any rapid transit line. They may build a people mover within the airport but I do not think it will ever connect with the subway or LIRR. I also agree that with LIRR and Subway lines within 3 miles of JFK airport terminals surely it would be possible to extend one of those lines for what it is going to cost for the people mover. That would have provided a one seat, one ticket ride. I think the only reason the PA is doing anything is because NJ transit is building a station near Newark Airport. New York's airports should be concerned about the competition that Newark's easier access to Manhattan would bring. I think Mayor Guiliani was right to question the PA's plan.
I'm not so sure about the Port Authority's inability to build any transit line at all. It looks to me as if they want to build the loop around the terminal and the Howard Beach line as soon as possible (it's scheduled to be finished years before the Jamaica branch) and then maybe conveniently forget about the rest (bowing to the airlines' demand not to use "their" tax money outside of the airport?). After all the whole line to Howard Beach would be on JFK land, and it would allow the PA to drop their loop buses connecting the various terminals and their (free) buses to the Howard Beach subway station. They could also claim to be as modern as the Dallas or Newark airport is. The one time I heard a PA official flogging this scam he noted that the $5 fare would be collected only from passengers going to Jamaica or Howard Beach (with discounts for airport workers going to the subway station); people going out to the parking lots (even the ones just on the airport side of the fence from the subway station) would ride free. Presumably they would put up a wall to prevent "freeloaders" from going out to the parking lot and "sneaking" over to the subway. This means that the only cheap way to get to the airport from Manhattan or Brooklyn would be the Queens Blvd. subway and the Q10 bus or the No. 3 train to New Lots Ave. and the B15 bus! This is supposed to be progress or even civilization? BEFORE the new Munich airport opened a couple of years ago the S-Bahn extension was built out to the terminal. I wouldn't be surprised to see the admittedly ridiculous idea of a driverless people mover running above the traffic on the Van Wyck Expressway to Jamaica for a $5 ride conveniently dropped someday.
This "Special Airport Vehicle" for the N to LaGuardia concerns me. Obviously, these politico, who never ride the subway, are assuing that white people who are rich enough to buy an airplane ticket are not about to board an Astoria local -- even if it arrives every 4-6 minutes and gets you to Times Square in 35 minutes. I've heard the same sentiment expressed in my office, many times, by just about everyone. You need the equivalent of those $30 a day tour buses people pay for to avoid mixing with the like of us.
Boondoggle. And since the operating costs would be so high -- ongoing boondoggle. Just run the N two blocks north into the industrial area, the over to LaGuardia, add six more trains per hour with Whitehall as a terminal (every four minutes at peak, every five minutes off peak), put the newest trains. cleanest, on the system on this "front door line," and police it heavily to discourage panhandlers etc. That's the cheapest, and since the headways would be short, the fastest. And the best.
Remember all the trouble we had when the TA ordered the special R-46s? Why do that again? What would this special airport vehicle do that a standard subway car could not?
--Mark
The PA needs to have a study for a "special airport vehicle"? Take a standard subway car and put in a luggage rack and viola you have a "special Airport Vehicle". There, I just saved the PA $1 million dollars which they could put towards actually building something.
I have been reading about airport light rail for some time; I am coming to the Big Apple for a visit in August, do you think this will be ready by then?
Last time I flew into LaGuardia, it was to surprise my dad on his 85th birthday, so I took public transport: bus to train. About an hour and a half to go from LGA to Union Turnpike/Queens Blvd. This trip, I am coming in Idlewild (Kennedy to the younger crowd), which SHOULD be just a bus trip on the Q10. I sure would appreciate light rail or something like it.
Jeff, Eye assume yours is a retorical question ?
The Green Bus Lines Q10 will get you there in style, unless you're a real transit NUT and want to take the "A" at Howard Beach into the city then get the "E" to get you to Junction & Queens Blvd.
I once took my grandpa (who was living in rual Ct at the time) for a ride on the "A" from Grant Ave Brooklyn to Times Square. He didn't recognize much of the "old" neighborhood.
Mr t__:^)
Mr T__:^)
That was sarcasm with a capital SAR.
I once took the A from Far Rock to the Rockaway Blvd junctionm, and then waited for the OTHER A to Lefferts Blvd, to be only a couple of miles from home base. Took over two hours.
I think I'll stick to the Q10 (which stops 1/2 block from my folks' house.
Jeff T., Also sometimes known as Mr T :o
They operate the A train as if it was the D,F,G,R,L,N & M, trains which all have one terminal. The A has two terminals! The train arrives every 15 minutes regardless of this fact. In other words, a person who wants to go to Lefferts Blvd, will have to wait twice as long.
That's why I think they would be better off tearing down the A to Lefferts and increasing bus service. You'd have to take the bus three extra stops, but the train would be running every four minutes (or eight off peak) when you get there. I think most people would be better off.
Your really stupid! They don't need to tear it down, but, extend the line into Eastern Queens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lefferts A Advocate!
They operate the A train as if it was the D,F,G,R,L,N & M, trains which all have one terminal. The A has two terminals! The train arrives every 15 minutes regardless of this fact. In other words, a person who wants to go to Lefferts Blvd or Far Rockaway, will have to wait twice as long.
During rush hours, the A has three terminals: Lefferts Blvd., Far Rockaway, and Rockaway Park. It would make better sense to run the C to, say, Lefferts Blvd. during rush hours and send all A trains to the Rockaways.
Yes! That's is what I been saying for some time. In addition, of course, the new H line from/to 57th Street (M) or Rockaway Park. It will subject the A to only one route; speeding up service. And finally, the S shuttle from/to Rockaway Park (Q) or Far Rockaway (Q).
Jeff,
I've read that it's very easy to have your reply appear to be FLAMMING or even worse ... that wasn't my intention ... sorry !
Mr t__:^)
Thurston: no need to apologize, no offense taken. Sometimes I have to rethink what I'm saying, or writing.
Anyway, I'm following this thread with keen interest, as an out-of-stater (but former resident). Selfishly, I would like extended transit to the airport (and ALL airports across the country). But I fear that many are correct in assuming that these plans will be fought to the death over property values and esthetics. Especially (sorry Chris) the EL plan.
Jeff, the other Mr T :o
- another "Study one seat JFK to Manhattan"
- another study ($12M) ext of "N" to LaGuardia
No wonder transit projects cost so much, cause it takes so long for all the leaches to get their fill before dime one goes to construction
What is this noise about "land use" review, isn't the ROW going over top the Van Wyck ? Give me a break !
"Special cars" on the "N" ... take those politians up to Boston where just plain regular subways serve Logan !
Oh where is Robert Moses when you need him ?
Mr t__:^)
No, send them to Chicago. Boston's subway enters the airport but still needs a (free) shuttle bus to link the station to the air terminals. When they built the subway to O'Hare, they didn't build a whole new line, or light rail, or add special cars (well, they added overhead baggage racks to some ordinary cars), or charge a surcharge. They just extended an existing line (a portion of which was built in the 1890s!) to the airport down the middle of the Kennedy Expressway. The usual politically-connected **construction** companies still got their gravy, but at least it was for actually BUILDING the line and not consulting "work".
John, Thnaks for the qualification & input on Chicago !!
I lived in old bean town but only rode by the airport on my way to the beach, Revere that is.
Mr t__B<)
Good old bean town. You gotta love a city where the end of the subway line is "Wonderland."
Did you know that the original contractor who started the final link to O'Hare went bankrupt? They had to line up a new contractor to finish the project, which is why the River Rd.-O'Hare segment opening was delayed.
Now if they could only put conductors back on the Red and Blue lines full time...
"Oh where is Robert Moses when you need him ? "
I could understand this if you were referring to the construction of a highway, but Robert Moses was no friend of public transit. He blocked transit initiatives on most of his bridges. Whitestone was a prime example of a transit project that could have provided suburb to suburb rail connections that he refused to allow.
Boy, is Francis Sibilla right. Moses is THE reason we don't have rail service to Kennedy or LaGuardia, or to Jones Beach, or to Staten Island, or to the World's Fair grounds in Queens, or to a lot of other places. He's also the reason for no pedestrian or bike path on the Narrows Bridge and for lots of other anti-public transit actions. Even the overpasses on the Long Island parkways were deliberate sized to preclude bus or truck use.
Read "The Power Broker"--it's all in there.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Nitpickers,
You guys R right of course, but the point was we need a slash & burn kind of guy who would dig in & get the job done without waiting for EVERY voice about EVERY issue possible to be heard & studied 1st.
P.S. Robert Moses didn't drive so why was he such a car rights & every body else be dammed kind of guy ?
Mr t__:^)
Robert Moses certainly was the kind of "slash & burn" type of guy who could get things done without hearing all sides. But it was because of his abuse of this power that our metropolitain area has as many highways as it does and as little public transit as it does. He also forcibly displaced thousands of people with his "development" plans. Of course, only the poor or middle classes were displaced for his vision of the city. I'm glad that my neighborhood, which wasn't affluent at the time of his reign, was spared. He had plans for a 14th St. Expressway and a Broome Street expressway. Those roads would have taken out most of the Village, East Village, West Village, Soho and part of Chelsea.
Both sides of this arguement highlight the need for real democracy and demonstrate what happens when corruption takes control.
p.s. Robert Moses either took cabs in the city or, in his later years, had men at his service to drive him around.
I read the Power Broker too, and I thought Robert Moses got a raw deal. True, some of the decisions he made post-war turned out to be mistakes, but Caro over-emphasizes the effect of those mistakes.
The thesis is Robert Moses had power, therefore people were forced to buy detached houses rather than moving into additional six story apartment buildings, and to buy cars. How about the reverse -- Robert Moses had power because people wanted cars and houses and he provided them?
The thesis is that Robert Moses built roads, others imitated him and built roads, then cities declined, and therefore Robert Moses personally made all the cities in the U.S. decline (no, I'm not exaggerating). But correlation is not causality -- what about a control group? Some neighborhoods with highway pushed through went down the tubes, and some didn't. Some neighborhoods without highways pushed through went down the tubes and some didn't. The 1950 to 1980 history of the Bronx, which got lots of highways, is not much different from Brooklyn (or Philly) which got almost none.
Robert Moses did roads and parks, not transit, and that's too bad. But while he was building roads and parks, others were building the IND, the Christie St Connection, etc. Since he has gone, we have built neither roads, nor parks, nor transit. The Power Broker shows that Moses stopped thinking and pushed forward with outmoded ideas. A little accountability would have helped. But we've gone to the other extreme. Anyone rich enough to hire a lawyer can stop anything for years, no matter how many people are in favor and no matter how many people would benefit. You call that Democracy?
There were very specific anti-transit things that Moses did, such as narrowing the median strip on the Van Wyck to 8 or 10 feet instead of the wide strip that was supposed to be there for an airport access subway route coming off Queens Boulevard.
His social vision was something that many tried to fight, such as his destruction of the amusement areas of Coney Island and Rockaway Park apparently because they didn't fit his vision of amusement--as seen in the way Jones Beach was built. All clean, antiseptic, no honky-tonk, no public transportation--the beach is beautiful, but that's due to nature, not to Moses.
The comments about what he did to neighborhoods are also right. Some of the early "urban renewal" projects he was responsible for--the high-rises south of Washington Square that wiped out huge areas of Greenwich Village and finally were practically given to NYU because no one could make them successful as ordinary housing.
What he had on all those politicians who were afraid to remove him (until Rockefeller) no one knows--he was sort of New York's version of J. Edgar Hoover.
Even with all the Moses-named site in Northern New York where I live, many of the locals here look back sadly at some of the things he did here with the Seaway and the Power Authority.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Isn't he responsible for building the Triboro Bridge?
...And the Verrazano, the Bronx Whitestone, the Throgs Neck, the Henry Hudson, the Marine Parkway, the Robert Moses Causeway bridge, the Brooklyn Battery tunnel and numerous parkways, expressways, and state parks.
Of course he built all that stuff, but considering that we're discussing him on something called "Subtalk," how many of his bridges/tunnels/causeways/expressways have tracks (or even space for tracks) or even reserved lanes for Ottawa- or Pittsburgh-style busways?
Where is the space the city originally wanted on Horace Harding Boulevard and Van Wyck Bouvelard for subway use? It's amazing how even after his death, the Long Island Expressway could be widened for more traffic lanes, but not for even two subway tracks. A connection from 63rd into the LIE might have made sense and would have allowed for some new service areas in Queens. Come to think of it, why not take two lanes from the LIE now for subway use?
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Hey, lighten up, I was only providing a list of his projects to the person who made the previous post. I agree that he should have made more provisions for mass transit on his bridges & roadways.
Taking two automobile lanes and converting them to rapid transit use. Now isn't that a novel idea!
The day I hear that has taken place would be a historic day. It would be on par with the American Public hearing that our current "esteemed" President has told the truth about something.
Call me a Doubting Thomas, but, that will never happen!
There is actually a similar proposal to take two lanes of a highway and convert them to rapid transit in Chicago, where it is planned to extend the Blue Line via the Northwest Tollway to Woodfield, a major suburban shopping center and office area. Actually, it would more likely involve the loss of the shoulders at the center of the road, but considering how many people drive in the shoulders at rush-hour on the Northwest, it would be the same as the loss of lanes!
Surprisingly, the mayors and councils of the suburbs through which the line would run are in favor of the line. They are even saying they would chip in part of the construction cost. Even if they don't, at least they won't be opposing the line, and these are by-and-large the towns of the (anti-)O'Hare Commission, so they are ready, willing, and able to whine about projects they oppose even if they are to the public benefit.
John B, Re Subway on the highway (ROW) ...
Maybe that's because they have done that before in Chicago, i.e. in NYC "you can't do that", while in ORD "yea that ll work & it's CHEEPER than a new ROW". What kind of inconvience is it for the customer to have to climb stairs/bridge to get to the median (where the station is) ? Have they been able to make all the stations Sr/Disabled accessable ?
Mr t__:^)
You're right that precedent has a lot to do with it, that Chicagoans are used to expressway-median rapid transit. The expressways that carry subway lines are below-grade or above-grade -- mostly below grade -- and the stations are where major streets cross at grade over or under the expressway. This arrangement also allows buses that run on those streets to stop in front of the station entrance. The station entrance is in the middle of the expressway at grade level, where you pay your fare and then take stairs or an escalator to platform level -- the expressway stations are all center platform.
Unfortunately, of the expressway stations, the only ones with elevators are the terminal stations (as ADA additions) and the stations built in the early '80s to extend the Kennedy Expressway (Blue) line to O'Hare (original to the stations). Many of the stations on the Dan Ryan (Red) and Kennedy Expressways could be modified for elevators, but the Eisenhower (also Blue) stations -- the original median-strip transit line -- won't accomodate an elevator. This is because the station house is not directly on top of the platform as on the Kennedy and Dan Ryan Expressways. For the same reason, more stations of the old elevated lines have elevators than you would expect.
I have mixed feelings on the Blue Line extension to Woodfield. While I applaud the fact that the mayor's of the town's involved, civic groups, and the RTA are trying a "rail" solution, however, I question if a Blue Line train is the answer.
My main concern is that the CTA is having an extremely difficult time providing the transit needs of the people who live in Chicago, let alone, taking on the responsibility of operating the extension. As a daily CTA rider I’ve seen a rapid deterioration in the service provided by the agency in the two years I’ve lived in the city. However, in the past few months, I can honestly say that I’ve seen a slow improvement.
Secondly, doesn’t METRA already serve that area? Are we spending millions to construct competing forms of transportation. The ‘L’ is great for the city. Most rides are short, and the equipment is designed to address the comfort level needed to satisfy most customers in this market. On rides that are any longer than the 45 minutes to the airport, commuter rail equipment is better suited to service the market. Commuter rail equipment is better designed to address the comfort issues of riders.
Where the Blue Line can compete is the delivery system it provides. I’ll be the first to admit that the single terminal concept (METRA) can’t compare to the multi-station’s of the CTA’s Milwaukee-Dearborn-Congress subway. Not to mention the connection to the entire CTA rail system. Some of us will remember that the North Shore Line used the fact they served ten stops in the Loop, and North Side along with the stops in Milwaukee, when they advertised their service against the "steam" railroads.
Does the Northwest Tollway have a center reservation for RT? I've seen on my excursions on the Metra Electric, that the Bishop Ford does have a center reservation for future 'L' extension south of 95th Street. I know there has been talk for time to time on extending south to a least 103rd Street. Talk also was to build to the proposed Lake Calumet Airport, a project now dead - both the airport and rail line.
The Woodfield area is not directly served by Metra, in the way the RTA, the mayors, and the Woodfield landlords/merchants/office tenants want. It is almost equidistant from the UP-Northwest and the Milwaukee West lines, but is a good few miles from either one. The purpose of the Blue Line extension is not to bring residents of the area into the city -- that is the purpose of Metra, as you say, and the residents who work downtown probably already drive to the nearest Metra station. The purpose is to bring workers resident in the city to the stores and offices of the Woodfield area.
Given that the goal is reverse commuting, extending the rapid transit, which already runs through the city neighborhoods and has much easier interchange between lines, makes more sense than having the reverse commuters travel via CTA to Union or Northwestwern Station (which are not convenient to the L system) and take a Metra train from there, whereupon they must transfer to a Pace bus (separate fare), fighting rush-hour traffic, to get to Woodfield.
As to the width of the Northwest Tollway, the median seems just wide enough to accomodate two tracks. Widening, or loss of lanes, would probably be needed where stations were built, assuming they are to be built along the tollway portion -- perhaps trains would run non-stop a la Skokie Swift between O'Hare and Woodfield?
I think part of that anti-development feeling in the New York area might be a lingering reaction to the abuses of Mr. Moses.
The do-nothings of today are no excuse for Moses's mean-spirited pushing highways through dense neighborhoods when less disruptive and equally effective routes were nearby.
And the design of his works to _deliberiately_ exclude subways and even busses (!!) is just inexcuseable in a city like NY.
Baltimore has Light Rail to the Airport!!!
Unfortunately, the MTA didn't believe in luggage racks either, so the new 18 Adtranz cars are fitted just like the original 35.
I've seen the poor unfortunates who, having just gotten off an airliner, have to schlep two suitcases and a laptop onto a LRV, and then struggle to find a place for both him and his luggage.
