|
|
| Re: Essex- Before the IND (1243575) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 9 |
||
|
| (1244072) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Aug 25 20:30:33 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Handbrake on Sun Aug 25 20:24:26 2013. It's not a case of railfan folklore. It is well documented in articles about Hylan and his hatred of the "wicked traction interests" controlled by the BMT and the IRT. |
|
|
| (1244074) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Aug 25 20:40:59 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by 3-9 on Sun Aug 25 20:04:09 2013. There was no "imminent demise" of the 6th Ave el on Sept 10th, 1932, when Canal St opened. The el didn't close until 12/04/38, some 6 years later. I believe that one of the reasons that Canal Street-Holland Tunnel was an express station was to handle bus traffic from NJ. Bear in mind that the Lincoln Tunnel didn't open until 11/13/37 and the Port Authority Bus Terminal wasn't opened until 1950. So, unless you used the old GWB terminal at 168th/B'way, the only other bus routes to NYC would have been via the Holland Tunnel. Right? |
|
|
| (1244084) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Aug 25 20:45:37 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Handbrake on Sat Aug 24 21:55:26 2013. It would have been better for overall urban development & mass transit expantion if the Flushing line was to be extended further eastbound, perhaps under Roosevelt Ave to Northern Blvd, then north under Utopia Pkwy or Francis Lewis Blvd to Whitestone.Think of how different the landscape would be if that happened. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1244088) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Aug 25 20:50:18 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Handbrake on Sat Aug 24 21:55:26 2013. The IRT went into receivership on August 26th, 1932. The first section of the IND 8th Ave line opened 16 days later, on Sept 10th. |
|
|
| (1244089) | |
Re: Essex- After the IND |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Aug 25 20:52:29 2013, in response to Re: Essex- After the IND, posted by randyo on Sun Aug 25 20:16:26 2013. I presume that this Bedford Ave line would have been hooked up to the South 4th Street station? |
|
|
| (1244092) | |
Re: Essex- After the IND |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Sun Aug 25 20:56:26 2013, in response to Re: Essex- After the IND, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Aug 25 20:52:29 2013. you presume right. |
|
|
| (1244095) | |
Re: Essex- After the IND |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Aug 25 21:00:04 2013, in response to Re: Essex- After the IND, posted by tunnelrat on Sun Aug 25 20:56:26 2013. So, that explains why South 4th St had been planned for 6 tracks: 4 to Utica and 2 to Bedford. |
|
|
| (1244097) | |
Re: Essex- After the IND |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Sun Aug 25 21:02:36 2013, in response to Re: Essex- After the IND, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Aug 25 21:00:04 2013. it had been planned for 8 tracks,cut back to 6. yes to the question. |
|
|
| (1244099) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sun Aug 25 21:09:30 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Aug 25 20:01:13 2013. Does it not have to do with the arrangement of how the Queens trains are so deep under 53rd st, that they needed to a) have a second level at the 50th st local stop, and b) lessen the grade of the Queens trains rising to meet the main local tracks?As far as Penn Station is concerned, it has already been noted here that the IND was just doing what the IRT had done twenty years before - separate local/express platforms because the station was going to be busy enough, and they did not want to have cross platform transfers at all. |
|
|
| (1244100) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Handbrake on Sun Aug 25 21:12:42 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by randyo on Sun Aug 25 20:30:33 2013. Hyland may have hated the BMT & IRT operators, but on individual alone can not alter policy. Hyland was well on his way out when the third system was being built.Elevated transit lines were targeted for replacement by underground subways. The Manhattan El's had to go in order to develop the east side of Manhattan in the manner that it became today. The problem with transit in NYC was that the automobile won out on available monies that resulted in little to no transit growth while highway construction boomed. The unfortunate fact is that the auto capitalized on the strong post war US economy that existed up until the 1970's. Prior to this our competitors in Europe, and Asia, notably Japan, were still recovering from war devastation. The US had an economic head start after WW2. Unfortunate the auto was in the right place at the right time to shape how we live today at the expense of mass transit, and US railroads. The auto made development of the suburban us landscape take place. The thinking with the dual contracts, and the building of what is known as the IND was based on the predominant transportation mode of the day, rail. In the 1920's NYC still had vast open parcels of land, similar in scope to what suburbia looked like in the 1950's. When NYC filled up, the move was to develop outwardly. The auto became the preferred mode of transportation as US affluence increased post WW2. If memory serves me correct. The IND was built to the same specifications as the BMT. While there was consideration of a subway car that could be universally used on both the IRT and BMT line tunnels, it was eventually determined that the IND would be BMT like in terms of compatibility. The BMT, I believe, was approached to operate the new system, but what turned down the offer. Preliminarily based on not being able to get the fare raised above five cents. Had the BMT did operate what we know as the IND, i suspect that the IND would not have looked much different than what it looked like in 1940. In fact connections between the two systems, assuming that would have been part of the operating deal, would have given NYC line integrations similar to what is in place today. |
|
|
| (1244102) | |
Re: Essex- After the IND |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Aug 25 21:18:13 2013, in response to Re: Essex- After the IND, posted by tunnelrat on Sun Aug 25 21:02:36 2013. According to my Hagstrom map, Bedford Ave is closer to Franklin Ave than Nostrand. Unless, the plans were changed after the concrete for the Franklin Ave station had been poured. Nostrand was supposed to have been a local stop, I believe. |
|
|
| (1244106) | |
Re: Essex- After the IND |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 25 21:42:59 2013, in response to Re: Essex- After the IND, posted by jabrams on Sat Aug 24 19:17:14 2013. Essex when the walls fell. IND with sails unfurled.
