|
|
| Elevated (1168868) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1168868) | |
Elevated |
|
|
Posted by fordhamroad22 on Fri Jul 27 10:03:18 2012 After looking at this map:http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/system_1948.gif I am curious as to why there is a distinction between IRT/BMT/IND lines and the elevated. I understand that they are older, but the Third Avenue Line was operated by the IRT, so it seems strange that the Jerome Avenue line should be in bold blue while the Third Avenue line is only a thin strip of black. It seems to be an attempt to downplay the role of the elevateds, even though they were still serving as crucial transportation links. Any opinions/knowledge? |
|
|
| (1168871) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri Jul 27 10:39:14 2012, in response to Elevated, posted by fordhamroad22 on Fri Jul 27 10:03:18 2012. All the elevated lines are a thin black line. Look at the Myrtle, the Lexington, and the Fulton Ave. lines in Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (1168875) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by fordhamroad22 on Fri Jul 27 10:54:08 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by Dave on Fri Jul 27 10:39:14 2012. What about the line to Astoria? I'm just questioning the need to distinguish between the two. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1168877) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Jul 27 11:00:37 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by fordhamroad22 on Fri Jul 27 10:54:08 2012. All the lines in black are completly elavated. Other lines go underground at some point. |
|
|
| (1168878) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Jul 27 11:03:36 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by fordhamroad22 on Fri Jul 27 10:54:08 2012. The "elevated" lines were more lightly built, and used a different third-rail configuration (uncovered). Where "el" trains shared a structure with subway trains, there were dual third rails installed. At least in the case of the IRT, there were distinct "subway" and "elevated" divisions within the company when it was privately run. |
|
|
| (1168881) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by Fisk ave Jim on Fri Jul 27 11:15:46 2012, in response to Elevated, posted by fordhamroad22 on Fri Jul 27 10:03:18 2012. I believe the distinction was lines like the Jerome Ave or White Plains Rd. lines were considered elevated extentions of subway lines, whereas lines like the 3d ave & Myrtle ave lines were lines constructed as el lines from start to finish by companies that pre-dated the creation of the IRT. |
|
|
| (1168887) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Jul 27 12:01:39 2012, in response to Elevated, posted by fordhamroad22 on Fri Jul 27 10:03:18 2012. A number of map companies distinguished between elevated division lines and subway lines. Hagstrom (who made the map you linked to) was notable for this. Where there was service from both (examples, the Myrtle Avenue Line north of Broadway, and IRT lines on which one of the Manhattan Elevateds ran with subway division trains (in Queens, and a number of Bronx lines)) the black elevated line ran down the middle of the colored subway line on the Hagstrom map.The IRT maps had a similar visual distinction. The BMT's own maps disguished physical subway or elevated portions by color. Thickness of the drawn lines indicated how many tracks. |
|
|
| (1168893) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by GIS Man on Fri Jul 27 12:26:14 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by SLRT on Fri Jul 27 12:01:39 2012. Thickness of the drawn lines indicated how many tracks...I never knew that. So that's why the West End line is drawn with a narrow symbol at the point where it exits from 4th Avenue, and it then expands to a wider one. I always thought that was a printing error which had been perpetuated down through the years. Bob |
|
|
| (1168934) | |
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. |
|
|
| (1168961) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jul 27 17:08:41 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by SLRT on Fri Jul 27 12:01:39 2012. I think when the Lex (Bklyn) Ave el was running, it showed one of those thin black lines running out to 111th & Jamaica Av - their rush hour extension. |
|
|
| (1168966) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Fri Jul 27 17:28:11 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by randyo on Fri Jul 27 15:16:15 2012. I always wondered why the Manhattan Elevated Railway was electrified with elevated type third rail, instead of IRT subway rail. The 2nd, 3rd, 6th, and 9th Ave els were electrified (in that order) between 12/20/01 and 02/18/03. Less than 2 months later, on 04/01/03, the IRT leased the MER for 999 years. It would have been much easier if subway type third rail had been used by both. Perhaps, the leasing talks began after the MER had begun electrification- which is my guess. So, the IRT had to install both types of rail on Jerome Ave and White Plains Road lines. Finally, if I am not mistaken, didn't the directors of the Manhattan Railway sit on the Interboro Board, after the lease was signed? |
|
|
| (1168971) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Jul 27 17:54:01 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by randyo on Fri Jul 27 15:16:15 2012. Very informative. Thank You. |
|
|
| (1168973) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Fri Jul 27 17:56:38 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by Elkeeper on Fri Jul 27 17:28:11 2012. the process to electrify obviously had to have been started long before the talks, I think it's safe to say before the IRT started construction.If the MER had switched to the IRT system, they would have had to go out and re-aline every inch of third rail, and ordern subway contact shoes. Also, consider that until the H system went into effect, Manhattan El track miles outnumbered IRT subway track miles about 2 to 1. it probibly would have been cheaper and easier for the still under construction IRT to have implemented El third rail instead. |