(Oh, well, maybe when they figger how to run it like a real streetcar line [no more 34 minute headway] they'll retrofit some of the fleet with luggage racks.)
That's right. Moses made sure that the LI Parkways could not accomodate buses. But the Belt Parkway in Brooklyn can handle them. Every day empty express buses from the Ulmer Park (Harway Ave & 25th Ave) garage use the Belt to get to and from Bay Ridge. I've even seen an occasional empty Command private express bus on the Belt. I don't think the Belt is used for revenue runs because of weight concerns, many of the overpasses are in poor shape, and the traffic lanes really are too narrow for a bus.
It's true that you'll see buses on the Belt, but I don't think you'll find there was any bus service on any parkway while Moses was still in power. One of Nelson Rockefeller's greatest contributions as Governor, in addition to leaving much of his art collection to the people of the State, was figuring out how to let Moses think he would still have a lot to say and then dropping him completely. Whether Ronan was an improvement is debatable, but at least Ronan didn't get his way in many things simply by outenduring everybody else.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
There was an editorial about Ronan in one of the New York papers at one time, probably the shortest editorial ever written. It said, simply, "Ronan stinks".
Got a question. Do I have the most updated NYC subway map? The one I have is dated March 1998 and reflects the S shuttle to 21st St.-Queensbridge and the notices about the Lenox Ave. Construction at the bottom. If this is NOT the most updated map, could somebody please mail me one? Please e-mail me if you can mail me one.
Mark,
I think you do have the latest which includes the B & C lines northern terminal swap.
The latest map is the May edition which show the Queensbridge Shuttle extended to 34th Street an also mentions the closing on 7/24/98 of the Franklin shuttle for construction.
Mark,
If you will e-mail me your mailing address, I will send you the May map.
DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THERE WILL EVER BE A FANTRIP ON THE OLD BROAD STREET SUBWAY CARS. I DONT KNOW IF THE CARS ARE JUST NOT OPERABLE OR IF SEPTA JUST DOESNT WANT TO RUN THEM. ALSO HOW COME THE BMT STANDARDS HAD THERE TRAIN DOORS LOCKED WHEN THE BROAD STREET SUBWAY CARS ARE THE SAME DIMENSIONS AS THEM DOESNT PAST AND PRESENT. IF YOU ASK ME THE B-4 CARS ARE SOME OF THE BEST RAPID TRANSIT CARS AROUND. THEY FAST COMFORTABLE AND RELIABLE. THE BROAD STREET SUBWAY PROBABLY HAS THE TRUEST EXPRESS IN THE COUNTRY IF NOT THE WORLD.ALL I KNOW IT BEATS OUT NEW YORK - NOT INSULTING THEM - JUST STATING A FACT. IF ANYONE HAS ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS PLEASE POST THEM. THANKS
Hey John, I agree with ypu about the B-4's being some of the best transit vehicles around. How about riding an M-4 and making a comparison? You might like the M-4 rather than the B-4!
> ALSO HOW COME THE BMT STANDARDS HAD THERE TRAIN DOORS LOCKED
> WHEN THE BROAD STREET SUBWAY CARS ARE THE SAME DIMENSIONS AS THEM
The Broad ST subway is much straighter than the average BMT subway line in NY. WHen the atsndards rounded curves, it could pose a dangerous situation to someone walking between the cars, kind of like the R-44, R-46 and R-68s today.
--Mark
On your comment on the B-4 subway cars. SEPTA was very fortunate to have Kawasaki win the bid for the BSS cars, the 112 city division street cars, and the 29 Red Arrow cars. All of these cars have been very good performers since their delivery. I remember when the Red Arrow cars started replacing the Brills and P-S cars on the Media and Sharon Hill Lines. They were welcome replacements as far as the regular riders were concerned, however, the railfan's were unhappy to see the old equipment go. The life of a rail car is only so long, and sooner or later they need replacement. The new cars were comfortable and air conditioned, but, not technically complicated. This is what every car builder should strive for.
As for the BSS, after fifty years of service and constant breakdowns of the old fleet, anything would have been a welcome replacement. I agree the B4's are fast as I've see the speed-o-meter get up to 55 MPH on the express run between Eire Avenue to Olney northbound, or to Race-Vine southbound. Not bad for transit equipment.
It has been said that the Chicago 'L' operates at a higher speed than the New York City subway operates. CTA has a MAS (maximum allowable speed) of 55 MPH on its open stretches. Remember, the CTA ‘L’ operates a considerable amount of miles above the street on steel structure vs. in the tunnel. I'm not sure how fast the fastest NYC subway operates, but if NYC doesn’t equal or exceed 55 MPH, both CTA and SEPTA’s BSS are faster.
Hi all,
Anyone planning to take photographs of Franklin Avenue Shuttle line *WHILE* in 18 month re-construction? I'm not sure if there's any easy access for photo-op?
Cheers,
Michael Adler
USPS Letter Carrier in Denver, ColorFUL Colorado
I've read that homeless people live in abandoned stations and near the tracks. Has this been going on since the subways began? Did people live there in the twenties while others were getting rich?
Can you ride the subways all night and live on the trains? The homeless must have someplace they go when it gets cold in winter.
>>Can you ride the subways all night and live on the trains?<<
The New York City Subway is open 24hrs 7 days a week so yes you can ride the subway all night long. The Transit Police run an outreach program and try to move the homeless to Shelter...
I have seen police wake sleeping people stretched out on the subway seats (redbirds, r40 type) so they sit up. One time when a D arrived at Stillwell in the wee hours and it was going to the yard the crew could not wake a homeless man. The cops showed up and he took his night stick and banked it on the seat right next to the head of the man. Still he wouldn't move (or even act like he woke up). The cop turned to his partner and said "Call the outreach (or something like that) and have em take him to the Shelter " Boom the guy "woke" up and was off the train in 1.4 seconds flat... The don't want to go to the Shelter period.
Back when snack bars and toilets were open in the subway and gum machines (with mirrors) were on the platforms, homeless people had everything they needed to survive in the subway.
Do you mean snack bars and toilets were open on the trains? Or in the stations? Do you know what years they were open and why they closed?
Someone emailed me about people living under the subways--that in the twenties they had all kinds of furniture and lighting set up underground. At the time you're talking about, did they live more openly in the subway?
The snack bars were in the stations, usually away from traffic, and I guess they were there until the early 1980s or so. They were closed one by one before that, and the last one I remember was a hot dog stand on the uptown IRT local platform at 59th St, where the newsstand is now. The gum machines were on the platforms, usually nestled in the girders along the platform edge or in the middle of the platform (on the IND) or bolted to the girders (on the IRT and BMT). I recall them from the 1950s, but then I was left New York and don't remember seeing them again in the 1970s. Both were removed to keep the stations and trains clean (ha, ha!). Back then people wouldn't get on the train in rush hours with a cop of coffee or in the afternoon with a full Chinese meal, as they do today. Back then people with no place to sleep just used to ride around all day and night on the trains, at least until the cops started chasing them away in the 1970s (they changed over to just keeping them upright and awake after the courts prevented the cops from removing them). I think people didn't start camping out in the subways with furniture, lights, etc., until the mental hospitals started releasing them en masse. My dates are really a bit fuzzy, but wasn't that under Gov. Rockefeller? There could have been people doing this in the 1920s, but I never heard that. Does anyone have more definitive information?
Most stations had open toilets until 20 years or so ago; you can still see the entrances with "men" or "women" writen over them (on the IRT) or written next to them in mosaics (on the IND). They were closed because of robberies, public sex and dirt. I don't know which of those three was the most important in the TA's "public cleanliness" campaign.
[Most stations had open toilets until 20 years or so ago; you can still see the entrances with "men" or "women" writen over them (on the IRT) or written next to them in mosaics (on the IND). They were closed because of robberies, public sex and dirt.]
Speaking about the second reason for the closings, the MTA's rules governing Penn Station (and probably Grand Central) prohibit occupancy of a toilet stall by more than one person :-)
Exceptions are made for persons assisting children or disabled persons.
Are there ways of escaping the shelter and staying on the trains all night? What's so horrible about the shelter? Seems a building would be more comfortable than a seat on a train--and safer.
The reason you are sleeping on the trains is because you are either severely mentally ill or, more likely, screwed up on alcohol and drugs. If you go to the shelter, you will be put on a cot next to someone else who is screwed up on alcohol or drugs. Some of those people are violent, and many are looking to steal to get their next fix. In the 1980s, I read stories of shelter residents smearing themselves with feces in the hopes that the stench would ward off attackers. So those who are less screwed up avoid the shelters.
The shelters are better than they were, since non-profits took over from the huge city sheltes, but they now they are full of people hassling the homeless about getting off alcohol or drugs. The get in the way of the next fix. So those who are more screwed up also avoid the shelters.
Happy Dog Days, everyone. As I am still on the west coast, I am starved for news on the Newark City Subway. Can anyone tell me if a date's been set for transition from the old PCC cars to whatever they're going to replace them with? I plan to travel back and take a last ride.
I'm curious, too, as to where the PCCs will be going. I've read opposing statements: that they're about to fall apart, and that they've been lovingly maintained. They seemed pretty sturdy 5 years ago, on my most recent ride. I will be grateful like a dog for any update.
John F. Crowley
Astoria, OR
The current schedule calls for new LRV's (concurrent with the Hoboken LRV project) to be delivered in 1999.(Probably 2000, or so in reality). Get East and ride them while you can. The PCC's are very well maintained and are prime candidates for museums and the Municipal Railway of San Francisco.
Newark's PCCs were built in 1948 for Minneapolis and were purchased in 1953, I believe, so they're turning 50 this year. They have been lovingly maintained, and since they run on private ROW, along the bed of the old Morris Canal for part of their route, they have stood up much better than they would have if they had to compete with street traffic. I read that their axles are starting to go and that they've been "patched and pasted with Bondo", but they're still very quiet and can "sneak up on you". This is is a classic example of what a little TLC can do.
Think of it this way: Newark's PCCs are to Newark as the Redbirds are to NYC.
Yup, they can sneak up on you. I was driving home with a friend along I-280 and I pulled off and into Branch Brook Park. Said, "you gotta see this" and we walked right up along the fence along the tracks.... a few second later.... vooom... a PCC flys by. He'd never seen anything like it. Didn't even know they were there. The reaction was pretty cool :-)
Perhaps if they pass that gas tax, NJT will consider converting some of the bus routes back to trolleys. If you already have the subway and the car barn, why not? Anything that makes Newark seem like a real city can only help.
This comes courtesy of the "Interchange", the newsletter of The Baltimore chapter of the NRHS.
NJ TRANSIT LIGHT RAIL CARS
Kinki Sharyo Co. Ltd, of Osaka, Japan has begun construction of 43 articulated light rail cars for NJ Transit. Each will be 90 feet in length, seat 68 and include for entrance/exit doors. Plans are to assign 16 if the LRV's to the Newark City Subway and the balance to the Hudson-Bergen LRT line.
NJ Transit has approved the expenditure of $603,000 to purchase Conrail's Orange Industrial Track (the remnant of the former Erie R.R. West Orange Branch). The acquisition will allow NJ Transit to extend the Newark City Subway from its current terminus at the Franklin Avenue Loop to a new maintenance and storage yard located between Watessing Avenue and Grove Street in Bloomfield. The construction of this maintenance facility is expected to begin this summer, with the scheduled completion by March 2000. A pasenger station will also be located at this site. (BULLETIN ORDER)
There's the latest news/timetable. Looks like 2000 will be the end of the PCC's. Ride 'em now, tomorrow may be too late.
From what I have heard the NJT PCC cars have fared much better than their brothers and sisters. They have been well loved and cared for but never remanufactured. The other twin cities cars that ran in Toronto and Shaker Heights that still exist are in need of major repairs and may have structural problems. The environment that the NJT cars have been in may have preserved them but future use will likely require some restoration work.
May they live a long and prosperous third life.
True, but the ex TCRT PCC's never ran in Toronto. Public Service bought 30 and Shaker Rapid bought 30. The rest were scrapped and the body and electrical components went to Europe.
"True, but the ex TCRT PCC's never ran in Toronto. Public Service bought 30 and Shaker Rapid bought 30. The rest were scrapped and the body and electrical components went to Europe.
Unless the rest were scrapped after Mexico City was done with them I do not find a record of the TCRT being parted out for overseas but 77 of the yellow Kansas City cars had parts that lived on cars built for Brussels in 195 to 1958, the only B-2 equipped cars built by ACEC-La Burgeoise.
ACEC-La Burgeoise used parts from 17 Johnstown PA cars with B-3 trucks were used uncluding a two body three trucked articulated car but the motors were removed from the center truck.
You are right, and it was my over-stuffed streetcar memory that fouled up. I do suspect that none of the TCRT cars that went to Mexico City survived the 1975+ purge - I believe that the ill-fated articulated car that was built out of PCC parts used ex-Detroit cars as its donor.
Of all the TCRT cars, the Newark cars survived the best. RTA beat up the Shaker PCC's, rebuilt several of the ex-TCRT cars in the 1980 era, and phased them all out when the Breda's proved themselves. The Mexico City cars, well, you know what happened to them there.
The TCRT car that Minnesota Transportation Museum (MTM) is restoring is one of the cars that RTA never got around to "rebuilding" and was so beaten to death that MTM had to totally rebuild the body (using donated space and shop facilities of the local transit authority) and all the electrical and inside components.
The TTC was the "used PCC" buyer of North America, however, a Twin Cities PCC never operated in Toronto. TTC did pick up 51 cars in 1952 from CSR (Cincinnati) which were both air and all electric St. Louis built cars, 48 Pullman built all-electric’s from BER (Birmingham Electric) in 1953, 75 St. Louis (25) and Pullman (50) CTS (Cleveland) cars in 1954, and 30 cars from KCPS (Kansas City) in 1957 (St. Louis all electric's minus the standee windows, of course). I don’t think I left any out. Of the 75 cars from Cleveland, 25 were on their 2nd trade in less than ten years. They originally came from Louisville, but never operated in public service there After operating in Cleveland for less then ten years, and then went on to their third owner, the TTC .
As a side note, the 75 ex-Cleveland cars were equipped for MU operation by the TTC. They, along with the 4400 series purchased new by the TTC, provided two-car "train" service. The fleet was utilized first on the BLOOR-DANFORTH, and after the demise of that line (subway replacement), the QUEEN. How many of you have witnessed a two car PCC train in operation on city streets? The QUEEN operated mostly on city streets with only a short portion on the western end from Roncenvilles (not sure of the spelling) Division to HUMBER on private right-of-way.
Cars from the Twin Cities, which ended service in 1953 (I'm recalling from memory), went to Newark, NJ and Shaker Heights, OH. I think it was thirty to each property. The remaining eighty car's went to Mexico City, if I'm remembering correctly. Mexico City also purchased most (182 of 184 cars) of the All Electric fleet from DSR (Detroit).
I'm going to check my copy of "PCC Car's of North America" by Harold Cox, to confirm entry. If I have facts that are not correct, or complete, I welcome input from the audience.
Boston had two- and three-car PCC train operations on the street until they were phased out in the late 70's when the Boeing LRVs showed up. Single car PCCs still run on the Mattapan-Ashmont Shuttle of the Red Line (though the cars are "owned and operated" by the Green Line division; it appears as the Red Line only on public maps since it connects with the Red Line subway at Ashmont).
I remember riding a three car PCC "train" on the Huntington Avenue Line to Forest Hills in 1972. There were still quite a few PCC’s operating in Boston at that time. The other trip I remember was riding on the EL to Sullivan Square. That was before the line was relocated and the El was torn down. Unfortunately, I didn’t get back to Boston until the mid 1980’s. By that time, most of the PCC’s were gone.
You are right that all of the Twin Cities cars went to Newark, Shaker and Mexico City. Newark sold two of them to Shaker in 1977, one of which has found it's way back to the Minnesota Transportation Museum and is being restored. I checked Ray Corley's equipment chart that is in the appendix for "PCC The Cars that Fough Back", from Interurban Press. Does anyone know if the car is running yet?
Last thing is saw in the MTM newsletter/magazine is that the car is to be moved from the Overhaul Base to the MTM Como-Harriet car house this (1998) year for completion. If I read or hear more I will post.
Hopefully, when that happens, I hope our fantastic WebMaster will add it (and a link to MTM) to the PCC Cars on the Web page.
One interesting thing about the CTS Pullman PCC's is that they were apparently built with full PCC MU capability, lacking only couplers and drum switches. They spent their life in Cleveland with the front and rear skirts cut for coupler placement. Supposedly they and the 25 Pullmans in Boston were a diverted/cancelled order from Baltimore. I know that Baltimore Transit was storing couplers from MU semis as they were retired 1946-47. There is some evidence that BTC ordered 75 MU All-Electric PCC's from Pullman in 1945. When BTC fell under NCL control in 1946 the order was supposedly cancelled. Pullman, having already started the order was able to sell 50 to CTS and 25 to Boston.
If they had been delivered to Baltimore they would have replaced the fabled "Red Rockets" (1918 MU Brill Semi-convertibles) on the 26 line to Sparrows Point.
I hear that the new trolleys will probably be something like what
Boston has on its Green line. The PCCs, sixty-two years young,
were in amazing shape on my last visit, August of 1997. The driver that I spoke with said they would probably last another twenty years if kept in the same shape. They even make their own spare parts for them, I was told. I plan another trip out there later this month or in September to do a full photo shoot. By the way, they came
originally from Minneapolis. None that I saw were even remotely
a candidate for the scrap heap - and none should ever meet that fate,
IMHO.
Wayne
(I remember PCCs in D.C. circa 1959 and 1960)
on the brooklyn bound n/r.....the last stop in manhattan Whitehall S.
appx. 100' into the hole on the right hand side there are 2 tunnel that vere off to the right (cynder blocked off..I mean really sealed) there are no tracks going there but yet it is well lit...geographically they are a headin' to Staten Island. Can anybody confirm to where they go............
That is the long lost sealed tunnel to Staten Island that got cut off when they built the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel...
NOT...
Sounds good though...
THERE IS NO TUNNEL TO STATEN ISLAND IN MANHATTAN PERIOD!!