|
|
|
| (1244110) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun Aug 25 21:56:17 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Aug 25 20:40:59 2013. But wasn't the 6th Avenue tunnels already in the planning stages as the 8th Ave lines were being built? The 6th Ave lines were definitely not an afterthought. In fact, the 6th and 8th Ave tunnels pretty much duplicated what the 6th Ave el did. So it wouldn't be reaching to say that the demise of the el was something they factored in.Also, was there ever a bus terminal at the Manhattan end of the Holland Tunnel? |
|
|
| (1244111) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Aug 25 22:06:32 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Handbrake on Sun Aug 25 21:12:42 2013. I had always wondered why the Manhattan els were not severed (and shut down) when the IRT officially went bankrupt on Aug 26th, 1932. This almost happened in 1921-22, when the IRT almost went under like the BRT did. In 1903, the Interboro leased the MER and agreed to pay it a sum of just over $7 million dollars/year. However, by 1921, the IRT was in a difficult financial position and wanted to reduce the annual payments to a little over $4 million. At first, the MER Directors (who sat on the IRT's Board) balked, until the IRT threatened to spin them off and make them pay for some $30 million in improvements- including $17 million for third tracking the els. The MER directors finally agreed to the $4 million/year number with the proviso that the MER would never be spun off. When LaGuardia condemned and bought the 6th Ave el in 1938, the $12.5 million, minus back taxes, went to the MER bondholders- not to the IRT. |
|
|
| (1244114) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Aug 25 22:23:51 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by 3-9 on Sun Aug 25 21:56:17 2013. Yes, the 6th Ave subway had been planned, as you said. As early as 1922, there were calls by business and real estate interests to tear down the 6th Ave el. All Hylan could do was to get the 58th St spur torn down in 1923. In 1930, another wave of, "Tear it down!", was in the newspapers. But, there was no replacement for the el, so nothing happened until LaGuardia made it a campaign promise. Even so, the City had to reinforce the el structure, when the first phase of the 6th Ave subway was begun- between 40th and 47th streets. that was because the City did not know how long it would take to close the el. Read my other posting about why it was so difficult to shut down the Manhattan els. |
|
|
| (1244121) | |
Re: Essex- After the IND |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Sun Aug 25 22:45:51 2013, in response to Re: Essex- After the IND, posted by randyo on Sun Aug 25 20:22:48 2013. I agree. There's an immediate steep upgrade on the B/D track right off the end of the platform. It's too bad they didn't relocate the crossover west (subway north) of B'way Laf. There appears to be only a curtain wall between the 2 tracks at some locations so it probably wouldn't have been necessary to cut through a load bearing wall. |
|
|
| (1244123) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by R211 on Sun Aug 25 22:49:52 2013, in response to Essex- Before the IND, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Aug 23 14:01:43 2013. Abandoned Stations : Williamsburg Bridge Railway terminal - http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/willb.html |
|
|
| (1244124) | |
Re: Essex- After the IND |
|
|
Posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Sun Aug 25 22:50:14 2013, in response to Re: Essex- After the IND, posted by jabrams on Sun Aug 25 17:05:19 2013. On the 1929 E. Belcher Hyde insurance maps for Brooklyn, the Smith Street/Prospect Park Brooklyn IND is marked on the streets as "New Subway to be Constructed" with the Seventh Avenue station listed as "New Local Subway Station" and the Fourth Avenue station described as "New Express Subway Station." Both are at their current locations (ie: Fourth Avenue shows "city subway property" where the portal was built, so this wasn't drawn before it was decided to put the line on a viaduct rather than tunneling under the canal).These could just be errors. Or, perhaps the BoT decided that it was too difficult to engineer and/or expensive to build an express station just beyond the portal. I've never seen a 1920s IND/BoT planning map with stations, just route maps, and the Times articles I've read from the 20s and 30s only mention some stations, so I know of no way to confirm or refute the labels on these maps. |
|
|
| (1244125) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Aug 25 23:10:23 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by R211 on Sun Aug 25 22:49:52 2013. The third Ave railway System bought out the Drydock in 1897. |