|
|
| (1168975) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jul 27 18:25:41 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by Joe V on Fri Jul 27 17:08:41 2012. That's correct. What I never understood, however was why the Fulton St El between Atlantic Av and Lefferts was never shown as a combination subway and el service since the re was a rush hour only subway service, the 14 St/Fulton, which operated between 8 Av14 St and Lefferts. The only reason I can think of is that unlike the other joint services where el services operated over what were principally subway lines, the 14/Fulton was a subway line that operated over what was principally a self contained el line. I have never seen a Hagstrom map of the NYCTS prior to the demolition of the 2 Av El so I don't know if the 2 Av el services to Astoria and Corona were shown with the thin black line to Corona and Astoria or not. |
|
|
| (1168987) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Fri Jul 27 20:48:59 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by Fisk ave Jim on Fri Jul 27 11:15:46 2012. It looks like any line that ever set foot underground (or in a cut) was represented by a thick coloured line.wayne |
|
|
| (1168988) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Fri Jul 27 20:51:09 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by The Silence on Fri Jul 27 17:56:38 2012. Although leased by the IRT, the Manhattan Elevated still had some say in decision making. For example, when the 6th/9th ave els were extended to Jerome Ave in the Bronx. The portal between Anderson/Jerome and Sedgwick Ave stations was built only for cars with elevated type 3rd rail. It was not wide enough for subway type 3rd rail, unless the contact shoes were modified, as was the case when the Composites were removed from Polo Grounds shuttle service in 1950. |
|
|
| (1168989) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by Fisk ave Jim on Fri Jul 27 20:54:22 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Fri Jul 27 20:48:59 2012. The exception that jumps out at me was the Myrtle Ave line connection at Broadway. That connector from B'way to Metropolitan was always a solid line even though it branched off the Broadway el. |
|
|
| (1168991) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Fri Jul 27 21:20:04 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by randyo on Fri Jul 27 18:25:41 2012. I have a copy of a 1936 Hagstrom first map of New York Subways and Elevated Systems. BMT subway lines are shown in gold, IRT's in blue, and IRT or BMT elevated lines are black lines, as discussed here. The joint Astoria/Flushing servives are shown as alternating gold and blue dashes, bisected by a thin black line for the 2nd Ave el. West and south of Queensboro Plaza, the thin black line crosses the bridge to 2nd Ave, the blue solid line continues to Times Square, and the solid gold line goes to 60 Street. |
|
|
| (1169051) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat Jul 28 02:49:57 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by Elkeeper on Fri Jul 27 20:51:09 2012. How were the different cars able to run on the dual-third rail track without the contact shoes getting fucked up by the other type of third rail? |
|
|
| (1169068) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sat Jul 28 09:12:33 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Jul 27 11:00:37 2012. The Polo Grounds shuttle was partly underground at Sedgwick Avenue but it is shown on the map as an El. |
|
|
| (1169079) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Sat Jul 28 09:52:17 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat Jul 28 02:49:57 2012. different heights and distance from the running rail. |
|
|
| (1169145) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Jul 28 16:18:24 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by merrick1 on Sat Jul 28 09:12:33 2012. Yea, for all of a quarter mile! |
|
|
| (1169383) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jul 29 16:36:22 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by merrick1 on Sat Jul 28 09:12:33 2012. That's because it was a part of the 6 and 9 Av els and not an actual subway line. |
|
|
| (1169385) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jul 29 16:40:02 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by Fisk ave Jim on Fri Jul 27 20:54:22 2012. What color "solid" line? I always remember as being BMT yellow. |
|
|
| (1169386) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jul 29 16:42:40 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by Elkeeper on Fri Jul 27 21:20:04 2012. Thanks. That answers my question. I always considered the BMT to be more yellow than gold but it's the same idea anyhow. Is the IND shown in red on your map? |
|
|
| (1169453) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Sun Jul 29 20:34:25 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat Jul 28 02:49:57 2012. one was closer and lower, the other was higher and futher back. |
|
|