The tunnel does exist! It runs under New York bay and comes up in my basement. It is used by the SIR to deliver pizza. By the way, it's "tunnel", not "tunnell" and "cinder", not "cynder".
Judging by your response 1 of 2 things must be correct....
1.If your basement is where the tunnel comes into then you must
actually live in the "HOLE" and if you live there you are probably like
a "Phantom of the Opera" type of creature. A freak of nature.
2. A complete moron. Who has nothing positive to add to this site or
anything else in life.
It's called humor! Get some, or in your case, steal some.
Oh, I see your response was even funnier, as a matter of fact your responce was sooooooooooooooooooo funny, you even make Howie Mandel's
HBO's special worth waching.
I can answer that with ease. The New York City Transit Authority wanted to have Direct Link between Manhattan. The SIRT cars wwere BMT size carsso there would be no problems but there was the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, Bowling Green and South Ferry made it a problem how can a underwater tunnel be deep enough to be South Ferry aand Bowling Green and have the capeability to go up enough over the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. So they had another idea to build another two tracks going west after the 86 Street station to go to Staten Island but they abondon it I wish I knew what happened?
86 st in Brooklyn? and if so, what is behind those cinder blocked walls and how far do they go?
Trains service would have been good connecting the boroughs Bronx and Queens or Brooklyn and Staten Island. I don't really know about Manhattan and Staten Island, because it might take too long.
Don't know where these tunnel portals lead. I can clarify remarks made in other posts that referenced a Brooklyn/Staten Island tunnel. In the early 1920's the BMT planned a tunnel under the Narrows from approx 59th St./Brooklyn to Staten Island to connect with the SI Railway. Some initial construciton was actulally done. The Staten Island tunnel would have connected with the 4th Avenue subway just south of the 59th St/4th Ave. station.
For that reason, the SI Railway's parent, the Baltimore and Ohio RR, electrified the SI Ry with a third rail and purchased 67 foot MU cars with the same exterior dimensions as BMT standards. Mayor Hylan and Governor Smith killed the tunnel proposal in the mid-20's, allegedly because Hylan hated the BMT and Smith owned much Pennsy RR stock, the B & O's biggest rival.
The SIRT cars did have the same dimensions as the BMT standards; however, they had end vestibules and harsh, angular lines, whereas the standards did not have vestibules and had rounder lines. Later, it was discovered that the two classes of cars would not operate together in mixed consists, even though it was initially believed they could.
Not to add more fuel to this SI tunnel business, but if you drive up Clawson Street in New Dorp at about Bancroft Avenue there is a huge hump in the road. The 'hump' is an abandoned tunnel of some sort that supposedly starts at South Railroad Avenue, at the prsent SIR. Old timers' in the neighborhood tell me that this is the remnant of a never-used rail tunnel that was built under Hylan Blvd, then through what is now Miller Field to Midland Beach's southernmost point (near the baseball field). If you stand at the ballfield and look to the northeast, you can clearly see Coney Island.
The 'hump' near Bryant Avenue is an enclosed stream that runs from Moravian cemetery. I don't know if it's even in use anymore.
The new map is ready with the changes and boy does it look weird the Subway map is all screwed up big time. Well tomorrow I am getting the scanner and I will send it out this map is ready tell me when to say it.
The new map is ready with the changes and boy does it look weird the Subway map is all screwed up big time. Well tomorrow I am getting the scanner and I will send it out this map is ready tell me when to send it.
Make sure you send it in the GIF, HTML, PCX, BMP, formats. Couldn't read the other email files (PDF). Thanks.
I began to feel bad about being a free rider, and spending my time looking through the track maps on this site without contributing, so I ordered a copy of Peter's Track Map book as a birthday present. I'm glad I did. Peter's not posting EVERYTHING up here for free -- there is more detail in the book. I'm glad I've got it, and I recommend it.
My birthdays on Wednesday the 29th, so how about gettin me a copy too!
Hey guys I also received a copy of Petes track map book. Like Larry said it is a great book, something I always wanted. I can't wait for his book that will also have the yard maps included. Anybody who is into the tracks of the massive New York system treat yourself to this book
Happy birthday!
My birthday's next month -- hint hint.
I know there have been several documentaries about the nyc subway, and that there are several on videotape. Can someone recommend one that has the best shots of old stations? Thanks.
Barry Plotkin
bplotkin@yahoo.com
The video put out by A&E with Jack Perkins hosting from the Transit Museum has a view of the original 1904 Grand Central IRT station, along with a brief clip of that film of an IRT local heading northbound with 33rd St. visible. Those local stations were really short back then! There are also a few clips of the Manhattan els, as well as a BRT el train leaving Park Row and heading out over the Brooklyn Bridge. It even has footage from Day One, shot by Edison's studio, if not by Edison himself.
The video in question is SUBWAY, The Empire beneath New York's Streets
Produced by Transit Gloria Mundi Productions in association with A&E NETWORKS. Producer and Director CARL SCHULTZ.
Transit Gloria Mundi Productions is a Baltimore based producer of transit/streetcar video productions.
The video is available from either A&E Home Video or Transit Gloria Mundi Productions.
I have a question for the New York guys. I understand that the color markers on NYC subway cars indicate which yard the cars camer from. Is this true? Also does anybody have a list that tells whick color codes come from which yards? On the same subject does anybody have a list that tells which yard each line comes from? Thanks for any help
Good question RON
I think the Color-for-Yard is an IRT practice only.
I tried for this info about 4 months ago. My impression was that it stood for certain repairs or retrofits. If you notice many of those occuring on the IND/BMT parentage lines carry small geometric shapes upon them.
ANYWAY
I'm sure you know Purple=Corona.
I'll try to locate the others that were passed on to me. I bet some of the IRT boys will beat me to it.
The IRT (A division) marks it's cars this way. The BMT/IND sdoes not. I do not have the list handy but will post it Monday if it's not posted by then. The BMT/IND use colored geopmetric shapes to indicate that certain modifications have been made to a particular fleet of cars. In addition, R-68s currently carry a Green square under the cab window, at floor level, to indicate the #1 end, transverse cab end, of a car.
As for which yards feed which lines. they are
Pitkin Yard ........ A & C lines
Jamaica yard ....... E, F. G & R lines
East NY Yard ....... J/Z, L & M Lines
Concourse Yard ..... D Line
Coney Island Yard .. B, N, FS & Q lines
207th St. Yard ..... A & C lines
Corona Yard ........ #7 Line
Pelham Yard ........ #6 Line & GC Shuttle
E. 180th St. yard .. #5 line (currently out of 239th St yard due to construction)
Jerome yard ........ #4 Line
Livonia yard ....... #3 Line
239th St. yard ..... #2 Line
240th St. Yard ..... #1/9 Lines
Steve &co,
East 180th isn't entirely closed. There's at least 3 tracks (visible from the station) of storage on the shop side, and the Unionport Yard on the other side had 7 or 8 tracks of trains in it this afternoon. Not a whole lot, to be sure, but some... Out of curiosity, do they still use the NYW&B station area for storage? I see the signals are still "hot" in that area.
(Also, do they store trains in the Atlantic Avenue area on the "L"? The signals are live in that area too (the three "center" tracks south of Atl. Ave. toward Sutter.)
Also, you didn't mention..
Rockaway Park Yard... A line
Canarsie/Rockaway Parkway Yard... L line
Fresh Pond Yard... M (J/Z too?)
Lenox Yard... #3
36th St. (Brooklyn) ... work equipment
and I guess we shouldn't leave out Linden Shops either (accessible by diesel work equipment only, not subway cars)
Dave
Is 36th Street used now only for work equipment? No B or M or R storage? That used to be a great place to look from street level at all sorts of South Brooklyn, el, and subway equipment.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Of course I was only thinking of yards with maintenance facilities. However, if you want to be techical, you left out 174th Street Yard (C train) and 137th Street yard (1/9 train). Then if you really want to be more technical, there's City Yard (F trains), Stillwell yard (D, B and Q trains) City hall yard (N trains).
Say Steve,
I'd appreciate the color yard markings of the IRT also. I'm having trouble locating appropriate posts of 3/4 months ago in the archives.
Click on "Visit the Subtalk Archives", and once there click on "Change Display Mode" to view the period that you are interested in.
-Dave
Thanks David.
I've been trying for the period Apr 1998 to Jun 1998 with "All messages" but I keep Drawing a complete Blank.
The only response I've gotten is a Compressed for the Period July 10 to July 20 or so.
Any ideas? Do you think that it could have anything to do with the Road Runner cable installation of the first of July My "NEXT".
option on SubTalk has also been useless since I returned from Alaska.
Actually I think it has to do with the fact that there are over 8,000 messages to process and the server is not fast enough to do it before your browser gives up waiting. Unfortunately there's not much I can do about that. I've already upgraded the machine once. Doing it again would be expensive and disruptive and I don't have the time to think about doing it right now...
No real problem David.
I'm sure someone will come through. This time I'll make sure I print them out instead of relying on my faulty memory
The marker colors are:
#1 Line - Red
#2 Line - Black
#3 Line - Blue
#4 Line - Orange
#5 Line - Green
#6 Line - Yellow
I bought my copy at Tower Video @ E. 4th and Lafayette St. in Manhattan.
Hi all,
Two new "Line-By-Line" descriptions went up today:
BMT Canarsie Line by Wayne Whitehorne
The Brooklyn IRT by Peggy Darlington, reworked by me, photos by Wayne Whitehorne
Enjoy!
-Dave
This question concerns the A/C on the old RTS buses.They don't seem to be working all too well. Even in the summer, they seem to blow lukewarm air, not cold air like oon the Orions. Can the driver adjust the tempurture like on the Orions?
My second question is, how high is the Broadway Junction station on the L line? It seems to be the second highest station in the system.
The temperature can't be controlled by the Operator on either NYCT's RTSs or Orion Vs; the climate control is fully automatic. There's only an "on-off" switch, which, by the rules, is to be left "on" at all times. It's even got a red cover to discourage people from fooling with it.
Wow, I always had a suspicion that the thermostat for heating and AC on NYC transit vehicles was not under direct human control!
Like anything else something that gets old doesn't work as good as it should. I found out a little trick that sometimes work is to turn off the climate control for about 5 or 10 minutes and then turn it on. Sometimes this works because the sensor can tell how hot it is in the bus and then it kicks on the a/c on full blast. Sometimes running the engine fast and idling also helps. At Manhattanville depot where I work many of our 3000's are getting climate control system overhauls with new radiators and sometimes whole new units.
Try sitting in the seat immediately behind the back door. It gets pretty windy back there. It may not be as cool as you'd like, but it's the best you'll get without waiting for the next bus.
Hello to all,
I need some assistance - about two years back I saw a movie
where a cowboy comes to NYC and rescues a lady in distress -
there was a great stunt scene where he "roped the 'B'" on
the Manhattan Bridge and rode the back of Slant40 #4310 clear
out (so THEY said) to 62nd Street.
I am drawing a blank - does anyone remember the NAME of this movie
so's I can go out and rent/buy it?
Thanx to all in adv.
Wayne
The Name of the Movie you are looking for is "The Cowboy Way"
It stars Woody Harrelson, and Kiefer Sutherland
Except for lower Manhattan, the choice of walking to the nearest subway stop is possible. One hundred and twenty fifth street is a prime location; 1/9 at Broadway, A, B, C, & D at St. Nicholas (Best choice), 2/3 at Lenox Avenue (poorest choice), and 4, 5, & 6 at Lexington Avenue.
The A is the fastest of these lines, passing as many as 7 stops. Doesn't stop in the tunnel or switch track like the D express. The #4 comes in second place; best choice if traveling from the Bronx and want to go into lower Manhattan. #5 isn't close behind, however, the shortfall is after the 149th Street station going in the southbound direction.
The #1 tops off as the fastest local train in the system, although you got to ride the A local at nights. The #6 comes close, except this line occasionally experience delays. The C is slightly better than the B. And as for 2 and 3, the 2 is one of poorest lines in the system for two main reasons. Its's sluggish like the D train (but, doesn't slow down in the tunnel as much). Furthermore, it doesn't come often and uses one of the slowest routes into Midtown Manhattan from the Bronx. Sometimes, I wonder why they call it a 2 express instead of a super local. The #3 suffers a similar senario. It uses the same route, except not from the Bronx. It could come more often, however, many times I see two/three 3's per one 2. That makes not since to me, for the fact the #2 goes to the Bronx.
Note: The Q was the fastest train in the system (speed and moving from station to station) before they switch the 68A's. On the other hand, its brother, the N, is the slowest.
[Note: The Q was the fastest train in the system (speed and moving from station to station) before they switch the 68A's. On the other hand, its brother, the N, is the slowest.]
Evidently you don't ride the Q on a regular basis, as I do. The R-40s accelerate and decelerate faster, and hold their speed better on up-grades, than the R-68/R-68As. If the Q you're on seems slower, it's likely because it's stuck behind a D train.
It appears that the N uses those slanted 40's better than the Q. In the middle 80's the A used those same slanted 40's, and it used them better as well. The slanted 40's are especially good down hills; between 59th Street Lex Avenue and Queensboro Plaza.
To relate a story at Kings Highway, a Q Slant 40 pulls up on Northbound express as well as a D R68 on the local track. The D's operator said to the Q operator "Boy, you have a real train there". I have to agree whole heartedly!!
[To relate a story at Kings Highway, a Q Slant 40 pulls up on Northbound express as well as a D R68 on the local track. The D's operator said to the Q operator "Boy, you have a real train there". I have to agree whole heartedly!!]
How true! (BTW, I think I know the D train operator!)
In reference to Chris's assertion that the R-40s ran better on the A and run better on the N than they do on the Q, two things:
1. The R-40s ran on the A a long time ago. Since that time, all subway cars, the R-40s included, have been "no-field-shunted," which limits their acceleration rate as well as their top speed.
2. The N and Q draw from the same pool of R-40s, which means that car design/condition can't be the reason they run faster on the N than on the Q (assuming you're correct). In this case, there are two factors at play:
A. The routes' operating profiles; and
B. The way the cars are operated.
A. At least southbound (on the Brighton Line), the Q operates uphill almost all the way. The N is relatively flat, at least in Brooklyn.
B. I have observed that Q operators are very conservative when it comes to operation in time signal zones, i.e., from Seventh Avenue to Prospect Park, and (on the local track) from Avenue M to Kings Highway. They slam on the brakes and keep slowing down until they see green signals. People, if you see green signals in a time signal zone, you're moving too slowly!!!!! (This per a recently retired signal engineer I know.)
David
Are you saying the slanted 40's are better than the 68's.
I am not a train operator, just relating a story of what I overheard from two Train Operators. I belive from what I read here that the older cars handle better (faster) then the newer modeles.
For a layman, they "feel" to me that they operate differently in just the way they excellerate and brake. Could be the human behind the controls too, but between Newkirk and Kings Highway, once creasting the hill, the R40 MOVES!!, in a 68 (awhile back when their wasn't local service) it felt slower or even longer to reach that "moving" feeling. IMHO.
Your feeling is right. NYCT's "Train Operator's Handbook" says that
R-68's are the heaviest cars in the system (no weight given) and have
a slower rate of acceleration.Brake response is different for the same
reason.
IMHO,the best rides over the Newkirk-King's Highway stretch were
had on a fast set of R-1/9's,with the original (non rebuilt) R-32's
a very close second.
Those original R-32s could move, all right. They held their own on that express dash under Central Park West when they first appeared on the D line in 1967. I remember seeing a D train or two of R-32s go zooming by at 81st St., and it was just as fast as, or maybe even faster than, an A train of R-10s, but perhaps a tad quieter. In the late 70s, when some of the slant R-40s were transferred to the A line, they seemed to move even faster than the R-32s on that nonstop stretch. Another "race track" run is along 4th Ave. between Pacific and 36th Sts. The slant R-40s on the B and, going back to 1971, the R-42s on the N would fly.
In the epilogue section of the original edition of Under the Sidewalks of New York; i. e., the ride on the Sea Beach, Brian Cudahy quoted the motorman of their train of R-32s as saying, "You're lucky, we got a good fast train today."
It appears that the N uses those slanted 40's better than the Q. In the middle 80's the A used those same slanted 40's, and it used them better as well. The slanted 40's are especially good down hills; between 59th Street Lex Avenue and Queensboro Plaza.
Your right, the D has always been pretty sluggish, even when it used the box 40 back in the 80's.
Obviously, I haven't ridden the 1 in 20+ years, but it used to be the 1 had to crawl out of the tunnel in both directions (5 MPH??) when approaching the 125th Street station. Is this still the case, or can it manage faster speeds?
No it isn't, the #1 tracks has been great improved. Ride it and you will see.
No Mr. Perez, it isn't. The #1 tracks has been great improved. Ride it and you will see.
Are you thinking of the same 2 I am? Its express run is among the fastest in the system. (Especially from the front of the train.)
The #2 is very slow. First, it doesn't come often, and when it arrives, it can be pretty sluggish. And secondly, the route that it uses from the Bronx and lower Manhattan. The #4, then 5, is one of the fastest trains in the system. Both uses a straight route. Even the #3 is faster than the #2 which uses the same route.
Ticket Agents,
EYE've been C'ing a big drop off in MetroCards w/graphics on the back. Has the TA stopped selling them ? Eye have about two dozen unique MC but haven't seen a new one in some time now.
P.S. Repeat of my offer to swap my NYC MC for yours (MC or dip/spipe cards from other cities, e.g. Chicago, Conn, Atlanta). My collection incl. the discontinued "Travel Card" and magnetic Transfers.
Disclaimer: I don't work for the TA or any of it's divisions.
Mr t__:^)
I am sure there will be more. The MTA is probably waiting for someone to sponsor the graphics.
There is an NYU card coming out in August at 42nd (except 6th ave), and 86th and lex.
Would you like an empty CTA Transit Card?
Can anyone explain why existing subway lines can't be extended into Yonkers and Nassau Counties? I assume it's all politics. Has the idea ever been tossed around?
If a PATH deal can be worked out with New Jersey, then why not with the New York burbs???
And I don't mean Metronorth or LIRR. I mean an integrated one fare access to NYC.
What are the politics of such a crazy suggestion.
NYC for or against???
Yonkers against or for???
Issues like how to split up the money; property values, urban exidous, maintainance, competition with existing commuter rail lines and buses.