|
|
| (1244130) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Asgard on Sun Aug 25 23:52:12 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Joe V on Sun Aug 25 06:48:41 2013. But how many IND stations on four-track lines south of 59th Street *weren't* express stops?Only 3, IIRC - 50th, 23rd, and Spring. |
|
|
| (1244135) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Aug 26 01:22:26 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Aug 25 20:40:59 2013. greyhound has their terminal located at 34th st 8th before being forced to move into the PABT. |
|
|
| (1244136) | |
Re: Essex- After the IND |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Aug 26 01:59:20 2013, in response to Re: Essex- After the IND, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Aug 25 21:00:04 2013. NOT EXACTLY..There were different concepts drawn up for the S4th/Beaver/Bushwick ave subway route from the west and east of the Bushwick/Troutman st station.. 1] 2 tracks to Myrtle ave into Queens,where it would be joined by a route from the QB line along Fresh Pond Road. these routes would then travel to the LIRR row through Forest park to the Rockaway line[on its own row],where one route split off to southeast Queens along 120th ave to Foch Blvd. the other would basically be what we have today..except the Rockaway park branch would terminate further along near 150th. 2]4 tracks for the UTICA AVE SUBWAY..to southern Brooklyn Sheepshead bay.this was the continuation of the 6th avenue express service,plus 8th ave locals from Worth st subway. Another set of plans had the Broadway El eliminated completely..replaced by a 4 track subway at least as far as Cypress Hills,where it would be joined by two tracks from the 14th st line,continuing along the present day el along Jamaica ave. along with the above,4 tracks would branch off along Flushing ave to the proposed Long Island thruway[today's LIE along Horance Harding blvd]to northeast Queens. The Second avenue route would add two tracks from its Houston st station,joining the 6th ave exp tracks at Essex st/Houston to new river tunnels...while a branch from the 8th ave local's Worth st subway cut across a section of lower Manhattan's Federal court district to the lower east side,then to the S4TH st route via a new river tube and Broadway Brooklyn. can you imagine what that would be like,with all that rail traffic? fantasic.. |
|
|
| (1244137) | |
Re: Essex- After the IND |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Mon Aug 26 02:24:54 2013, in response to Re: Essex- After the IND, posted by tunnelrat on Sun Aug 25 20:01:13 2013. There is a closed passageway with a crossover to Bedford Avenue at the north end of the upper level along with a closed exit to Arlington Place. The closed passageway was built for a transfer to an proposed Bedford Avenue Subway, which is why the overpass was placed there. There might a shell station at this location. There is an emergency exit at that location is in fact the superstructure for an Bedford Avenue subway. The lower level has a curtain wall separating the two tracks and inside are two additional trackways. From the northbound platform’s south end a hole in the wall allows a bright flashlight beam to show those trackways.just outside of nostrand ave station, there is some sort of provision in the tunnel structure for the eventual construction for an Bedford Avenue subway. The tunnel roof is unusually high to provide the space for the construction for the future subway. It's interesting to note that all the proposed IND Second System or even the "Third System" lines, there seems to be the least information about an Bedford Avenue subway other than that one was proposed. That may also be why there are only minimal provisions for its construction as opposed to other lines of the IND Second System. |
|
|
| (1244149) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Mon Aug 26 05:05:37 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Aug 25 20:40:59 2013. Lincoln Tunnel opened on November 13th, 1927. |
|
|
| (1244153) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 26 07:05:10 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Aug 25 20:40:59 2013. There was a small Greyhound terminal across the street form Penn Station |
|
|
| (1244154) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 26 07:08:58 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Handbrake on Sun Aug 25 21:12:42 2013. ( Had the BMT did operate what we know as the IND, i suspect that the IND would not have looked much different than what it looked like in 1940. )BMT express tracks at 57th were supposed to be the CPW service. Had that happened, would there have been an 8th Avenue subway running up CPW as well ? |
