|
|
| 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. (1256547) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (1256547) | |
230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 31 21:31:58 2013 Are there any photos out there of the first Bronx terminal of the 1 train...? |
|
|
| (1256575) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Nov 1 00:59:58 2013, in response to 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 31 21:31:58 2013. Wasn't it just a plan that was never actually built? I'm pretty sure I've read that the plans were changed to go to the current terminal at 242 St. before the 230 St. terminal was ever constructed. Early photos of the Broadway el at points north of there, without an actual Broadway under it, have been posted here. |
|
|
| (1256576) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Nov 1 01:10:41 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Nov 1 00:59:58 2013. It was built,but something caused the IRT to close and dismantle it..dont know the entire details.my question was is there any photographic evidence out there.. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1256577) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 1 01:29:36 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Edwards! on Fri Nov 1 01:10:41 2013. Been looking for it too. However, this little ditty might erve as some encouragment:From the original Contract I drawings, the IRT subway was divided into 15 sub-sections: Section 15, Portals near Dyckman Street to northern terminus over Broadway, including bridge over Spuyten Duyvil Creek. Stations at Dyckman Street, 207th Street, 215th Street, 230th Street. North of the Broadway Bridge, the original route turned on 230th Street, crossed the New York Central Railroad's Hudson line, and ended at Bailey Avenue near the New York Central's Putnam division station. The 230th St. station was a two track, single island, elevated station. Service to 230th & Bailey began in March 1906. By 1907 the line was altered to include stations at 225th Street, 231st Street, 238th Street, and 242nd Street-Van Cortlandt Park; and 230th & Bailey was abandoned. |
|
|
| (1256578) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 1 01:35:25 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 1 01:29:36 2013. And HERE it is shown on the original IRT map of 1904:
|
|
|
| (1256581) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Nov 1 02:02:27 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 1 01:29:36 2013. thanks.I've searched..no pics anywhere.. |
|
|
| (1256595) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Nov 1 07:12:21 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 1 01:29:36 2013. That was one really short-lived portion. 242/Broadway was in service by 1908.Also slightly off topic, but scrolling across the map, I see the El Stations at Christopher/Greenwich and Bleecker/West Broadway, and I think how different those neighborhoods are today. |
|
|
| (1256600) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Nov 1 08:03:04 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 1 01:29:36 2013. Are there any traces of the turnout on the steelwork of the el? I thought I had looked and not seen any, but I'll have to look again. |
|
|
| (1256603) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Nov 1 08:24:37 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Nov 1 08:03:04 2013. I do not believe there are any traces... |
|
|
| (1256611) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Fri Nov 1 09:48:09 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by MainR3664 on Fri Nov 1 07:12:21 2013. it was also supposed to go to 262st. |
|
|
| (1256619) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Hart Bus on Fri Nov 1 11:36:10 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by tunnelrat on Fri Nov 1 09:48:09 2013. Could this be the IND's inspiration for 76 Street? A station with no historical proof? |
|
|
| (1256631) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 1 14:46:49 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Hart Bus on Fri Nov 1 11:36:10 2013. Well here, there's proof. Only problem is that back then cameras were big and unwieldy and not a whole lot of photos were taken anywhere. |
|
|
| (1256632) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 1 14:48:10 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Nov 1 08:03:04 2013. Just the turn headed towards 230th with the new section turning it into an S curve. The Marble Hill PJ's which kinda close it in came decades later. |
|
|
| (1256663) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Nov 1 16:44:40 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 1 14:48:10 2013. Yeah, I looked at pictures of it on Google maps and Streetview, and there surely is no trace of the el having turned east. Usually there are traces to be found when an el is sent in a new direction, like the very visible stub north of West Farms Square, or the odd-looking ironwork at Cypress Hills that was recently discussed. The absence of anything visible is what made me think the Bailey Ave. terminal was never actually built, and the total lack of any photographs of such a structure would seem to confirm it. The (1) does veer west of the centerline of Broadway at 230 St., requiring a long crossbeam extending out to a pillar on the NW corner, but that seems to be just to ease the curve that traffic on Broadway follows. I'm wondering if the filling in of Spuyten Duyvil Creek had something to do with the absence of any trace of this turn. Wikipedia says it wasn't filled in until 1914, and some sources say as late as 1917. Was a bridge that spanned the creek removed and replaced with a normal el structure, with the junction of the spur to the former Bailey Ave. terminal being on the section that was replaced? Or could it still be that reports of the 230 St./Bailey Ave. terminal really existing in the first place are simply mistaken? |
|
|