What's the inside dope on all of this???
Chris,
U guessed it ... political & funding, but Eye think you knew that.
LI Bus, TA-surface(bus) & the "privates" ALL stop at the city line.
P.S. Maybe it's a bathroom thing ? The subways don't have any. Eye know you can't take a Nassau school bus to NYC cause it don't have a place to piss.
Eye also don't think it's such a easy thing to just say extend the subway lines, e.g. how far can you practically extend a "local" line ? The type of service provided would have to be changed, e.g. LIRR breaks a "line" up into pieces, the first piecs runs local for a few stops then express to Manhattan, the second piece does the next few stops as local, etc. Going reverse or between stns on the line is a problem for customers (the traffic isn't there either). How would the subway handle that ? Yes, they do it to some extent but their version begs for the riders jumping from "local" to "express". Then there is the whole COST thing & eye don't mean swiping someone in on your way out.
The thing that might move this somewhere (since their all MTA) is if the LIRR wants to "give up" some lines, e.g. Hempstead, Far Rockaway, Port Washington, or Longbeach. Lets look at Far Rockaway for a minute .... think of the benifit to customers in the Rocks & the relief to traffic on the A & C lines. Now if you charge $3.00 a trip, add a couple of stops in Queens and only ask Nassau county to kick in $ for the portion actually in Nassau .... well maybe it might fly. Probally not though, I mean Virgil & George & Rudy can't get public support & money to do a few REALY IMPORTANT extentions within NYC. Plus Al & Tom aren't the best of friends with these guys. So we're left with the CHEEP solution, provide more bus service.
Well this ought to start something going, was that your intent ?
Disclaimer: I haven't written any books & don't work for the TA.
Mr t__:^)
You're right, it is too bad.
But what about a new independent line similar to the PATH. I envision a high speed Rapid Transit line that runs from Newark Airport, and makes stops in Downtown Newark, Hoboken, Giants Stadium, 110th Street and 8th Avenue, 110th Street and Lexington, Astoria, La Guardia Airport, Flushing, and a couple of stops somewhere in Nassau County. They could charge a few bucks and only run it a peak hours or when there's a something going on at the sports complex.
Chris, A whole new ROW in NYC .... what a dreamer !
If we could find someone with Robert Moses kind of mngt style, but
who loves transit.
With all the "studies" already done it would seem that the politians ought to be able to come up with somekind of "authorization" to improve transit here abouts.
We put this guy/gale on a leash (the plan is very specifically defined so he doesn't have to deal with "impact/neighborhood" issues), give him/her "eminent domain" powers, (because this project is for the public good, save the enviormnet, etc and the BILLIONS spent on the studies all say we realy ought to do this) and set a time frame (we don't want to give the lawyers too much time to figure out a way to prevent this).
Have you stopped laughing yet ?
Seriously, what magic have other cities used ? I've read in the trade publications that it hasn't been easy anywhere in the US. Basically any project that will take more than a few years to complete (once it finally gets started) is a political minefield, i.e. a new ROW ... ain't ever going to happen in this town !
Mr t__:^)
A couple notes on the above --
LI buses don't stop at the City Line. There are a number of heavily used lines -- the N4 and N6 to Jamaica -- in particular. What Thurston may be referring to is that the LI buses are not allowed to receive passengers within Queens when travelling westbound, and cannot discharge passengers in Queens when travelling eastbound. I have always understood that to be a non-compete agreement with the TA. (Note that a similar agreement exists along the N33 route for travel within Long Beach -- you have to take the Long Beach city bus).
The LIRR's Far Rock branch does make three stops in Queens -- Rosedale, Laurelton and Locust Manor (ghost town). The Hempstead branch stops at Hollis and Queens Village (basically right along the route that the F would probably travel), while the Port Wash branch makes a number of stops through northeastern Queens beyond where the 7 serves.
As far as alternate service from Far Rock providing relief to the passengers on the A and C, probably not. I took the A from Far Rock for a year and, other than at rush hour, the trains are pretty empty beyond Howard Beach. Even at rush hour, by the time the train reaches Mott Ave., there's only about 25-30 people left. At many of the stops within the Rockaways only 5-10 people get off a rush hour train.
That's not true about the A train. This train gets extremely crowded at Far Rockaway, especially during rush hours. I live there for three years, I should know.
Chris B, And i'll bet parking is hell there too, i.e. Woodmere/Cedarhurst/Inwood/Hewlett (Nassau) customers saving on the cost of transit.
The same goes for Lefferts Blvd (at the end of the "A").
Yes, yes, the nitpickers are going to say that the same goes for 242nd St in the Bronx, etc., etc. BUT lets concentrate on a narrow issue for this thread ?
Mr t_:^)
But that's where we might be able to open the door a crack, i.e. the Far Rockaway LIRR line ... it too runs shorter trains then most of the rest of the system. They run some rush hour trains to Penn, mainly because they can't get the customers to go to Brooklyn.
So they (LIRR) might want to abandon/turn over the line. Then once the TA gets subways into Nassau we put that door wide open.
Mr t__:^)
Under the MTA, half of the toll surplus goes to the TA and half goes to the commuter railroads. Same with the MTA tax revenues. And the allocation is very unfair to the city -- based on a desperate deal cut by Lindsey in the 1960s. Run the subway to Nassau or Westchester, and some of the tax revenues/toll surplus now spent in the city will be diverted to the new service in the suburbs. Increase commuter rail service in the city, and some of the revenues not flowing to the suburbs will be spent in the city.
Sorry if I think about money all the time, but someone has to.
It would cost billions to extend the subway lines northward and eastward. I also don't think you would get many suburbanites to use the subway. The MNRR and LIRR are more expensive, but are more comfortable and adhere to a rigid and generally reliable schedule.
There is really no practical reason to consider extensions. The MTA should just be in the business of maintaining decent operations on the services it has now, not spending billions that it doesn't have for a service that no one is asking for. And besides, the subway system does unfortunately become a conduit for criminals, the crime rate being higher in areas with direct-rail subway service.
The crime/subway correlation is a thing of the past. Criminals now have cars. The city's crime rate is now below the national average. If you, like many ex-New Yorkers, moved to the Sunbelt, the crime rate is probably higher where you are than where I am, one block from the F train. That's certainly the case in Tulsa OK, where my parents now live.
I live in New Canaan (raised in Belmont area of Bronx), having moved here in 1975. The sunbelt is the new crime capital. Criminals do have cars, that is true. But the hit-and-run type street criminal still uses the subway. Most of our criminals come from nearby run-down towns in Connecticut, generally property-type crimes.
I must put my two cents in here. While I do agree that there are
high-crime areas of ANY city, ten years ago I would have never
dreamed of doing what I did on June 28, 1998 - I stood on the
elevated platforms of the "L" line at Sutter Avenue, Atlantic Avenue
and New Lots Avenue and took photographs.
I've ridden all around Brooklyn - "L" line; "J" line, "M" line - NOTHING has ever happened to me. Why? Crime is WAY DOWN. Especially during daylight hours. And police are on patrol, in the streets
and on the trains and stations.
The ONE thing that DID happen (Oct.31 1997) and it was
a non-incident - happened at Lex. and 59th express station at High Noon - some young miscreant decided to eye my Targus bag (he may have thought I had a lap-top in it; there was nothing of any value to him there) but I gently dissuaded him from approaching any closer than
say, six feet.
Wayne
Dear Ex-New Yorker now from Conn,
I was born & brought up as a WASP in rual CT, but your comments come off as racist & not-in-my neighborhood .... now that you've had a chance to count to TEN do you have a different view ?
I now live in suburan LI & work in the city, so you might say that my comments/suggestions won't impact me directly therefore so what.
(I did live in the city for a while until a couple of kids motovitated me to buy a house).
Anyhow ... the issue is how should the metro area be changed to improve how folks get from here to there, particularly on the fringes of Queens/Brooklyn/Bronx & Staten Isl too. The LIRR doesn't want the business ... they do a good job of bringing folks in from outling Nassau & Sufolk in a time frame that has motovated Manhattan workers to buy houses way out on LI, i.e. the trains are full and they don't want to be bothered stopping near Queens border.
Extending the subway to THE LINE and beyond make all the since in the world, it's sure better then a 3 bus trip (don't tell my boss I said that).
Will it cost billions, probally ... will the locals say, don't dig that thing under my street, probally ... will it bring crime to those neighborhoods, NO (the bad guys can & do drive/walk/ride to Whitestone/Bayside/etc.) ... is there any other answer that will get people out of the cars, I don't think so.
Mr t__:^)
I can't speak for extending northward into Westchester, but as far as extending eastward goes, the problem lies within the city itself, rather than in Nassau.
The 7, F, and E/J would have a long way to go eastward to get to the Nassau line -- and I don't think that the residents of Eastern Queens have been clamoring for anything other than LIRR service.
The A train could conceivably be extended northward (it was after all, connected to the LIRR Far Rockaway branch) into the 5 towns. But, NIMBYism aside, it's already quite a hump from the Rock to Manhattan (55 minutes to Broadway/Nassau in the AM rush, 1:10 or more to midtown). I doubt that the A would draw in any additional passengers to Manhattan who aren't already taking it.
You really don't know about the A to/from Far Rockaway. I lived on the Lefferts Blvd for about two years. When ever they were doing track work on this line, we were directed to shuttle buses into the Manhattan bound Far Rockaway line. It was crowded as hell, which none of us was able to get a seat!
If I was in midtown, and wanted to go anywhere on the 6th Ave line between 33rd and 14th, would it make more sense to take the PATH trains instead of the 6th Ave Local since PATH fare is only $1? This assumes of course I don't use the MTA system regularly enough to have a discounted Metro Card or mind the wait since I think PATH trains are more spread out than the 6th Ave trains.
That is entirely up to you.
I travel from Penn Station to 5th Avenue/14th Street each day. While I usually walk, during bad weather I find PATH the best route. It's about the same length of time as the N/R or the F, and only slightly longer than the 2/3 (any way I go, there are two blocks' walking required). PATH's big advantage is that there are plenty of seats - I'm going in the reverse peak direction - and much cleaner trains. Not to mention the lower fare.
Also the PATH train goes to 9th St. (which is right near the Waverly Pl. exit of W. 4th St. station) and to Christopher St. just west of 7th Avenue South. During rush hour a PATH train runs every 2 minutes. The rest of the day, it runs every 5 minutes, alternating one to Hoboken and one to Journal Square. So the PATH trains are good from 33 to 9 Streets. You can even go to Wall St. by taking a Journal Sq. train from the 33 St. branch and changing at Pavonia Avenue to a World Trade Center train (which comes from Hoboken).
"During rush hour a PATH train runs every 2 minutes."
This may be true for the WTC/Newark Trains, however my experience was a little different with 6th Ave. I live near the 9th St Station (PATH) and the W 4th St. Station (A,C,E).
I work in Rahway, NJ.
To save money I tried taking PATH to Newark, changing there to NJT for the rest of my trip.
PATH trains typically ran every 4 minutes. I boarded at times between 6:45 and 8:00am. Always 3-4 minutes between trains and, since the trains alternate, only every other train would go to your destination. So the frequency is more like every 7-8 minutes for a Jornal Square train. PATH from 6th Ave to Journal Square is so slow that it would typically take me over 45 minutes to get to Newark to connect with NJT. The 1.5 hour commute quickly became unbearable. Now I pay about $100 more a month, take the subway to Penn station, and board NJT there. My commute is now a more tolerable 55-65 minutes.
Yes, the fare is slightly lower. If you're going to make the reverse trip within two hours, though, you should take the subway down and use your free MetroCard transfer to the bus (M5/M6/M7) for the return trip, thereby saving 50 cents and getting to see a bit of the city.
I envision the following connections:
New Brunswick Direct Service to North Jersey Coast Line along the Raritan River and Fords to Perth Amboy, with the line perhaps connecting to the Staten Island Railroad and then extending further to Coney Island via underground tunnels, then to JFK, and well hey.. Nassau County some place. Of course the capital needed to do this would be so large, and the ridership so few that it just wouldn't ever be considered.
But a boy can dream can't he?
It makes more sense to dream in New Jersey than in New York if you like transportation. New Jersey has made substantial improvements to its roads and its transit lines in recent years. NYC has made neither, although the 63rd St connection will be a boost. I hope they build that Bergen Arches and extend a new road direct from the Tonnele Traffic Circle to Route 17. New York City's roads being what they are, I ususally drive through New Jersey to get from New York (City) to (the rest of) New York (State).
Believe it or not:
Back in 1967, there was an article in The Morning Call, a newspaper based in, I think, Paterson, which stated that subway service would be extended from NYC to northern New Jersey. It went on to say that it would take 8 years to build; I don't remember anything about cost.
Needless to say, nothing ever came of it.
Reasearching family name MOORE. I have a great-grandfather (PATRICK MOORE) who was a "motorman" for the IRT around 1920-30s. I'm looking for anything written around that time which I may use in my research. I know he hit a pedestrian with his train and after cleaning it up, suffered a nervous breakdown, unable to drive again, he was put in the swich yard. I would love anyone's documented stories from that time period.
Hi.
After a few weeks of experimenting with the Weekly metrocard, I've found that I'll probably continue to buy the weekly or monthly passes. I also intend to keep a pay-per-ride card in my wallet for times when I'm travelling with others, or for times when I don't want to begin using a new weekly or monthly card.
Problem is, all of the metrocards look the same. So, unless I've marked my cards or noted the expiration dates on the back I can't be sure that I'm pulling the right card from my wallet for the right situation.
Does anyone know why the MTA didn't make the weekly and monthly cards in colors other than Gold?
It would make too much sense
One of the reasons offered to whay the TA uses the same MC stock for all types of MC is that the cards in the booths are unencoded as to type (like blank diskettes). When you pay the Station Agent the card is encoded right then as to amount and type.
I suppose without this, the agent could mis-code a card (make an orange 7-day into a pay per ride) and confuse everyone.
The alternative is to issue all pre-encoded cards to booths. Problem there is the possibility of running out of cards if the booth is stocked with color coded pre-encoded.
Better to use the same stock and let the user mark them to tell them apart.
Joe-good response. Let me add that another reason is that MTA NYCT has a test program to sell them from ATMs. This is why there can be only one color.
At present we must count:
Tokens, cash, $6 cards, $15 cards, $17cards, $63 cards, Handicapped tickets, Senior Citizen tickets, Block tickets and in some booths: General order transfers and blank metrocards(these depend on the station manager wishing it to be done.)
We can not close the window to count.
I had always assumed that if each were a different color it would be very obvious to those around you how much your card might be worth. If you walk away from a ticket window with your hot pink monthly in hand - it's a great opportunity for someone to steal a card worth $63.
Since timed cards can't be renewed - it would be nice if the machine that imprints value on the card could also print "7-day" or "30-day" on the back of the card. That would only be clear to the owner who could take the time to read the small print - and it wouldn't be clearly visible to others.
It would also be nice if the unlimited cards had printed on them when the expire, but as I understand the way they work, the clock doesn't begin to tick until the first use in a turnstile, and therefore the "expires on:" info could be wrong if the card isn't immediately used.
I do think that the MTA could color code metrocards without too much difficulty. I understand the concern about token-clerks counting them, which takes time, but even so. How much does it cost to make a blank or pre-paid metrocard? $.01? $.001? How much space does 1000 metrocards fill? I've never worked in a token booth, but I don't see why each both couldn't have, say, 5,000 of each kind of card, organized into some sort of slot-dispensing system so the operator can pull out the type needed and the next person on duty simply inserts a new 5000 pack when his shift begins. You can count the number of cards remaining by looking along the edge of the slot and reading the number there. Obviously, there are details that I don't know about, esp. concerning theft control and employee safety. Still, consider what has to happen to keep ATM's stocked and running (and, I'll add, the dispense more than one kind of bill). This sort of thing can be done, I'm sure.
--mhg
Your idea while valid would be hard on us. many booths are small one eprson booths. Already in those booths we stumble over stuff on the floor and stuff overhead. Some booths have two computers meaning we'd need two of everything. Your idea has merit but would be hard to implement due to crowded conditions inside most booths.
**opinions expressed are my own and not those of MTA or NYCT***
Thank you for including my paper on the 205th St Station in the Concourse line feature. I am sure that my late friend Roger Arcara would be a regular contributer to your efforts.
I forgot to mention that the 200th St/Bedford park station is at the top the stem of the "T".
I also have some pictures from a 1961 fan trip on the IRT where we went down the ramp from the Jerome Ave Line to the Concourse Yards and also into the Jerome Ave Yards.
There is another reason, beside the "operations" in the Token Booth one.
By DESIGN .... i.e. the TA wants the public to think "seamless" ... you want to ride, buy a MetroCard & it will get you anywhere in NYC, now to Nassau (by bus or on the back of a Mail-N-Ride).
TIP: Buy a VALUE card with graphics on the back, e.g. "Dial-A-Mattress" could be your sleeper card to use in case you go for a ride with some friends or family. You may be able to find one at a subway station (however, near the "readers" they now have bins that collect liquadated cards so you'll have to look for loose ones). In another thread here someone said a new, graphics, card is comming out next month, ask for it. Also the agent may have some that he/she hasn't thrown away yet. Also "ATM" version IS different to the touch & feel.
Well I hope that gives you a few ideas.
Mr t__:^)
I need to get some pictures of these stations for a project...does anyone know exactly where the old emergency exits for these stations are located...someone suggested to me that this is a way that vagrants and graffitizers accessed these stations, and it seemed a logical way for me to get in to take some pictures, as I am under a deadline expiring before the next Transit Museum abandoned stations tour.
Any information you can give me would be most appreciated.
Please don't ask for instructions on how to trespass or otherwise break the law on this web site.
I'm deleting the followups to this thread. If you want to discuss illegal activities take it to Email. I don't want this site to be known as promoting irresponsible behavior around the transit system, or in general.
If you are undertaking a legitimate educational project I am sure that you could be accommodated on an accompanied tour if you contact the right people. Start with the Transit Museum Education Department at 718-243-8601.
-Dave Pirmann
Web Site Host
WELL EXCUSE ME...I AM ON SSI DISABILITY, AND CANNOT AFFORD THE $25 A SHOT THE TRANSIT MUSEUM CHARGES FOR THESE TOURS
I WANT THE PICTURES, IF YOU MUST KNOW, FOR THE NEWSLETTER OF THE APARTMENT PROGRAM I AM A CLIENT OF!