|
|
| (1244155) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Mon Aug 26 07:18:19 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 26 07:08:58 2013. North of 57th Street on the BMT Broadway Subway Line two trackwaysturns west from the local tracks, and curve slightly towards the west before ending. This was a plan for a line that would serve the Upper West Side. When the BRT/BMT was building the Broadway line as part of the Dual Contracts, the company also wanted to be awarded the Central Park West/8th Avenue route, which was on the planning boards at that time. The company figured that if they built ramps from the Broadway line that could naturally be extended to an 8th Avenue line, they would get a toehold on being awarded that line, rather than lose out to the IRT, the only other subway operator when the Dual Contracts were built. The BMT/BRT never built that line for various reasons including the bankruptcy of the company after Malbone Street and Hylan's plan to include the 8th Avenue/CPW route in the IND system. The ramps were built but never used for revenue service. If you look carefully, there are actual track on those trackways (covered by many years of dirt--they are like two parrallel bumps). I've walked over the dirt covered stretch. If it's not track someone did a good job of making it look that way. The old tunnel went about 500 ft or so, not sure. There are power and signal rooms back there. |
|
|
| (1244156) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Aug 26 07:22:51 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by renee gil on Mon Aug 26 07:18:19 2013. The express trackways are now used for access to 63 St and the local trackways have, I believe, unfortunately been blocked by some signal relay equipment. |
|
|
| (1244159) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Aug 26 07:30:29 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Aug 25 20:45:37 2013. The Flushing Line was supposed to have been extended along the LIRR ROW for some distance. When I first rode the Port Wash branch in the 1960s, the LIRR ROW was 4 tracks wide with only 2 tracks installed. The tracks were laid in the middle trackways and swung out at the stations to permit LIRR trains to make the stops. As planned, the LIRR would have been express and the IRT would have been local. |
|
|
| (1244160) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Aug 26 07:31:42 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Asgard on Sun Aug 25 23:52:12 2013. 50/8 wasn't even a true "local" stop since Es that ran express stopped there. |
|
|
| (1244161) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Aug 26 07:33:29 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sun Aug 25 21:09:30 2013. the depth of 53 St really had nothing to do with it since the N/B Qns track descends into 50 St at the same level as the S/B. |
|
|
| (1244162) | |
Re: Essex- After the IND |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Aug 26 07:37:01 2013, in response to Re: Essex- After the IND, posted by tunnelrat on Sun Aug 25 20:56:26 2013. Then what route would the Bedford Av subway have taken to get to So 4 St since the So 4 St station shell is east of Bedford Av. Would the Bedford Av subway have entered So 4 St from west of Union Ave? |
|
|
| (1244163) | |
Re: Essex- After the IND |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Aug 26 07:40:32 2013, in response to Re: Essex- After the IND, posted by renee gil on Mon Aug 26 02:24:54 2013. I've mentioned that oddity several times myself. However, as I mentioned in another post about Hylan's ant BMT vendetta, it is likely that since Hylan was out of office when the iND construction actually started, some of the lines intended to do harm to specific BMT lines were deferred more that others and Bedford seems to fit that description. |
|
|
| (1244164) | |
Re: Essex- After the IND |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Aug 26 07:41:30 2013, in response to Re: Essex- After the IND, posted by VictorM on Sun Aug 25 22:45:51 2013. There was a plan to do just that but it got lost in red tape somewhere. |
|
|
| (1244166) | |
Re: Essex- After the IND Phase 2 Maps |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon Aug 26 07:55:10 2013, in response to Re: Essex- After the IND, posted by Edwards! on Mon Aug 26 01:59:20 2013. Maybe these will help you visualize the proposed Phase two System.The 1929 Version.  The 1939 Version. 
|
|
|
| (1244170) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Mon Aug 26 08:34:43 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 26 07:05:10 2013. 
