|
|
| Re: Elevated (1168934) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jul 27 15:16:15 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Jul 27 11:03:36 2012. BMT els did not have dual third rail. On lines like the Brighton, Myrtle, Culver and Fulton, where both subway and elevated equipment operated, elevated type third rail was installed and the shoes on the subway cars were designed to operate on both types of third rail. From what I have seen, it was probably possible for the IRT to have done the same but for some reason the IRT chose to install both subway and elevated type third rail on lines like Jerome and Wh Pl Rd where both subway and el trains operated. It is a bit surprising since the IRT did not really make any efforts to make any technological improvements in either its rolling stock or its infrastructure. IRT elevated third rail was not entirely unprotected since it had protection boards on the sides of the rail rather than over it as is the case with most subway third rail. The reason for separate subway and elevated divisions had to do with union agreements. The crews were afraid that in the summertime, the senior employees would pick all the el runs and leave the junior employees with subway runs. It was feared that the opposite would happen in the wintertime when the senior crews would pick subway runs and leave the junior crews to work the els in the cold weather. Not only were separate seniority rosters established, but in the case of the els, each el line had its own seniority roster and if an employe were to pick from one el line to another or into the subway division, he would lose his seniority and go to the bottom of the seniority roster he picked into. I would imagine that when the el lines started to be torn down starting with 6 Av, some of the employees saw the handwriting on the wall and picked the subway division rather than another el line in order to build up his subway seniority rather than just keep being constantly bumped to the bottom of successive seniority lists as the el lines closed.In the case of the BMT, not only was that company less employee friendly than the IRT, but unlike the IRT which had more of a balance between its el and subway services and was able to operate as 2 separate divisions, most of the BMT lines, including those operated as part of subway lines, started as elevated lines and when its subways were built, there was more integration between subway and el services and it would have been more difficult to separate the operation of its subway and el services. |
|
|
|