WHEN YOU HAVE TO EXIST ON $250 A MONTH AFTER RENT, YOU CANT AFFORD TO SPEND 10% OF THAT FOR A TRANSIT MUSEUM TOUR
I AM A RESPONSIBLE ADULT, I WAS NOT ASKING FOR INFORMATION ON HOW TO KILL PEOPLE...ONLY A WAY TO TAKE SOME PICTURES.
Barry,
Relax. It doesn't really matter to me what you want them for or how much your disposable income is. It doesn't change the fact that you're using my web site to find out how to break the law.
I suggested calling the museum because depending on the nature of your project, you might have been able to arrange a personal guided tour.
-Dave
The last time I visited the museum I took some pictures. What's wrong with that? Plus, no one stopped me!
The museum doesnt have pictures of 18th st east side, or 91st st west side...i want pictures beyond the limited availability on the website
The original poster asked about taking pictures at the two abandoned stations noted in the subject line, not at the Transit Museum itself.
The point is, trying to get into either one of those abandoned stations on one's own is (a) illegal and (b) mighty dangerous.
True.
Let's start over...
To get pictures of the abandoned 18th St. station on the Lexington Local (#6) or of the abandoned 91 St. station of the Broadway-7th Avenue local (#1), there is a simple -- not perfect -- way: use a video camera out the front window. The low light capabilities of video cameras make the pictures extremely clear. I have surprisingly clear video pictures of the abandoned Franklin Sq. station in Philadelphia, something I had not expected to see so clearly. These could then be used to make still photos. You could rent a video camera for a day if necessary.
To get still pictures from the front window, buy Kodak MAX film which works well in low light without being ASA 1000 (which might be nearly useless everywhere else). Then you could get still photos out the front window of the train. Kodak MAX film is a bit grainy but so is ASA 1000 film.
Don't forget the abandoned Worth St. and Myrtle Avenue stations and the 19th St. PATH station.
If you choose to do it this way, but can't or don't want to get a video camera and go on the subway yourself,
there's always the video.
--Mark
Barry,
Other than David being correct about his web site, it is really dangerous to go to these stations without authorizations, by the way those stations are dark and have live trains going through them. What would ya do if you ran into those homeless people that would probably rob/seriously hurt you there would no way for you to summons help. If you are on SSI, then I assume that you have some handicap and would not be as agile going into a possibly rough situations. If you want to go there, find a retired or active cop friend who could protect you.
David had a point, i guess...still, it is frustrating for me. I have a great interest in history, and the story and presence of these pieces of long-gone, but still here history, but as I said there's no way i can afford the Museum's tours on my budget. My frustration led me to suggest something that would have been dangerous and foolhardy
(going in without authorization). I would like to apologize to Dave for using his site for this purpose. I enjoy this site, and the give and take of Subtalk, too much to do anything to endanger the site's reputation. Again, my apologies.
While on a quick one-day trip to NY today, I had the opportunity to ride the Port Washington branch of the LIRR from Great Neck to Main St. Flushing during PM rush hour. Through early September, trains are wrong-railing (running on the opposite track compared to normal) during PM rush hours. This is due to platform maintenance at Bayside, which reduces the available platform to four cars in length on the eastbound side. So in order to accomodate the busier eastbound trains on the normal-sized westbound platform, PM rush hour eastbound trains run on the westbound rail, and vice versa. Shades of Europe!
What do they do for signals, since the're running on the wrong side? Is the track signaled in each direction to handle the contingency of running wrong-rail?
Yes, the Port Washington Branch is reverse-signalled. That means that trains can run in either direction on either track. I believe that most of the LIRR is reverse-signalled (Andy S. - is that correct?). In fact, that was a major purpose of the reconstruction of the Harold Interlocking a number of years back.
Don't know much about the LIRR, but I was on a late night New Jersey Coast Line Train that did this as well, and that line seems to be reverse-signaled (at least below South Amboy). This seems to happen relatively often, especially late at night when they are performing track work, or a Conrail local freight is making stops.
Wrong Railing or "Running the Opposite"
The LIRR has this down to a science. Anyone who is familiar with their operations is aware that any train can run on any track in either direction. I don’t have my handy "Employee Timetable" with me at the moment, however, most of the LIRR rail lines are equipped for bi-directional travel. In the old days, the rule book referred to this as Rules 261-264. Today, I think the normal reference is to CTC (Centralized Train Control) vs. ABS (Automatic Block Signals), or dedicated direction of travel signalling. CTC means that the main track or tracks are equipped with signals for bi-directional running.
If you want to experience this first hand, just station (no pun intended) yourself at Mineola, along the Mainline. You will see this process in action every morning and evening rush hour. The last time I was there was in the late 1980’s. Then, during the evening rush hour, the express trains used the customary eastbound track (south), and the local’s used the customary westbound track (north). However, these assignments vary over time. I know things have changed around there recently with the grade crossing elimination project.
The express trains SCREEEEEEEAMED through the station at about 75 MPH, with horn blasting and passengers standing back from the edge of the platform. The excitement of railroading is always evident at Mineola. Unfortunately, not all the pedestrians and motorists obeyed the crossing protection located just east of this station. There have been many untimely death’s due to irresponsible behavior.
Reverse direction running is also practiced on the line to Babylon, the electrified portion of the Port Jefferson Branch, and parts of the Ronkonkoma Branch. Of course, the lines west of Jamaica are also signaled for reverse running into Flatbush Av. and Penn Station..
Maybe someone from LI can fill in some extra details.
Andy Sparberg emailed me with the sections of the LIRR so equipped. He says...
"LIRR reverse signalling exists on:
Port Wash Branch Woodside to Great Neck
Babylon Branch Valley Stream to Babylon
Main Line Queens Village through Hicksville to Farmingdale; and between Deer Park and Brentwood
Port Jeff Branch Hicksville to Huntington.
Far Rock Branch Valley Stream to Inwood
Long Beach Branch Valley Stream to Lead Bridge
This means that trains can proceed on any main track by signal indication alone. There are many situations where trains are specifically shown in the timetable to operate "wrong rail" on a specific section of track (for example, Ronkonkoma Train #2025 operates on #2 track between Farmingdale and Nassau (Mineola)."
Here in Chicago, the Union Pacific (nee Chicago and North Western Railway) commuter lines run on the left side. (WHY?!?!) Needless to say, this results in more motorists and pedestrians getting hit by a train because they look the wrong way, think there is no train coming, and then go around the gates. It also means people who are newcomer commuters waiting on the wrong platform and running across when they realize the train is on the "wrong" track. This is especially dangerous because it is almost impossible to tell which track a train is on until it is too late (the lights and gong are already going at those stations which have them covering the pedestrian crossing, or at the nearest road crossing).
The real fun is on the UP-Northwest line, which is very busy and has a third track in the center for rush-hour peak-direction expresses, (with only the center track signaled for bidirectional operation). Local trains in the rush-hour direction stop on the left platform, but some of the expresses stop on the left platform (they are skipping only one or two stations and are still on the left track) while others run on the center track and stop on the right platform. So, even though center-stopping trains are marked with a tiny "c" on the timetables, commuters often cross tracks at the last minute because they mistook one train stopping on one platform for another train stopping on the other platform. Personally, not a day goes by when I ride the UP rather than the subway that someone at my station while I am watching doesn't miss getting hit by an express by only a few feet or even inches. My heart sinks every time, and doesn't rise again until I see the person safe and sound again.
The reason for the UP nee CNW operating left handed is that British engineers originally designed the Chicago and North Western RR. The left handed running rules persists today.
John, of the various stories I have seen regarding the UP (ex-C&NW), one that sticks out is from its earliest days when its predecessor's first line was a single track running out straight west from downtown (the forerunner of the UP-W). Freight (station) houses were built on the north side of the tracks. When the decision was finally made to add tracks, they could only be added on the south side of the right-of-way. Rather than have inbound morning passengers cross tracks from the station house to the inbound train, they left the station houses where they were and created the left-hand running which now seems so anomalous.
When I detrain at Wilmette in the evenings, it is SCARY to see how many people cross in front of the train as it starts to pull north. The engineer LEANS on his horn but people just scamper across, not willing to wait another 30 seconds. How about if they would get their foot caught or otherwise stumble???
The reason for left-hand running on the UP, nee Chicago Northwestern, was that the financing to build the Chicago Northwestern, and its predecessors, came from financial interests in Great Britain. And that's how they run their trains there.
The Chicago Northwestern Railway has always operated their trains on the "wrong" side of the tracks.
I have to agree, Port Jeff Express runs in the Morning Rush, wrong rail all the way from Huntington to just before Jay. At speed with something like 20+ grade crossings all on old Disel cars shaking and rattleing the whole way.
I wonder how many potential jobs Long Island has lost to areas such as White Plains, Greenwich, Stamford and Metropark because reliable reverse-peak service isn't available from NYC.
None of the LIRR's lines have more than 2 tracks east of Jamaica, so the wrong-railing rush hour trains choke off any reverse-peak service. Metro North and NJT's Northeast Corridor have dedicated express tracks, and provide reverse-peak service at 20-30 minute intervals.
The last time I took a look, there were gaps of an hour or more in the eastbound AM rush schedule to Hicksville and Huntington.
I never thought of that, but you're right -- expresses do wrong rail. But most NYC reverse commuters can't afford the LIRR. They drive or take the bus.
Aren't there four tracks on the mainline as far as Mineola?
The four track section of the Main Line ends at Floral Park, where the Hempstead Branch veers off from the Main Line. The interlocking though is just west of Bellrose. It's a fun ride though this plant as I believe the high-speed turnouts allow a MAS of 60 mph.
I think the MAS is 50, not 60. It is more fun to go through there on the diesels (but hold your nose), as they bouince and creak more than the M-1s do.
Hey Todd - on a less related note - the OB line is almost all high level platforms now!
But we don't know when the trains are comming - they are still working on the platforms :(
Also - I saw the MP-54 up in CT at the museum up in Windsor Locks - from what I understand - they HAVE in fact run it, but not recently.
Maybe I'll get to see the one up in ME next summer if I get the Harley I want and get bags for it....
Here in Chi., as some of you savants may know, the UP Commuter lines are all left-hand running. With work on the grade crossings on the North line in Evanston and Wilmette, weekend trains have had to wrong rail (right rail??) while one side or the other is worked on.
It is correct that the four tracks continue East to Floral Park (MP), however, the Main Line and the Hempstead Branch, part company at QUEENS interlocking located just east of the Belmont Race Track Lead. As stated, this interlocking is equipped with high-speed turnouts for sorting out the trains in either direction. The MAS according to my most recent employee timetable is 80 MPH except between Bridge #3 and Bridge #4 (Signal bridges, that is), where the MAS is 60 MPH. The LIRR trains are pushing that 60 MPH to the limit as they pass through this interlocking plant. There is NO interlocking plant at Floral Park.
After passing QUEENS, the Mainline occupies the two northerly tracks, and the Hempstead Branch trains occupy the two southerly tracks. Interestingly, the Hempstead Branch has a station for Bellerose, but the Mainline trains have no station platform here and do not serve this station. There are platforms on the Mainline for Floral Park, however, very few trains stop there.
It is correct that the four tracks continue East to Floral Park (MP), however, the Main Line and the Hempstead Branch, part company at QUEENS interlocking located just east of the Belmont Race Track Lead. As stated, this interlocking is equipped with high-speed turnouts for sorting out the trains in either direction. The MAS according to my most recent employee timetable is 80 MPH except between Bridge #3 and Bridge #4 (Signal bridges, that is), where the MAS is 60 MPH. The LIRR trains are pushing that 60 MPH to the limit as they pass through this interlocking plant. There is NO interlocking plant at Floral Park.
After passing QUEENS, the Mainline occupies the two northerly tracks, and the Hempstead Branch trains occupy the two southerly tracks. Interestingly, the Hempstead Branch has a station for Bellerose, but the Mainline trains DO NOT serve this station. There are platforms on the Mainline for Floral Park, however, very few trains stop there.
Actually you'd be surprised by how many reverse commuters there are on Metro North going to White Plains, Greenwich and Stamford. Also on NJT out to Metropark. Since these areas are mainly office buildings (mostly banks and insurance), the white-collar reverse commuters can and do take mass transit. All of these office parks sprang up in the last 20 or so years and were centered around the railroad stations.
I have clients in Greenwich and Stamford. I generally take trains between 7 and 8 AM, getting on at 125 Street. There are very few seats available. I was surprised the first time I went.
Long Island really doesn't have any comparable development.
[Actually you'd be surprised by how many reverse commuters there are on Metro North going to White Plains, Greenwich and Stamford. Also on NJT out to Metropark ... All of these office parks sprang up in the last 20 or so years and were centered around the railroad
stations .... Long Island really doesn't have any comparable development.]
You are right about how Long Island does not have major employment centers near LIRR stations. Just to name a couple of examples, the Route 110 office corridor and the Happague industrial park are several miles from the nearest stations. Exactly why Long Island has developed in this way puzzles me. Possibly it has to do with the fact that it developed later than Westchester or Connecticut, and lacked older urban centers such as White Plains or Stamford.
Of course, that doesn't explain the lack of a Metropark in Nassau or Suffolk.
I think that the existence of only double track explains it. I also have a client just off Route 110. I can take the 7:39AM train to Huntington and a 15 minute cab ride if I want to have a meeting with them at about 9:15 or 9:30. Because both main line tracks are operating westbound during the AM rush, the next earlier train to Huntington is at 5:48AM!!
The only true reverse commutable spots on LI, given westbound rush track use, would seem to be along the south shore lines from Valley Stream to Freeport and possibly Mineola. But, of these stations, only Freeport has the easy highway access that you also need for a suburban office park. Interestingly, until recently there was a lot of available land along Sunrise Hwy in Freeport between the LIRR station and the Meadowbrook Pkwy. This land ended up being used for a lot of retail development.
The Long Island Regional Planning Commission claims (I can't see it) that Nassau County employment is highly concentrated, and could be served by rail routes. Isn't there some abandoned trackage in the heavily commercial area near Garden City and the Nassau Colesium?
Some people seem to think of that area as a potential satellite city (ie. Downtown Brooklyn, Flushing, Newark, Stamford) in the making, if transit can be provided. Downtown Nassau seems like an oxymoron to me. Maybe the ground can't support high buildings at affordable prices. The only tall building I know of is the Nassau County Medical Center, and you know the government -- so what if the foundation cost a cazillion to build.
[The Long Island Regional Planning Commission claims (I can't see it) that Nassau County employment is highly concentrated, and could be served by rail routes. Isn't there some abandoned trackage in the heavily commercial area near Garden City and the Nassau Colesium?
Some people seem to think of that area as a potential satellite city (ie. Downtown Brooklyn, Flushing, Newark, Stamford) in the making, if transit can be provided. Downtown Nassau seems like an oxymoron to me. Maybe the ground can't support high buildings at affordable
prices.]
The "Nassau Hub" area (to use the trendy expression) is actually quite spread out. It encompasses the Roosevelt Field and Source shopping malls, the retail area along Old Country Road, Nassau Coliseum, the office developments in the Mitchell Field and EAB Plaza areas, and other bits and pieces. It's geographically quite a bit larger than the other areas you mentioned, large enough that I really don't see how it could be considered a satellite city. You can walk from one end of downtown Stamford or White Plains to the other in ten or 15 minutes. That's definitely not possible with the Nassau Hub.
Some politicians and urban planners have suggested building light rail in the Nassau Hub. Some of it might use existing trackage, but most would have to be new right of way. As far as I know these ideas have never gone beyond the talking stage - and we all know that when it comes to new transit, talk is cheap indeed!
Larry & Peter,
1. RxR thru Garden City to Nassau Colesium: As Peter said, yes the ROW & tracks are still there. I believe it gets used for the Circus & once in a while I've seen some cars in the small yard near LI Bus garage.
2. Nassau Hub - There was a big article w/drawings in a recent issue of Newsday ... Very Lite Rail, i.e. those little cars that can only hold a dozen of so folks. I can't see it ever comming to pass. My thought at the time was Nassau got a hold of some $$$, did a study with it, produced a report & publ in the paper so the voters would think they got their moneys worth.
3. High rise or not - the limit of the size of the buld. relates to zoning vs. geology. In my town (typical in Nassau) the buld. can't go over 4 fl. They get picky about garages underneath as well a elevator/A-C houses on the roof in their calculation. They also won't let you buy up a bunch of houses & build a off build. or rest home or mall etc. This is GREAT for me because my 1909 house is just a 10 min walk to the LIRR station. P.S. I also live in a "village" within a "town" within the "county", this also has its advantages, i.e. LI Bus was persuaded to add a special "loop" bus within the "village". I don't use it, but many of the seniors do as well as kids & housewives (the loop brings you down-town to the movie & shopping, i.e. it's good for the business area of the village).
Mr t__:^)
>>Exactly why Long Island has developed in this way puzzles me. <<
That is why you should read "Rails to Sunrise" how the LIRR was built. LIRR was suppose to be the new fast way to Boston, train to the end of Long Island and a ferry.
I belive the book said (read this long time ago) that when the farmers on Long Island complained and protested that the embers from the trains were burning their crop. The builders of the LIRR got back at the farmers by making the stations no where near the center of the Towns.
I have to find this book and read it once more, it was intresting.
[>>Exactly why Long Island has developed in this way puzzles me. <<
That is why you should read "Rails to Sunrise" how the LIRR was built. LIRR was suppose to be the new fast way to Boston, train to the end of Long Island and a ferry.
I belive the book said (read this long time ago) that when the farmers on Long Island
complained and protested that the embers from the trains were burning their crop. The builders of the LIRR got back at the farmers by making the stations no where near the center of the Towns.]
Most LIRR stations seem relatively close to the centers of the towns. In fact, that helps account for the lack of parking at many of the stations, they're built in already-developed areas where parking lot construction is difficult or impossible.
What really accounts for the lack of easy reverse commuting is that Long Island's main employment centers tend to be located away from the town centers and hence away from train station. That probably is a result of Long Island's auto-era development as well as the LIRR's inability to handle many reverse trains given track constraints.