|
|
|
| (1244171) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Mon Aug 26 08:41:00 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Edwards! on Mon Aug 26 01:22:26 2013. You mean ONE of their terminals - they also had one at 50th and Broadway. This was a legacy of Greyhound, in the beginning, not being a monolithic corporate entity, but a conglomeration of several loosely connected companies. The 34th st terminal was known as Pennsylvania Greyhound, and 50th st, Capitol Greyhound. The PRR had quite a large stake in a couple of Greyhound components - which was quite the standard practice for railroads in those days. A lot of the old Trailways/Continental Trailways routes in the West, were formerly owned by the Santa Fe or UP.The reason they BUILT the PABT, is because their were literally a dozen different bus stations in the Times Square/42 st area - with the resultant quagmire of buses clogging up traffic, spewing diesel fumes, you name it. As late as 1961, Greyhound STILL operated out of their two separate terminals. The city almost literally had to put their coconuts in a vise to get the Hound to move off the city streets. |
|
|
| (1244172) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 26 08:43:43 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Newkirk Images on Mon Aug 26 08:34:43 2013. The should have left it there for the M4 and Q32 buses. There are also lots of charter buses parked along there now.Wonder what all the Privates and Trailways franchises did prior to the Lincoln Tunnel. I can't believe there were all spontaneously created in 1937. |
|
|
| (1244174) | |
Re: Essex- After the IND Phase 2 Maps |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 26 08:52:33 2013, in response to Re: Essex- After the IND Phase 2 Maps, posted by Avid Reader on Mon Aug 26 07:55:10 2013. Would the Utica Avenue Branch have run under Broadway-Bklyn or a little north of it, parallel ?10th Ave subway - System III ? 2nd Avenue subway from downtown to the Bronx would have been very solitary/isolated. |
|
|
| (1244175) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Aug 26 08:56:54 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 26 08:43:43 2013. Wonder what all the Privates and Trailways franchises did prior to the Lincoln Tunnel.Holland Tunnel. But before that? Maybe they went to a H&M Tubes station. And/or maybe the buses rode the ferry. |
|
|
| (1244176) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 26 08:57:38 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Mon Aug 26 08:41:00 2013. The 1948 takeover of the bus successor to Buffalo & Lake Erie traction, which was more or less US20 between Cleveland and Buffalo, is what brought Greyhound from the midwest into upstate NY.What about East and West Side Airline terminals, which were not very convenient, and Carry went to. How did they last so long ? I think the West Side terminal hulk is still there. I remember Gray Line buses running out of there as well in the 1960's. |
|
|
| (1244180) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Mon Aug 26 09:25:48 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by 3-9 on Sun Aug 25 21:56:17 2013. My search of the Times found one article from January 29, 1927:OFFERS BUS TERMINAL PLAN; Industrial Association Suggests Holland Tunnel Plaza as Site. Following suggestions to use the space under Bryant Park as a bus terminal and the City Club's recent plea for decentralization, the Transportation Committee of the Lower Manhattan Industrial Association announced yesterday that it would ask the Board of Estimate and the New York-New Jersey Tunnel Commission to consider as a possible bus terminal the space under the entrance plaza of the new Holland tunnel. I found no further mention of the proposal. Bryant Park was also being considered as a bus terminal location. And, another group proposed a bus terminal at Union Square, arguing that is made more sense than Bryant Park because it was closer to the Holland Tunnel and the ferries on the west side (which had buses connecting to them) as well as its subway lines to Midtown. |
|
|
| (1244183) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Mon Aug 26 09:39:48 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by randyo on Mon Aug 26 07:22:51 2013. at one time standards were stored on those ramps. |
|
|
| (1244184) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Mon Aug 26 09:43:04 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by randyo on Mon Aug 26 07:30:29 2013. the lirr nixed that plan for the simple reason that most of their revenue came from the queens stations & they charged 15 cents to get to penn.station & the irt was going to charge 5 cents. |
|
|
| (1244185) | |
Re: Essex- After the IND |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Mon Aug 26 09:44:33 2013, in response to Re: Essex- After the IND, posted by randyo on Mon Aug 26 07:37:01 2013. offhand I can`t say,but it has been posted here. |
|
|
| (1244188) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 26 10:11:21 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by tunnelrat on Mon Aug 26 09:43:04 2013. I thought the LIRR hated stopping in Queens ? |
|
|
| (1244190) | |
Re: Essex- After the IND Phase 2 Maps |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 26 10:18:59 2013, in response to Re: Essex- After the IND Phase 2 Maps, posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 26 08:52:33 2013. North of it, parallel.Not sure why they just didn't propose connecting the J line into it east of Myrtle. No way the entire Utica Ave line could have exploited all that capacity provided by both the Houston and Worth St. tubes. |
|
|
| (1244192) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Aug 26 10:26:53 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 26 10:11:21 2013. hell..they hated Brooklyn and Queens.. |
|
|
| (1244193) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Mon Aug 26 10:32:46 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by renee gil on Mon Aug 26 05:05:37 2013. i meant the Holland Tunnel opened on November 13th, 1927. |
|
|
| (1244194) | |
Re: Essex- Before the IND |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 26 10:34:28 2013, in response to Re: Essex- Before the IND, posted by Joe V on Sun Aug 25 19:27:26 2013. The IRT also made Times Square a local stop.The IRT was built in 1904. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 9 |
||