| (1256685) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Nov 1 19:28:02 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Nov 1 16:44:40 2013. It wasn't Spuyten Duyvil Creek that was filled in but rather the original path of the Harlem River. At that point, the Harlem River was not navigable so the ship canal was constructed to provide a means for ships to get from the Harlem to the Hudson River. There was no true bridge over the original river but if one looks carefully, the columns supporting the el structure in that area are just slightly farther apart to allow for the river to pass underneath. The reason for the original terminal at Bailey Av was a station on the NYC Putnam Division, but before the el construction got that far, the NYC closed that station so the route of the el was changed to its present alignment before the Bailey Av station even had a chance to be built. Since the original path of the Harlem River is the true border between Manhattan and the Bronx, the Marble Hill neighborhood is actually in Manhattan and not the Bronx although I have heard that has changed in recent years. |
|
|
| (1256702) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 1 21:49:41 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Nov 1 16:44:40 2013. Hard to say ... I saw a reference to a design change in 1906 in a PSC document which neither stated nor denied that the connection existed, wasn't mentioned at all other than an approved design change. I posted another account which describes an existing terminal with an island platform that was built. Beyond that, nothing.The absence of photos from that far back is neither proof or a denial of its existence - cameras were very big and bulky, very very expensive, and you really needed a genuine reason to send one out to take a picture back in those days. So the absence of any photos wouldn't be a surprise one way or the other. I was saddened to see that the "Riverdale Historical Society" of my childhood disappeared, they might have had any such documentation. There is a Kingsbridge Historical Society, but they have little to nothing either. Their website appears to have never been finished. And so, dunno where to look to either confirm or deny. The original plan made sense as the Kingsbridge stop for the Putnam was right there at Bailey and 230th at the time. Perhaps it was decided that there wasn't enough passenger volume there to bother keeping it one way or the other. |
|
|
| (1256703) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 1 21:51:13 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by randyo on Fri Nov 1 19:28:02 2013. Ah! That's a reasonable explanation. Still, there's accounts of there being the spur and station. Question now would be is that accurate? |
|
|
| (1256737) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Nov 1 23:41:20 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by randyo on Fri Nov 1 19:28:02 2013. "Spuyten Duyvil Creek" is just a name that was used for the original non-navigable course of the northern Harlem River. But thanks for the other info. |
|
|
| (1256738) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Nov 2 00:47:39 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by randyo on Fri Nov 1 19:28:02 2013. It has not changed. Marble Hill is part of Manhattan and that's the way they like it. |
|
|
| (1256739) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Nov 2 00:49:26 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Edwards! on Fri Nov 1 01:10:41 2013. No, it never existed. You're confusing it with the temporary 221st St Station. |
|
|
| (1256740) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Nov 2 00:49:57 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by randyo on Fri Nov 1 19:28:02 2013. THANK YOU! The rest of this thread has been so frustrating. |
|
|
| (1256749) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Nov 2 06:31:34 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Nov 2 00:49:57 2013. THANK YOU! The rest of this thread has been so frustrating.The most frustrating part is that no pictures of 230th & Bailey Ave. have yet to surface. It seems in an era when everything was documented photographically there is no image history of this station ? How about NYC photo archives as well a public libraries as a start. There's gotta be at least one photo somewhere. :( Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1256797) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Sat Nov 2 15:57:40 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Nov 2 00:47:39 2013. Correct. |
|
|
| (1256842) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Nov 2 21:45:41 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 1 21:49:41 2013. There is a Bronx County Historical Society; they might know. |
|
|
| (1256846) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Nov 2 22:04:15 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by italianstallion on Sat Nov 2 21:45:41 2013. Pretty pricey research fee ... I'd prefer the two drink minimum and cover charge myself. So tried tickling the tiger on the site to see if maybe, but nothing. Still ... interesting that they're in my old haunt up Bainbridge by Montefiore, and I can see that they're fairly well funded too for what they're doing. Glad to see it! |
|
|
| (1256988) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Nov 3 23:21:17 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Nov 2 22:04:15 2013. Given the complete lack of Internet evidence or other documentation, is is doubtful the station was ever built. |
|
|
| (1256990) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Nov 3 23:47:42 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by italianstallion on Sun Nov 3 23:21:17 2013. Even the PSC documents conflict. 1906 it says that the station was built, 1907 says that the plans had been changed for 242 ... and that's about it. :-\The lack of photographic proof isn't a big surprise. The lack of paper though is ... well ... |
|
|