I believe the full title of the book is Steel Rails to the Sunrise.
[Long Island really doesn't have any comparable development.]
I suppose its pretty small, but I did see some folks who looked like they were going to work/ meetings getting off at Hicksville. They could have been transferring (Hunt. to Ronk. lines) but there are a bunch of offices there.
If I remember though, a lot of these folks were coming from the east- not reverse commuting.
[ [Long Island really doesn't have any comparable development.]
I suppose its pretty small, but I did see some folks who looked like they were going to work/ meetings getting off at Hicksville. They could have been transferring (Hunt. to Ronk. lines) but there are a bunch of offices there.
If I remember though, a lot of these folks were coming from the east- not reverse commuting. ]
Hicksville does seem to get both local traffic and reverse commuters. In addition to the offices near the station, I have heard that some of these people transfer to buses that run to nearby office parks.
On Saturday, August 1, 1998, the New York Division, Electric Railroaders' Association, Inc. will sponsor a trip over Metro-North's Hudson and Harlem Lines using 1960s-vintage 1100-series cars. The trip leaves Grand Central Terminal at 10 AM (track to be announced day of trip) and costs $45 per person.
For a further description of the trip and a form you can fill out and either send in or bring with you the day of the trip, go to:
http://members.aol.com/rob110178/era/events/acmu1aug.html
Hope to see you there!
Dave you seem to be the guru of transit. In reguards to the tunnel to Staten Island, what more could you tell me/us about these existing tunnels that vere off to the right on the brooklyn bound n/r out of Whitehall st sta?
All I know on the matter is what's been posted here. If you read back in the archives you will find Staten Island tunnels have been discussed over and over again. The simple fact is they don't exist. Turnouts and bellmouths most certainly exist but the projects were never completed and I doubt they go very far past what you can see...
Thanks....................
[ In reguards to the tunnel to Staten Island, what more could you tell me/us about these existing tunnels that vere off to the right on the brooklyn bound n/r out of Whitehall st sta?]
Those tunnel stubs (which don't go very far) were never intended to go to Staten Island. They were started as part of an abortive plan to re-route lines in lower Manhattan.
Peter,
So you are syaing that the 2 tunnels that are out of the Whitehall St Sta. that vere off to the right were never meant to go to S.I. ?
The original Dual Contracts plan provided for a tunnel under the Narrows from South Brooklyn to Staten Island. The tunnel was intended to leave the 4th Avenue subway (B, M, N, R) at 65th St, Brooklyn, and
would have entered Staten Island midway between St George and Stapleton, and would have had branches to each. (No provision was ever made for its construction.) The subway is 4 tracks from Pacific Street to 65th Street. Two of the four tracks at 65th St were supposed to go to Staten Island.
--Mark
Even before the subway system, people had talked about a tunnel from S.I. to Booklyn. in the late 1800's, such a project was started from the S.I. side, although it didn't get very far. A tunnel was opened somewhere near where the Verrazano Narrows bridge footings now are, and progressed, well, not very far. It was really well before its time and had no chance of success, even if the operation had been on the level (which I don't think it was).
-mhg
Yeah, I seem to remember that. Supposedly there's a covered shaft that leads to the "completed" portion of the tunnel, and it is in the park between the Belt Pkwy and Shore Road not too far from the Verrazano.
--Mark
Last night, while riding a redbird on the 7 from GCC to Times Square,
I noticed that the main lights would go out and the backup ones would
come on. Don't really see this on the R32's on up. Why does this
happen?
It reminded me of the old Broad Street cars I used to ride back in
the late 70's/early 80's (?). Are these on a roster anywhere?
Third rail gaps. When the car crosses a gap and there is no rail shoe touching the rail, the lights go out and the emergency ones come on. When the R36s were overhauled, they were not retrofitted with the modern wiring to keep the lights on across a third rail gap. (For some reason, the technical name escapes me at the moment).
What you may notice on the R32s on up is that the A/C stops and restarts crossing over gaps.
--Mark
Yowza. I'd thought about gaps; I'm amazed that some of them are so
long.
There are plenty of gaps, especially when a train crosses a switch, and the third rail contact shoe loses contact with the rail.
The word you're looking for is, "capacitor." It is a device that keeps the main lighting on as a subway car goes over a third rail gap. I believe it's set for 15 seconds (Steve/Trainmaster7?).
The 1904 commerative book "The New York Subway: It's Construction,
etc." contains a photograph of a trackside signal, consisting
of two lenses and two (apparently) semaphore discs. Years ago,
I vaguely remember seeing such a signal on the Times Square shuttle:
just beyond the east end of Grand Central, on the way to the
connection to the south-bound Lexington Avenue local track.
(Has this particular signal been removed ?)
Were these signals installed throughout the original IRT ?
Were the semaphore aspects actually used or subsequently covered
over ? When were they replaced with the "three lens per head"
units most people are familar with ? Were the "semaphores"
back-lit ? Was this "state-of-the-art" technology ?
Was this type signal used on any other subway system ?
What prompted the IRT management to remove these signals ?
(Can someone provide a scan of the aspects of these signals
from an early IRT rule book ?)
What was the procedure for "call-on's" with these signals ?
Meanwhile, out in Brooklyn....
The BRT's interlocking signal "call-on" aspect originally
was not a lighted lens, but a rectangular, backlighted display
which read: "PROCEED CAUTION". Why not a lens ?
Was this copied from another system ?
Thanks.
Both the IRT and BMT used semephore signals through WWII. There is one remaining at the south end of the B line platform at Stillwell Ave. As for a scan of the aspects, I've e-mailed you a scan of 26 pages of the 1940 NYCT rule book.
I received your e-mail; thank you for your efforts.
Nice, crisp scans. My Board of Transp. rulebook is dated 01/01/1944.
I apologize, though, because I failed to include the following
URL in my original post. The signal I'm describing is located
not too far away, as it turns out:
http://www.nycsubway.org/irtbook/ch9/ch9-1.jpg
Ugly looking beast, no ?
Thanks again.
I'm pretty sure that is just a color-position light signal, and
not a semaphore. Semaphores were used on the elevated division
of the I.R.T. where they could be more readily distinguished against
the sunlight than color-light signals. The semaphores also had
colored backlit disks for night operation.
I have a circa 1921 IRT rulebook that does NOT depict the signal
that you refer to, at least not with that peculiar shape.
However, I dimly recalled seeing a signal
like that on the system a few years ago, so today I went to check
it out and lo and behold, it was still there. It is signal #122C
at the west end of the westbound track at the 5 Ave station on
the Flushing line. It looks identical to picture, except
1) instead of two disks on the bottom section, there is a top
disk and then a square designation plate. 2) It is painted silver.
This is purely conjecture, but I speculate that the signal in
that IRT book is an interlocking signal, and each head may display
either a Red or Yellow aspect. As you know from your B.O.T. rules,
on the IRT signal system, R/Y means approach caution diverging
route, and Y/R means approach caution, main route. You will
also note that a yellow aspect indicates either that the next signal
is Red, or "No Advance Signal Indication". I suspect that this is
one of those signals that can't display greens.
I further suspect that what appears to be a horizontal bar aspect
on the 2nd and 4th disks from the top is probably a photographic artifact, and that the signal in question is displaying
R/R and those two disks are illuminated.
Now, I clearly recall that signal #122C used to have a top green,
then a red, then a yellow, which was the IRT standard order of
color lights. When I checked today, I noticed it was G Y R, so
maybe someone re-wired it? I can't think of anywhere else
on the system, at least on revenue trackage, that this old style
IRT signal head is in use. Someone once speculated that this
particular signal on the Flushing line was in fact relocated from
somewhere else, which would make sense since it is an oddball and
since the signals on that line should have been BRT/Dual-Contract
style.
As for Call-On, there was no such thing in the IRT system.
On signals thus equipped, you could always put your key in
the box and release the stop arm...from which the term "key-by"
derives. I don't know where the BRT/BMT got there "Proceed
Caution" idea from, but they were a fairly innovative road and
they might have made it up themselves.
I checked southbound Tk 1 at the GC shuttle for this old-style signal
that you thought was there, and it isn't. But, you'll be happy
to know that the hand-throw switches and target signals are still
there at the west end of the station, contrary to rumor that they
had been ripped out.
To all those that are interested in models of the New York City subway system.
Make sure you attend the 21st annual "Fall Trolley Extravaganza" which is being held at the Holiday Inn in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania(just of the PA turnpike).
There will be Subway Car models on display and for sale as well as in operation on a number of the layouts which will be at the show.
Other phases of Traction Modeling will also be covered by displays and modular layouts which will be in operation during the show. There will also be manufacturers and dealer displays at which all kinds of models and traction railroadiana will be available for sale.
For more information on the "Fall Trolley Extravaganza" contact us by e-mail or by snail mail at "Fall Trolley Extravaganza", P.O. box 331, Middletown, NY., 10940
Hi Joel:
I live right in the area of King of Prussia. Can you tell me what
the date is of the show? I love trolley & subway models!
The date of the show is Sept. 12 (Saturday), 1998
Today on the LIRR 3:56pm local from Flatbush Ave., Brooklyn to Jamacia, was strange, I bought a ticket, but for the whole trip, there
was no conductor collection tickets. What happen, was it a free ride?(I doupt that!). The trip was basically free. I returned the ticket and the clerk made me fill out a form.
What are those forms for, keep track of people returning tickets?
Was the conductor forgetful? It was his fault if he forgot.
This happened to anyone else?
It's possible that the conductor just wasn't able to get all the way through the train to collect fares. That happens sometimes on Penn Station-Jamaica runs during rush hour, simply because of crowding. Or the conductor might have been tied up with some sort of problem in another car, for example a rider who was refusing to pay.
Yup this happens to me every Thanksgiving. Port Jeff train, they never get to collecting my ticket. Last year I said did buy a ticket decidied to pay the extra fare for buying the ticket on the train. They never got to me.
New Jersey Transit won't refund at the window, they made me mail the ticket back in.
That's why there is a surcharge for buying tickets on board the train.
Due to a combination of crowding and short train staffs, the conductor can't get to everybody, especially if you get off at one of the early stops.
My regular conductor on the UP-North Line here in Chicago has on occasion chosen not to punch my 10-ride. He starts collecting from the back of the train and, if I sit in the last car, he mentions that due to short staffs, he can't get to everyone in the 3rd from last car before the first stop. (Davis St.-Evanston)
Supposedly, many LIRR commuters from Forest Hills and Kew Gardens choose not to buy monthly tickets because they know conductors are unlikely to be able to come by and check tickets on rush-hour trains. I can't vouch for the accuracy of this, but it sounds quite possible given the crowding on some trains.
I don't know it for a fact, but it sounds plausible given what I've observed about LIRR ticket collection.
Westbound, the conductors don't use seat checks after Jamaica. If you get on at KG, FH or Woodside, and the conductor has already collected tickets in that car (or that part of the car), they have no way of identifying you as a new passenger, given the crowding during the westbound rush.
Eastbound, there is a similar situation for travel east of Jamaica. On the Long Beach and Babylon lines, heading eastbound, conductors do a full sweep of the train exiting Penn Station or Flatbush and again after Jamaica. They rarely (if ever) use seat checks east of Jamaica. If someone boards at a station east of Jamaica, the only way the conductor collects the fare is if they notice the passenger boarding and can then find that passenger within whatever crowd is actually already on board. This is actually easier than it sounds, since there are few intra-Long Island travelers on the Long Beach line (except summer afternoons). On the Babylon line there are more.
I don't know if the same procedure is used on the Main line. I've seen some big crowds waiting for eastbound trains at Hicksville and Mineola.
[Westbound, the conductors don't use seat checks after Jamaica. If you get on at KG, FH or Woodside, and the conductor has already collected tickets in that car (or that part of the car), they have no way of identifying you as a new passenger, given the crowding during the westbound rush.]
Construction work at Forest Hills has reduced the platforms to two car lengths. I suspect that makes the conductors' jobs a bit easier, though on a really crowded rush hour train riders probably can still get away without paying. Kew Gardens has four-car platforms and Woodside six-car.
It should be noted, for the benefit of people from outside the NY area, that this sort of "fare evasion" is perfectly legal. Riders need not have tickets when they board, as they can be purchased from conductors (usually with a surcharge).
[Eastbound, there is a similar situation for travel east of Jamaica ... If someone boards at a station east of Jamaica, the only way the conductor collects the fare is if they notice the passenger boarding and can then find that passenger within whatever crowd is actually already on board ... I don't know if the same procedure is used on the Main line. I've seen some big crowds waiting for eastbound trains at Hicksville and Mineola.]
Quite a few people do get on eastbound p.m. rush hour trains at Hicksville and Mineola. What usually happens is that the conductor will walk through the cars and announce "HIcksville/Mineola tickets." From what I can tell, this self-policing system seems to work quite well.
Now that Metrocard is up and running, why don't they put in turnstiles at the stations and eliminate the conductors, manning the stations instead. The reason I was given was its too easy to walk along the tracks and jump up onto an at-grade station. But it sounds like its possible to beat the fare as it is. And those conductors sure are expensive. Instead of doing this, the MTA is de-manning the stations. I'd rather have people in the stations than on the train.
Some stations (ie. the Babylon Branch) would be easy to control. As for others, remember some many systems do not have conductors or access control, just an honor system backed by enforcement sweeps. Perhaps remote readers could check if a Metrocard had been swiped. Perhaps cameras could watch the platforms, and enforcement officers could swoop down on any miscreants and demand proof of payment. Otherwise, big fine and a few hours being processed at a jail. LIRR and Metro North riders tend to have enough money that they would wish to avoid that sort of hassle.
Of course, you couldn't have access control at Penn and GCT without big back-ups. But I propose that you enter the system free at those points, and pay at the other stations -- both on the way in and on the way out. For non-city zone trips, a city-zone fare could be deducted, then partially restored when a passenger exited at an intermediate point.
MTA spent the billions, so why not?
On the LIRR?? Metro Cards??
You would have to Fence in the WHOLE right of way that is going to cost gwadzillions. You need to modify the metrocard to swipe in and out (like the DC Metro) since LIRR you pay by zone traveled. I don't want to be chared CityZone to Hunington when I went from some station closer.
I think we'll land on Mars before your suggestion happens.
I don't know about LIRR, but there are several stations here on the Metra system that don't have ticket agents because of light traffic. These stations are kept open because the number of passengers boarding there doesn't justify an agent but does justify maintaining two paved platforms, a few light poles with the station signs on them, and maybe a passenger shelter or two. If a subway-style fare control system was implemented, necessitating a ticket agent or stationmaster to help people pay their fares and to let people in if the turnstiles fail, at least some of these stations would close.
Ridership at individual stations is one major difference between rapid transit and commuter rail. Rapid transit stations require heavy ridership (thousands or at least several hundred boardings a day) at most every station to justify their existence. A commuter line can have several small "bare-bones" stations with light boardings (even below 100 total boardings a day) as long as there are some large, heavy-ridership, stations on the line.
Larry, Re: Make LIRR more like the subway .... I wouldn't vote for it
Could you elaborate as to why U prefer staff at stn vs. on-board ?
One of the things that contributes to the crime on the subways & the need for POLICE on-board relates to the TA cut-back to only two staffing the tain (now they're even thinking of cutting it back to ONE).
We used to have a guy name "Red" on our train & he provided "personal" service. He knew you, would let you have a free ride if you forgot your ticket once in a while (it was a LIRR policy) & would scold U for putting you feet on the seats. He would also put U off the train if you couldn't pay (casual/dispuptive customer)(the train would make a special stop just to throw U off). You felt SAFE riding with Red in the AM.
Disclaimer: I don't work for the LIRR, but generally enjoyed my trips, and got a lot of reading done that doesn't seen to happen now.
Mr t__:^)
> He would also put U off the train if you couldn't pay
(casual/dispuptive customer)(the train would make a special stop just to throw U off).
Ah, if only the airlines could do this. I've heard that disruptive passengers have been causing big problems with the flight staff.
Imagine the airline's solution, something along the lines of: "We're dropping below 10,000 ft so we can open the doors and throw off Mr. X who has thoughly hassled our staff" and then hand him a parachute and shove him out the door!
Incidently, did the trains stop at stations or in the middle of nowhere?
Jersey Boy, Re: Did the train stop in the middle of no where ?
Oh yes, e.g. St Albans & Locust Manor were his favorites 'cause service to these stops is virtrually nonexistant.
Mr t__:^)
I prefer station staff because, statistically, that's where the most crime is. There are ususally other passengers on the train. In some stations at some times, you might be the only one there -- good place for a rape/robbery/murder. Having a TA worker wandering around the station (as opposed to locked in the token booth or conductors cab) would make me feel safer.
The MTA is taking your way. Its eliminating staffed stations on the commuter railroads, and on the subway at night. Of course, its doing OPTO as well.
[I prefer station staff because, statistically, that's where the most crime is. There are ususally other passengers on the train. In some stations at some times, you might be the only one there -- good place for a rape/robbery/murder. Having a TA worker wandering around the station (as opposed to locked in the token booth or conductors cab) would make me feel safer ... The MTA is taking your way. Its eliminating staffed stations on the commuter railroads, and on the subway at night.]
How are staffed subway stations being eliminated? As far as I know, the only unstaffed stations are those on the Dyre Avenue line in the Bronx, during the evenings and overnight hours, and that's been the case for a long time. This situation should not change once the token clerks have been made into station agents and will be able to leave the booths - as you note, that most likely will make stations safer.
I haven't heard anything about crime problems at unstaffed commuter rail stations.
Larry,
Don't get me wrong ... staffing stations is ALSO a good thing. In particular taking the TA agent out of his little booth should be good. To me it doesn't matter wether they're in the booth or out side, the point is their "mission", i.e. provide service & help to the customers.
One example: A elderly customer wants to go for a ride. They have a big PHYSICAL problem moving quick enough to board the train & don't want to stand near the yellow strip because their not steady on their feet. So the customer service agent asks them to sit near the center of the platform & when the train arrives they ask the conductor to be wait a moment while the customer boards. The conductor is told where the customer plans to exit the train & the same delay occurs at that station.