| (1169511) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sun Jul 29 22:58:54 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by randyo on Sun Jul 29 16:42:40 2012. I have a guidebook published in 1964 called HART'S GUIDE TO NEW YORK, and it features a nice little section of subway maps that I THINK were done by Hagstrom, but am not too sure if they are - they certainly follow the Hagstrom color code, although the gold used for the BMT looks a little darker than that used on the folding maps. The maps themselves are interesting and include a full system wide map that shows only major end terminals and individual borough maps that show all stations. All maps are - unusually - fairly realistic geographically too.They also have, separated by divisions, trunk line maps which show approximate running times between major stations. For PATH, they combine a realistic map with running times between stations. Wish I could scan those maps without breaking that book.... |
|
|
| (1169541) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Mon Jul 30 07:28:17 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by The Silence on Sun Jul 29 20:34:25 2012. Thanks. For some reason I thought that the 2 third rail types were the same distance to the tracks. |
|
|
| (1169560) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by GIS Man on Mon Jul 30 09:06:16 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sun Jul 29 22:58:54 2012. Hagstrom used the red, blue and yellow colors until the mid 1960's, when green was substituted for yellow on the BMT, so that the letters N, Q, QB, QT, RR, T and TT could be added in and be visible. The copy I saw was a poorly aligned mixture of blue and yellow to create the green. I'm not sure, but I think they also added in the numbers for the IRT lines. The IND letters had been on the map for many years. The standard Hagstrom subway map did not continue for long thereafter.Bob |
|
|
| (1169600) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Jul 30 14:20:56 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by Fisk ave Jim on Fri Jul 27 20:54:22 2012. Well, yes...that was the Metropolitan-Chambers service, which by definition was "subway" service... |
|
|
| (1169616) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon Jul 30 16:12:00 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by randyo on Sun Jul 29 16:42:40 2012. It's brown for the IND. Hudson Tubes are thicker black lines, about twice the width of the black el lines. The map is one of the TWELVE HISTORICAL NEW YORK CITY STREET AND TRANSIT MAPS (1860-1967). I also have Volume II. Got them from Barnes & Noble- maybe they can find them for you. They are a must for any NYC transit fan! |
|
|
| (1169619) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon Jul 30 16:25:13 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by The Silence on Sun Jul 29 20:34:25 2012. The el 3rd rail was higher and closer. The subway type was lower and farther away. |
|
|
| (1169620) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon Jul 30 16:28:38 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by tunnelrat on Sat Jul 28 09:52:17 2012. Some BMT gate cars had dual type 3rd rail shoes. The front corners of the anti-climbers were painted white. Anyone know how many of these cars were modified like this? |
|
|
| (1169636) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Jul 30 19:10:54 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by Elkeeper on Mon Jul 30 16:28:38 2012. Thru service to the Rockaways via the (forgot the name) Incline between Jamaica/Fulton Street line and the LIRR Atlantic Branch ? |
|
|
| (1169641) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Mon Jul 30 19:15:08 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by Joe V on Mon Jul 30 19:10:54 2012. chestnut st.incline. |
|
|
| (1169785) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jul 31 17:23:47 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by Elkeeper on Mon Jul 30 16:28:38 2012. NO! Not the cam adjustable shoes used by BRT el cars on the Chestnut Street incline. I was talking about the gate cars that had both subway and elevated type 3rd rail shoes. Does anyone know how many of these gate cars were modified like this? |
|
|
| (1169790) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jul 31 17:36:59 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jul 31 17:23:47 2012. The gate cars didn't have both types of shoes. They had subway type shoes which on the BMT worked with both types of 3rd rail. Why that wouldn't have worked on the IRT, I don't know but I do recall seeing subway shoes on the IRT riding high up on the el 3rd rail like the BMT subway shoes did so I don't know why they couldn't have been similarly designed to work on both types of 3rd rail like the BMT's did. |
|
|
| (1169801) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jul 31 17:59:55 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by randyo on Tue Jul 31 17:36:59 2012. Patents ... patents ... |
|
|
| (1169815) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jul 31 20:16:17 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by randyo on Tue Jul 31 17:36:59 2012. Randy, I saw a photo of a BMT gate car with white corners. The caption said that this identified the car as having both subway and el type third rail shoes. I don't know if this was an experimental car, or what! |
|
|
| (1169885) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Aug 1 04:44:02 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jul 31 17:59:55 2012. Doubtful since joint operation between IRT subway and el service preceded BRT/BMT joint operation bey several years. |
|
|
| (1169886) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 1 04:50:16 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by randyo on Wed Aug 1 04:44:02 2012. Ah ... I was suggesting though that like so many other BRT/BMT situations, that the obviously superior design was probably patented and thus not likely to be adopted anyway. |
|
|
| (1169942) | |
Re: Elevated |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Wed Aug 1 15:52:03 2012, in response to Re: Elevated, posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jul 31 20:16:17 2012. IIRC it means that it was fitted with subway contact "shoes" |
|
|
