|
|
| Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? (729763) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 19:09:30 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by BMTLines on Sun Jan 4 17:31:15 2009. I was looking at the copy of the book as you have it posted and I nociced a few inconsistencies. It mentions 65/3, Crescent St, Fulton/Nostrand and 60 St/Jamaica as being mechanical interlockings. However, 65/3 is also shown as being set up for automatic operation. How can a mechanical interlocking plant be set up for automatic operation? It doesn't sound plausible to me. Where "60 St/Jamaica" is is a mystery to me since even if you consider the term "Jamaica" to apply to the entire Jamaica Av Line, there are no interlockings or provisons for any between Crescent St and 111 St, and in any event, the entire structure between Cypress Hills and 168 St is part of the dual contracts and would have had some sort of power operated interlockings installed at the time of construction. The same would be true of Fulton/Nostrand and Crescent St since the rebuilt 3 track Fulton St El structure from Nostrand east was also part of the dual contracts and would have some sort of power interlocking installed upon construction. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|