Example two: A school group wants to go to the circus at Madison Sq. The school hires (or the TA provides for free) a agent to board with them, lets say at 242nd St. He/she exits with them at 34th & shows them the way to the Garden, they returns to 242nd (alone). P.S. the LIRR does this if you ask.
Mr t__:^)
$4.50 from City to SFO on BART
A July 19, 1998, San Francisco Examiner article explains how a deal with airline industry adds a $1.65 surcharge to a BART ride from downtown to San Francisco Airport when the new extension opens in 2001. Total cost = $4.50!
[When I was in SFO last January, fare from the city to Coloma BART station was $2.25, plus $1.00 for shuttle bus from Coloma to SFO.]
"The fare stems from a deal a year ago with the airline industry to *allow* a BART station on airport property [at a *yearly* rent of $2.5 Million! ] and from the need to set aside enough money for unexpected costs of the billion-dollar-plus extension project, now over budget...."
Complete details at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1998/07/19/METRO4641.dtl
Two things -
First, it would be worth $4.50 to ride DIRECTLY from the Airport to the City. I hate starting with the bus and transferring to the train at Daly City and vice versa on the return.
Secondly, by the time the extension is finished, $4.50 will not seem like a great deal of $$$.
A valid point. The article compared fares with systems that, for the most part, have a flat fare structure. BART uses zone fares. SFO will be further from center city than Coloma station, but the fact also remains that US DOT insisting that BART pay for the construction overages, and airport rent charges are forcing a 1.65 surcharge.
Quoting from the Examiner article:
>>> The $4.50 BART fare includes $1.65 in surcharges for the extension project.
One surcharge - 15 cents - is to cover $2.5 million in annual rent that BART must pay the San Francisco Airports Commission for the right to operate a station on airport property
The rent payment was part of an arrangement to quiet airline-industry objections to the use of airport landing fees to subsidize BART's rail spur and station.
Under the deal, the yearly rent payments should cover annual debt service on airport bonds issued to pay for the $200 million cost of work at the airport.
"I think it stinks," said BART director Tom Radulovich, a San Francisco representative on the transit district's three-county elected governing body. "I voted against the lease because I thought it outrageous that transit riders would be asked to pay to rent to use a public facility such as SFO," Radulovich said. The fare surcharge, he argued, will discourage people from getting out of their cars.
It is the second surcharge that is pushing the downtown-to-SFO fare skyward. Healy said the U.S. Department of Transportation, which agreed to fund $750 million of the extension, has called for BART to maintain a contingency account for unforeseen expenses, particularly cost overruns.
BART is fulfilling the obligation at the fare box by charging riders the extra $1.50.
...
Previously, the group backed a combined BART-Caltrain hub on the west side of Highway 101, [SFO is on the east side of 101] with an extension of the automated light-rail system SFO is building to move passengers and workers around the airport grounds.
Under the current plan, BART patrons would be able to change at the SFO station to the airport's people-mover [inside the terminal]<<<<
End quote
But, by 2001, when the line opens, $4.50 (unless fares go up) will be a good BART price for a *one seat ride*, SFO to 5 Downtown SF stations.
Some interesting details on the project can be found at:
http://www.bart.org/westbay/about/index.htm
Hey, New York - San Francisco will be joining the Big League Cities with a *one seat ride* to downtown!!!
Time to get on the stick, Rudy!! San Fran is pulling ahead!!
All the more reason to extend the subways to JFK and LGA terminal areas as discussed on this board.
Frankly, $4.50 for a one-seat ride to the airport ($4.50 metrocard swipe to get on, $3.00 metrocard swipe to get off) is a far better deal than we are likely to get. Frankly, I'd take it.
Those I know who argue that a premium service is required, with a premium price to keep off you know who, think in terms of a $15 (taxi-competitive) fare. And they want a completely separate service end to end -- ie. if the Broadway Express is used, they don't want any other trains on it. They want a "high tech train" that "looks like a jet" and will attract CEOs. The Daily News, which applauded the high cost, super express that just opened from Heathrow, agrees. Of course, with LaGuardia so close to Midtown, a simple N train extension would get people there in half an hour, but no one wants to hear that.
A higher fare, faster LIRR route from JFK may be justified.
Rudy and George don't have to worry. They will be onto better things before enough people get outraged about what we don't have. And state legislators serve until death or indictment in the Vampire State.
Larry, its just that mindless, space age bs, that got us(SF Bay Area) the dumb BART car design with the wedge front cars with cabs so that when trains are cut or increased they visit a yard. As to the fares and the riff-rfaff perception, The real point is RAPID transit to the airport whether as a traveler or a worker. Thus the O'Hare, Cleveland, DC National example is so neat. They work very well,and they are each a part of a unified and coordinated system. It is pure stupidity(or massively arrogant AND corrupt) for the PA to build ANYTHING not compatible with one of the existing systems.
At least you in SF are building something. I hope that either the 63rd St connection gets people so excited, or the airport connections all over the country get people so embarassed, that the NY pols feel they have to do something. As I said, $4.50 to the airport is not bad for someone traveling alone. Lots of people come into LaGuardia with just a briefcase or a small bag. They'd use it in droves.
"...or the airport connections all over the country get people so embarassed, that the NY pols feel they have to do something...".
I think NY will do something when the Newark Airport RR Station is opened in a few years, Although the passengers will have to use a shuttle bus or people mover, if it is ever built, to get to the NE corridor station I think it will cause airline passengers to choose Newark when they come to NY. Easy rail access from Newark airport to Manhattan will siphon riders from the NY airports. When NY is hit in the pocketbook they will build rail transit to the airport.
Recall the fight between Brighton and West End riders as to who would get stuck with the R40. Well I took the BMT home to 9th St & 4th Avenue from work in Lower Manhattan for a change of pace, and got an R40 on the N line at City Hall. I guess they've decided to spread the pain. The train crappped out for 10 minutes+ at Whitehall -- door problems. Fortunately, a R came along and was able to move around it. The R was pretty empty for a 5:15 train stalled behind a delay. The N was pretty full, and people were not amused.
No such pain on the "L" train! I guess it's a question of who
and where the maintenance is done. I mean, ANY train is capable
of breaking down if it's not maintained. R40s (all 46 of them)
on the "L" are clean and appear to be well maintained. AND the
A/C works well too (4406-7, 4412-3, 4402-3, 4444-5 etc. ICE cold)
I've heard war stories about the ones on the "Q" and "N" - but
the last time I was on an R40 "Q" it was 4246 and it was immaculate.
(And I have a photo to prove it.) Ditto 4322-3, 4268-9, 4306-7 4248-9
4208-9 (Ghost train) and others. However, 4196-7, 4178-9 etc. on the "N" were Mighty Mungey! You just got a "lemon" that day, no doubt.
Wayne (a diehard R40 fan to the end)
Strange: L is using slanted 40's, but the J which is sharing the same yard isn't.
The cream always rises to the top, doesn't it? (my opinion only!)
I agree, this is an odd decision and am not sure why it was made.
Slant 40s were introduced to the "L" in 1994, I believe. They may
have been part of a shuffle when the last of the R30s were retired.
Several of the R40's do not have Z signs in their curtains. This is because they were rebuilt before the other Eastern Division cars & a Z service was not though of at that time. I makes sense to leave a small fleet of cars on one line, operational & parts (different size glass) wise.
About 3 weeks ago on the Q with Slant 40's at Ave H they couldn't get indication. There were no guard lights on. They left the doors shut and the crew walked car by car but still no guard light showed.
They discharged the train and when they closed the doors, stll no indication (motorman or conductor) but this time I saw a guard light on. There was some banter back and forth on the PA about how the operator couldn't "override" (I forgot the term) so he could operate the train without indication.
5 minutes later they were able to move the train, I don't think the crew never noticed the guard light on.
The following D train slammed into the station, not a bright idea since there were 40 people from the last car on 5 inches worth of platform, nobody would move foward to the front of the train to give the rear people standing on very small platform any room (the width of the orange stripe plus a mm).
Hey Lou that reminds me - Sept 14, 1997 at Broadway Junction:
I get on an "L" train (Slant40, A/C going full blast) they close
the doors, BUT we don't move! I figured, OK, we'll be a minute or
so, no big deal THEN they order us off the train! I get off,
wander down the platform - seventh car (#4418) second door appears
to be closed but the little red indicator light is still ON. So --
nobody's looking are they? Give the door a little kick - and -
ka-chunk! Door snaps shut (looked like the bottom of the door
hung up on something), lil red lite goes out - and then guess what
happens: The train pulls OUT OF THE STATION! Guess they didn't look.
Oh well, ten minutes or so wasted. Next train (a R40M in the lead)
had nosed up behind the Slant 40. This is the only time I had
anything go sour with a Slant 40 on the "L".
I love those slant 40s!
Wayne
How many slant R-40s are there on the N? I don't see them too often on that line. I did catch a N of slants at Pacific St. last fall and rode it out to Coney Island; it was nice to see it running express along 4th Ave.
I'm an N train rider, and see mostly 68's on that line. Next is the 32's, and last is the slanted 40's.
I figured there were maybe one or two 10-car trains of slant R-40s on the N line, because I don't see them there all that often.
The R-32s have served the N line, in some shape or form, at one time or another, for as long as they've been around, since 1964. I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but the very first subway train I ever rode in New York was an N of shiny new R-32s in 1965. Usually, other cars would supplement N service: R-27s, R-30s, R-38s, R-42s, and R-46s come to mind, as well as the R-68s. I've seen and ridden them all on the N line except for the R-38s.
Unlike the R-10s, which were assigned almost exclusively to the A line for years, the R-32s were always divided up among several lines, which usually included the N. (Over the years, they've run on just about every IND and BMT route you can think of.) For that reason, I think of the N line when the R-32s come to mind, just as the R-10s come to mind when the A line is mentioned.
Probably there are about forty Slant R40s that run on the "N".
The 4150-4399 Slant R40s are shared by the "Q" and the "N".
Once in a blue moon on the weekend, one will show up on the "B"
if they need a spare.
Wayne
I remember the A using those slanted 40's before the B back in 83.
Correctamundo, Chris. They started out as "E"s and "F"s in 1968.
Then, when the R44s came aboard in 1972-73-74, the R40s were somewhat
displaced. I believe (don't quote me on this) that's when the R40
shift to the "A" began. By 1975-76, when the R46 came aboard and the last of the R6-7-9 were retired, both R40s and R44s were running on the "A". They went over to the "B" in the 80s, possibly when the
R68 came aboard. Now they're "Q"s, occasionally "N"s and, of course,
"L"s, but only #4400-4449 get to go there.
NOTE: Last summer (August thru October), I saw #4202-4203 out on
the "L" along with the 4400s, but I believe it's back on the "Q" now.
It must have been a spare or something.
Wayne
I lived in Far Rockaway when the A was using the slanted 40's. That was back in 1983/85. They were fast, but, not as fast as the 38's. As for the 44's, they improve since then. They were terribly slow. So slow, that I prayed a 38's would come in the station first.
The acceleration rate on the 46's were also terribly slow. I believe, but not sure, they were the slowest in the system until they were refurbished.
I also notice something about the sound it made before it left the station. It is no longer present in the refurbished model, same as with the 44's. The 46's went ding dong, and then tsssssssssssssssss. The 44's went ding dong, and then chaaaaaaaaaaaaw.
Oh yes, the R38 is fast. I often return from my brother-in-law Looie's
(Kingsbridge Road at the top of the hill) by walking down to B'way
then taking the Bx7 or Bx20 to 207th Street. I always hope that I get
an R38, just for the thrill of going up to the front and watching
out betw. 168th-145th and 125th-59th. I believe that there are some
mechanical similarities between the R38 and the Slant40, but I think
there are other, more important differences. The R40M is more a cousin to the R42 than to the R38.
By the way - they allow 50MPH in the 14th Street tunnel now that only
one train at a time may go through. Sometimes I wonder if they aren't
going just a little bit faster downgrade through there. Anyway,
Slant40 can really step when asked, although I wouldn't want to bet
a week's pay on a race with an R38...
Brake sound on Slant40 is "hoooooshhhhhh". R38 is "pssssshhhhhht".
Funny, we treat these sounds like they're bird calls...
Wayne
I always liked the braking sounds on the R-1/9s: tchhhhhh-hsssssss. You'd only hear it as the train was about to come to a full stop, and then you would hear it twice, maybe three times. The last time would always be as the train came to a stop, then a second later, the sound of the door locks releasing followed by a ksssssss, after which the doors would open. Ahh, those two-trigger door controls. Music to my ears (not to mention the moaning and groaning of the motors).
Does anyone have a decent tape recording of R-1/9 sounds?
You mean the sounds before or after the refurbishment? Before, the R38-R42 sounded pretty much the same, just like the PA-1 through 3 cars on PATH but louder.
I flat-out miss those sounds, no ifs, ands, or buts. I used to try to blow into my hands to see if I could replicate them.
As they accelerated, they would both go, "whhhoooooooooo" (sorry, I cant' illustrate an increase in pitch).
Nothing beats the moaning, groaning, and whining of the R-1/9s and all other prewar equipment. Not to mention the associated pops and hisses of brakes and doors.
Yesh, that little "psssht" that came from under one of the seats.
I remembers it well.
Wayne
Yea, that's what I miss from the Nostalgia Special. They make all the right motor sounds but none of the door sounds of the R1-9 cars. Methinks many of the doors don't actually work...
Say Wayne, I've been hoping for some information on Number underlines from others. The event that started me thinking happened on this springs Nostalgia to Canarsie. Maybe you can shed some light on the subject.
I noticed that all of the trains (forgive me....all of the R42 trains) appeared to contain cars having a dark red underline, containing a black diamond upon it, below the number. What stirred my interest was that the trains in service, and in the yard, seemed to have a fifty/fifty breakdown of cars with the marking, and cars without the marking.
Any ideas ,
The R-40's appeared on the B before the R-68's came. It was in the early 80. They had spilled over from the Ato the AA, and that line shared with the B. Then, in 1983, a couple began appearing on the D, and when the 68's came, they appeared on the Q and even wound up on the R, until it switched with the N. Then, they went to be rebuilt, and afterwards were mostly on the B, but occasionally appearing on the other CI yard lines, (as well as the L)until this year.
I remember seeing R-40Ms and R-42s in mixed sets on the D line in 1984-85.
And they're still in mixed sets on the "J", "Z" and "L".
("M" seems to be entirely R42).
To wit: "J"s 4590-4591; 4520-4521 (40M) 4744-4745; 4740-4741.
"L"s 4764-4765; 4476-4477 (40M), 4668-4669, 4756-4757.
AND that infamous remarried pair: 4460 and 4665 (widow and widower)
Wayne
"And they're still in mixed sets on the "J", "Z" and "L".
("M" seems to be entirely R42)."
Not so. I rode a mixed set on the M Thursday morning.
David
I stand corrected. Perhaps this is because I never see one when
I'm on the "M", which is less frequently than I am on the "J" or
the "L".
wayne
Now don't quote me on this, cause they DO shuffle them around -
It seems that the lower numbered R40s (4150-4199) tend to congregate
on the "N", with the next group (4200-4399) on the "Q" and the last
group (4400-4449) on the "L".
The Subway FAQ gives a finer breakdown, but I am not sure how
up-to-date it is. Nor does it break down by unit number.
I would have to say, for now, probably about 40 or so are on the "N". "N"s I saw on Sat Aug 01 were R68 and R32 (R68s predominating), with ONE lonely R40 thrown in - all 4100 series cars on it. Again, take this with a grain (or should I say - a shaker) of salt.
Only one I'm dead sure of is the "L", with forty-six.
Wayne the R40 connissaurus (sic!!).
Wayne,
You're right about most of the 4400s being on the L line (East New York Shop). However, the N and Q (Coney Island Shop) feed off a pool of R-40s; there is no dedicated fleet of N line R-40s.
David
Like I said, don't quote me on it. (I do mind my "L"s)
I would have to then conclude that the FAQ number(s) are not viable.
Thanks for the info - I'll just put that in my own cribsheet.
Wayne
By the way - all R40 A/C on the "L" has been working very well so far
this summer, thankyouverymuch, AND the trains are very clean,
considering the number of people that they transport (Lotsa folks
ride the "L"). 4432 and her brood Sat. morning from Wilson, about
11:30am
The discussion of highway median transit got me thinking: frankly, I wouldn't want to get off a train in the middle of an expressway median, especially here in NYC. What is the best type of station?
Here in the city, they squeezed in expressways as best they could, with no acceleration/deceleration lanes, no emergency lanes, no nothing. With trucks cranking by and heavy traffic, they're not pleasent. They are not a part of neighborhoods, they are between neighborhoods, and by NYC standards, the areas next to them are abandoned. I like the fact that I walk out of the station and into a neighborhood.
For a pleasent home station, I think I would prefer the open cut (ie. Brighton) stations best. It seems good to be outside. But not elevated -- elevated platforms are cold in the winter and hot in the summer, while my subway station is the reverse. The coldest place in the Metro Area is a Babylon Line LIRR station when the wind is blowing off the ocean. When the weather is cold, hot or rainy, my wife and some of her friends take their morning walk in the subway station -- the people's gym. If you are going to have a lighly trafficed, local station, I think I like this: side platforms, one flight down from the street, with each platform cut in half by floor to ceiling iron fencing. Stairways at every intersection down to the "ouside" half of the plaform. Lots of visibility, and close to the action on the street.
For a destination, I think I like Rockefeller Center, World Trade Center, or Grand Central best -- you get off the train and walk into an enclosed commercial center, right in the middle of activity, rather than squeezing up a narrow, dirty stair onto a forgotton corner. I love the Montreal Metro, for that reason. You need to have the pedestrian passageway open directly into the basements of commecial buildings.
I wish someone would consider planning extensions of the underground network, with more commercial underground. In fact, given the shortage of (and rent for) retail space in Midtown, I'll bet the Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) could finance such an extension by taxing the increase in value of basement space, if you could be rows of property owners to cooperate along the route. Of course, my agency is the one which ought to doing something like that, in association with the BIDs and the MTA. Don't hold your breath.
Larry, Nice thoughtful suggestions.
My only, nitpicker, comment refers back to a comment from John of ORD (I think). Chicago's in-the-middle-of-expressway subway stations are actually elevated or more precisely the cars are sunken so you walk from street level to station. But some ARE sticking out there in the air. I leave it to someone from Chicago to clarify, as EYE only saw them as a diversion (to the city) on my way to Colorado. We (my son & I ) also go caught in a local street speed trap, but that's another story.
Mr t__:^)
Not all are elevated. Many of the Red (Howard/Dan Ryan) Line stations in the expressway median are level with the expressway, and the whole thing is "open cut". Streets pass over the expressway and subway median with long ramps or stairs start from the nearest cross streets to the station and lead down to the island platform stations in the cut. Similar stations exist on the Blue (O'hare) line leaving O'hare.
--Mark
Most of the expressway stations are where the expressway is open-cut and the streets pass over the expressway. You walk along the street (or take a bus) to the center of the expressway, where the station entrance is. You pay your fare and then go down to platform level.
There are only a handful of stations on elevated portions of the expressway -- Irving Park on the Blue line comes to mind. There, the streets are passing under the expressway. Again, you walk along the street or take a bus to the center of the expressway, where the station entrance is. Only now, after paying your fare, you go up to platform level.
But in both cases, the tracks are on the same level as the auto lanes of the expressway, and the station entrance is on street level. There is no mezzanine as in the subway stations.
John B, Thanks for the clarifyication. Eye thought that I remembered a line up in the air on one row of supports. I did see tracks in the median too. I also saw tracks at street level that ran across the street, i.e. crossing gates, etc. How much of that do you have left ?
Mr t__:^)
Most of one line and a bit of three others. The Brown line, Purple line, and Cermak Branch of the Blue line, are elevated lines that run for a few blocks at the very outer end of the line at grade. The Yellow Line (Skokie Swift), except for the junction with the Red and Purple lines, a short open cut, and a high bridge, is all surface line in private ROW -- it is the remnant of the old Chicago, North Shore, and Milwaukee interurban.
One major controversy here is that where the Purple line runs at grade is in the wealthy suburb of Wilmette, the crossings are not only controlled in the usual way (cars and peds can't cross while a train passes) but also have chain-link gates that open automatically when a train is coming but otherwise close off the ends of the ROW, to protect from trespassers, especially children, who then may get hit by trains. There are no such gates at the crossings on the other lines (Brown is in an immigrant neighborhood, Blue is in a poor suburb, and Yellow is in a middle-class suburb), and many complain why the CTA has such gates for rich Wilmette but not for them. On the other hand, the village of Wilmette insisted on the gates and paid for their original installation.
> I love the Montreal Metro, for that reason. You need to have the
> pedestrian passageway open directly into the basements of commecial
> buildings.
Montreal has a vast underground pedestrian network because of the harsh winters up north. You can go nearly everywhere you need to in the CBD without exiting to the street.
> I wish someone would consider planning extensions of the underground
> network, with more commercial underground. In fact, given the
> shortage of (and rent for) retail space in Midtown, I'll bet the
> Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) could finance such an
> extension by taxing the increase in value of basement space, if you
> could be rows of property owners to cooperate along the route.
Have you proposed reopening the underground passageways at 34th St and between 42nd/6th and Rockefeller Center as pilots for such development? These underground "malls" would sure help alleviate the condition that closed them - fear of crime and unsupervised areas.
--Mark
I knew about the Herald Square/Penn passageway, but I didn't know there was an abandoned passegeway on 6th Avenue from 42nd St to Rock Center. But the key is the have the passageways open into the basements of the building, and for the basements to be converted to commercial space. Long, empty passagways closed in by bathroom tile won't do.
We have an abandoned station section. How many abandoned pedestrian passageways linked to the subways, or abandoned connections from the subway to commercial buildings, are there? How many do people know of?
[I knew about the Herald Square/Penn passageway, but I didn't know there was an abandoned passegeway on 6th Avenue from 42nd St to Rock Center.]
You didn't know about it because it never existed :-) The passageway ran between the 34th Street and 42nd Street stations on the 6th Avenue IND.
It used to be possible to enter a passageway at the southwest corner of Bryant Park (on 6th Avenue) and, without paying a fare, walk underground along 6th Avenue and through part of the Herald Square subway complex to the passageway under what used to be Gimbel's and all the way into Penn Station--to the southwest corner of Penn Station at 8th Avenue and 32nd Street (or is it 31st?). That was quite a long walk underground without having to go through a turnstile; aside from the Gimbel's passageway, fare controls have been rearranged along the route so it's not possible to do it any more.
It was a lot of fun just being able to say I had done it. I don't think I did it more than once or twice, though; it's not the sort of walk that many people would have any need to do.
You couldn't go from Penn into the Post Office, as I recall--if that had been possible, then the walk would have gone to 10th Avenue and 31st or 32nd!
BTW, Toronto has a great set of underground passageways and connections, too.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Chicago also has a fairly large underground tunnel system - the Pedway, its called. For instance, I think you can go from the Randolph street commuter rail station clear to the Sears Tower underground. Of course the rivers limit the extent of it.
Chicago also gets points for bilevel streets. Lower Wacker and Lower Michigan are very interesting places. There is even a rail spur hidden down there, for Newsprint going to the sun times.
There used to be an elevated entrance from the "L" into Marshall Fields. think there still is a subway entrance but I have not used it for years. Does anyone know??
The subway entrance to Fields is still there and as busy as ever. When and why did Fields get rid of the connection to the Loop L? Was it at their behest or did CTA/CRT do it?
It is my understanding that the Inner Loop Station (i.e. enclosed waiting and fare collection area) was paid for by Marshall Fields. Maybe someone can confirm this story.
On the subject of pedestrian connectors, although it was before my time in the Windy City, I understand that there was a connecting entrance from the Clinton/Lake ‘L’ Station to Northwestern Station. This was referred to as the "Northwest Passage" as I remember. This "passage" was removed with the subsequent modernization of the Northwestern, now Madison Street Station, trainshed.
You are correct. Other such connections included La Salle St Station when it existed. In general the older el. l. subway, and commuter ststems were well designed for convenient access. In previous posts I have described several pedestrian connections in the Philly system which were very convenient particularly in inclement weather. The Red Line connection at DC Union Station is a pleasant recent example. Conversely the current red line station setup in Silver Spring is unfortunately more commonb. I think I have read that the MARC stop will be moved soon at some immense cost.
Without considering the new construction which I am told will open up access as far north as 48th Street, does anyone know what currently is the furthest north, south, east and west, one can walk underground from Grand Central to exit to the street ?
I think my daily route out of Grand Central might be the easternmost.
I walk up one flight from the uptown end of the 4, 5 & 6 station, then through a passageway under Lexington Avenue, into the Art Deco basement of the Chrysler Building, and come up its stairs onto E. 44th St. between Lex and Third Avenue.
If there's anything further east or northeast, I'd love to know about it.
There is, but it is closed. If you walk east down 43rd street, about mid-block you'll see a sign that says "subway" attached to the S. side of the building wall (the low part between the Chrysler Bldg. and 666 3rd Ave.). The door is never open.
Also, try the 7 platform at the eastern end. You'll see stairs going up and an exit sign. I've never ventured there, but if you do some reckoning from the location of the escalators mid-platform, the tops of which are right about at Lexington Ave., that exit must be close to mid-block between Lexington and Third.
--mhg
Ooops! Actually, my Chrysler Building underground exit from Grand Central lets me out on 43rd St, not 44th St., between Lex and Third Ave.
Anyway, I still think it's the easternmost, or one of the two easternmost, underground escapes from GCT.
This morning, I tried to go further east THROUGH the Chrysler Building, perhaps all the way to Third Avenue, but I couldn't find a way through the various utility rooms and such.
The only Exit signs I saw referred to my exit and to another one in the opposite direction, which I think comes out at at 42nd St. between Lex and Third, just as far east as mine.
I may not have all the details, and the North Access Project may have altered some of this, and I'm not including anything that would require you to open a grate on the sidewalk, but here goes:
S. 42nd Street, unless you get on the subway system, in which case you can walk as far south as 41st street. There may be emergency exits in the turnaround tracks from GCT, but they aren't a real option b/c you can't walk down a platform to get there.
E. Please see my other post.
W. Madison Ave, near 45th street, from the passageway near the Vanderbilt waiting room.
N. There are several fire exists that are well used and connect to street level doors in the sides of buildings. One leads to the N. side 47th just east of Park, from track 16/17 (I think). It puts you across from the Bear Stearns Bldg (where the bricks just fell). There is also an exit at 46th on the W. side of Park, which I never use and can't tell you what track it comes from. You can explore these by walking to the ends of the platforms and taking the stairs up to street level. In each case, there is a connection to the lower level as well. To my knowledge, this is not unlawful, and in any even, may commuters use these exits regularly.
--mhg
The 14th Street passageway from 6th Ave to 7th Ave was closed as late as 1996, but now 'the Map' shows the passageway as opened once more.
[The 14th Street passageway from 6th Ave to 7th Ave was closed as late as 1996, but now 'the Map' shows the passageway as opened once more. ]
One important point is that this passageway is within the fare zone. The closed passageways around Herald Square were outside the fare zone and hence presented greater security and cleanliness problems.
Have read elsewhere on this site and in SI Advance that reverse signalling is planned for the SIR from Huguenot to St. George. I think it will be difficult for the SIR to provide a meaningful 'express' service due to the fact that most stations have separate nothrbound/southbound platforms. And with only one mid-sized storage facility, how is the SIR going to juggle the trains in this situation.
According to the MTA schedule, only 7 trains per hour arrive at St George, even at the height of the AM rush hour. If they could run trains 2 1/2 minutes apart, maybe they could have a 20 minutue gap in Manhattan Bound Service on the express and use it to shoot all the trains back to Tottenville or wherever at high speed.
The problem is the PM rush, when two trains are scheduled to leave 5 minutes apart. Both trains are standing room only, with running trains on both tracks they can increase service.
Normaly now the express followed by the local. I can see wrong railing the express to Grasmere and let the local skip the first 3 stations as well (call a limited) and then run a true local behind that.
But this is all from past experiences of about 3 years ago. I assume the PM trains are still SRO.
nyct has taken delivery of mci bus 1862. 9 more should arrive soon. after a 3 week hiatus while mci plant goes on vacation 110 buses will begin arriving in sept so staten island commuters will soon be riding in style.
Does this mean we get a break from your complaints of the poor condition of Staten Island equipment? Or in about 2 months you start complaining about the MCI's not being new anymore?
My recent trip to Alaska permitted a brief experience with the Seattle System and Their Bus Tunnel.
I was surprised by the amount of street wiring that goes unused by their articulated dual power Bredas. As I understand these, the diesels power the third (at extreme rear) axle, while the juice powers the second.
I noticed this set-up listed for several European units. It seems to me that the powered axles, behind the articulation, could be problematic on routes through city streets if they contained many curves. I never enjoyed backing up with a trailer on the rear.
Any experience with these units out there?
I take the F into Manhattan on a semiregular basis. Just before the train gets to 23rd St.-Ely Av., there is some construction going on on the sides of the tunnel, in both directions, that looks like a new station is being constructed. Is this true, and if not, does anyone know what the construction is?
ITS THE CONNECTION TO THE 63RD STREET LINE!!! NOT A NEW STATION!!!
AND ITS BETWEEN 36TH STREET AND QUEENS PLAZA, NOT 23RD/ELY!
A little kinder and gentler bit of info for you, Barry.
The Queens Boulevard subway is being connected to the 63rd Street
line. This involves widening the subway line from five tracks
(four revenue, one layup) to six tracks. What you are seeing
that looks like a new station is really just a new local track
being built. The other connector track is where the layup once was.
This construction is going on between the Queens Plaza and 36th Street local stops and when finished, will allow 63rd Street ("Q") to connect with Queens Blvd. Expect to see it done in the year 2001.
Wayne
Thanks for the info- Barry wasn't the only one wondering what was going on...
So my question is, why was the 63rd St. line only built to 21st St. Queensbridge in the first place? It seems strange to build a tunnel to service no more than Roosevelt Island & one stop in Queens. Were there originally greater plans? Or was Long Island City a major point of origin at the time, capapble of generating the traffic to justify such construction?
My curiosity has got the best of me...
They hadn't decided where it was going to go yet. They knew they needed an additional line to Queens, and went ahead and built this part of it, but there were several different ideas. This one was the cheapest, and the other main ideas were to run it through Sunnyside yard and connect it to the LIRR to Jamaica either by the main line (The "Queens bypass") or the Montauk Branch.
I know it wouldn't been cheaper, but it sure would've been better. Running the B and Q across 76th Street (in opposed to 63rd Street) would have been ideal. Connections with the #6 will have been achieve; possibly reducing over crowding on that line. Creating a stop at Broadway/21st Street and 31st Street (N train Connection) would have reduce over crowding on the N train; also providing riders with another alternative into Manhattan.
This line was a total mistake! It only serves only one purpose, that is, stopping at Roosevelt Island. Unfortunately, not to many people live there, so the train is usually not crowded.
Where it stops at Roosevelt Island, there's no building development at the location. It is further north, which is why, the 76th Street line would have been ideal. In order to use this line, you must take a bus going southbound, paying 10 cents.
Plus as I already stated, it doesn't connect to the major truck route (Lexington Avenue lines). Even if they ended the line at 21st Street and Broadway, they definately would have been a larger ridership. This area is flourishing with housing development, and more housing is on its way. This area, called Astoria, is also a business area.
As for it current terminal. There is very little economic prosperity in this area (one fried chicken joint, check cashing place, and projects). Nothing else exist!
On Broadway, you have two shopping centers, elderly building, a major residential community, a junior high and high school with a ball field and swimming pool, fire department, over 20 retail businesses, etc, etc, etc. There's a major co-op development, and Ravenswood projects is about 5 blocks! Even Astoria projects is in this area, surrounded by highrises and tenaments.
CBJ
"why was the 63rd St. line only built to 21st St. Queensbridge in the first place"?
The MTA built the 63rd street tunnel in the 1970's. It was supposed to connect to a new Queens "Super Express" subway line built parallel to the LIRR. The western end would diverge around Sunnyside yard to the 63rd street tunnel . At the eastern end the line would connect to what is now the Archer Avenue subway, Rather than end at Sutphin Blvd like the E and J do today, the subway was then to turn southwest, rejoin the LIRR ROW that the ST Albans station is on, and terminate in the vicinity of Kennedy Airport. In preparation for the new line the last five stations of the Jamaica el were abandoned in the late 70's.
Unfortunately, the MTA ran out of money and construction stopped and all hope of a Super Express line evaporated. Eventually a one mile el replacement, the Archer avenue subway, and the line to Roosevelt Island was opened in the late 1980's. To connect the Roosevelt Island and Archer Avenue segments it was apparently decided in the 1990's to tie into the existing Queen's Blvd line. Construction of this segment is underway and its various pros and cons have been debated in SUBTALK.
Thanks for the info, Wayne...it really does look like a new station, if you don't know any differently. I'm taking the F into Manhattan this afternoon...i'll have to take a look again with your information in mind.
I believe Barry you are refering to the tunnel under the river. E/F trains are running very slow and their are bright construction lights in the tunnel between Lex and 23rd/Ely. They are not building a new station, just track maintenance. Every night E/F trains are rerouted on the R line and there is no service in the tunnel at all.
There is still construction past QueensPlaza as the others have refered to.
Tickets are still available for the New York Division, Electric Railroaders' Association's Metro-North fantrip. It leaves at 10 AM Saturday, August 1, 1998 from Grand Central Terminal and will tour the Hudson and Harlem Lines using 1100-series cars. Tickets ($45) will be sold day-of-trip, so come on down!
For more information:
Print out this form and bring it with you!
Cats should be allowed in the subway because many people walk with their pets and want to take the subway back home.
It's bad enough that some people use the subway as a public toilet. We don't need it to be used as a litter box too.
But cats will actually *use* the litter box and then clean up after themselves then they are done. They are *much* cleaner then the "people" that use the subway as their personal toilet.
Also the cats will not have to be fed. The cats can help get rid of the rodents before the rodents become the size of godzilla.
Charlie Muller.
Trouble is, the dog lovers would be next, then the bird lovers, ferret owners, snake handlers, monkey owners, etc. . . .
Simple - if it's not Seeing Eye/Hearing Ear or not in a carrier, it stays off. Rule of the Maryland Mass Transit Administration and the Baltimore Streetcar Museum.
Sounds like a good rule When tabby gets tired put him in the box and ride him back home.
I hope nobody really believes a cat would tolerate riding in a subway. Most of them won't even ride in an automobile.
However, I once saw a pigeon stroll into a Market-Frankford train at 69th street, ride two stops, and stroll off like it knew exactly what it was doing.
I once heard a tale from a PTC operator about a pigeon that got on a car at 94th & Eastwick, rode all the way to City Hall and back and flew off back at 94th.
Believe it?
Animals are funny, at BSM we have rabbits that race streetcars.
In NY, there are also pigeons living in some of the subway stations, notably ones with high, vaulted ceilings, such as the #1 stops in upper Manhattan. I wonder, 1) how did they get in there, 2) why didn't they go back out, 3) how can an animal used to living outdoors stand living in a relatively dark, noisy subway tunnel? Just curious.
They probably flew in from the nearest stairway. Pigeons are the "flying rats" of metropolitan areas. The birds think buildings and crevasses are the clifts that they evolved on. The vaulted ceilings have recesses that support nests. Pigeons build pretty flimsy nests, and both parents raise the young.
In Baltimore in the 60's Irvington car house supported a pretty large pigeon population, some of which split their time between the car house, a local high school (on the other side of town) and downtown.
I once saw a pigeon that somehow got coated with the chrome yellow paint used on the cars. That bird turned up at Baltimore City College, the high school mentioned.
Dogs are loyal, brave and trustworthy. Cats are cute but useless. My neighbor's cat 'Spunkie' uses everyone elses backyard and my in-ground pool for a toilet. This particular feline should be the first to ride the subway with a special Catrocard. Once in the subway, the massive Lassie-size tunnel-rats will eat her right up I hope. Meow, meow, meow............
Well, in a suitable carrier, why not? On the San Francisco Muni, I once encountered an iguana! Cats, being brought home in boxes from the local humane society, are almost common.
Hey, I've seen a lot of beings of a lot of different orders making trouble on transit -- and not one of the miscreants has been a cat (or, as far as that goes, an iguana.)