| (1257002) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Nov 4 01:54:15 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Nov 2 06:31:34 2013. The frustrating part is that people continue to believe it existed. |
|
|
| (1257003) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Nov 4 01:55:36 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by italianstallion on Sun Nov 3 23:21:17 2013. YES! There is evidence that it was planned to be built, but by that logic the 2nd Avenue Subway was built and put into use decades ago. |
|
|
| (1257004) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Nov 4 01:57:30 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Nov 3 23:47:42 2013. Except that the bridge over the Harlem River Ship Canal (the original one) was not opened until 1907. |
|
|
| (1257010) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Nov 4 03:15:52 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Nov 4 01:57:30 2013. That may be ... wasn't around for it, so I have to depend on those who care. :) |
|
|
| (1257012) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Nov 4 04:17:42 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Nov 2 00:49:57 2013. hmm..its "frustrating" for you?for what? either it WAS built or it wasn't. the ORIGINAL TEXT from Kevin's link clearly stated it was constructed..yet removed or better yet, realigned due to a number of reasons. ridiculous. |
|
|
| (1257013) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Mon Nov 4 04:58:12 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Nov 4 01:57:30 2013. Except that the bridge over the Harlem River Ship Canal (the original one) was not opened until 1907.That was the second bridge. The first one opened in 1895 even before the canal was completed. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (1257014) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Nov 4 05:32:02 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Edwards! on Mon Nov 4 04:17:42 2013. Well ... in fairness, that was only one bit of "information" and the minutes of the PSC hearing throw that into doubt as follows:==================================================== Source: http://www.archive.org/stream/report00distgoog/report00distgoog_djvu.txt In the letter of counsel of 16th July, 1903, printed at page 2219, Vol. 4 of the Rapid Transit Minutes, it is said : " In drafting the tmpers for the proposed spur to Fort Lee Ferry on 130th Street and the proposed connection with the Manhattan Elevated Railroad at 3rd and Westchester Avenue, we have had to consider whether these spurs are to be deemed to be technically complete new routes within the meaning of the provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Rapid Transit Act prescribing the form of contracts and the procedure in letting them, or whether on the other hand, these spurs were to be treated merely as incidents of the main line of the Rapid Transit Railroad now under construction. We are satisfied that the latter is the case. Each of these spurs is very short, costing a relatively small sum of money, perhaps $100,000 or $150,000, and of no value whatever except as an incident to the Manhattan -Bronx Rapid Transit Railroad. It would seem to be quite absurd that, for the construction of these spurs, the Board should go through the Illusory form of competition involving delay and larg^ expense and should require in each case a cash deposit of $1,000,000 and a bond. The competition would be sheerly illusory, for the only value of the spurs is in making the Manhattan-Bronx Railroad more useful to the traveling public." In concluding this opinion, however, the counsel thought it well to qualify it by adding to it as the last paragraph the following statement: •' It Is proper for us to add that this, in our opinion, would not apply to any addition or extension long or important enough to be treated as a route in itself or as something more than a relatively unimportant incident to the main line of railroad already contracted for." It Is to be noted that one of the reasons which doubtless had considerable effect In the decision of this matter, namely, the requirement of a cash deposit of a million dollars and a bond on all contracts, is no longer present, the Rapid Transit Act having been amended In that regard. In the second opinion, that in relation to the Van Cortlandt park extension, of 6th August, 1906, printed at page 4293, Vol. 7 of the Minutes, the scope of section 3 is somewhat extended, but the general reasoning of the Fort Lee ferry opinion is reafflrmed. In this opinion the counsel said : " The Van Cortlandt Park extension is on elevated line of about 5,300 feet, or almost exactly one mile In length. If constructed it Is Intended to omit the part of the original line extending from Broadway to Bailey Avenue, about 600 feet long. The net addition to the original line will therefore be about 4,700 feet, less than nine-tenths of a mile of elevated railway. It Is proposed by the Chief Engineer to construct three stations on the new extension, namely, at 231st Street, 238th Street and 242nd Street, the latter being located near the entrance to Van Cortlandt Park. The actual cost of this extension is estimated by the Chief Engineer at $735,000, while the estimated cost of the part to be omitted from Broadway to Bailey Avenue is $60,000, not including the ccwt of the terminal station which Is replaced by that at Van Cortlandt Park entrance. "It will thus be 'seen that the proposed line constitutes a net addition to the original route of about 4% in length and less than 2% in cost. It was so desinied as to be attached to and used with the original road. It obviously would be of no value as an independent line, for, as laid out by your Board and approved by the other constituted authorities, it could command no traffic If separated from the main stem." (distortions in text due to google OCR software used as captchas on websites) ==================================================================== *BUT* ... HEARING ORDER No. 770. October 7, 1908. An application, dated October 6, 1908, having been made by the Union Railway Company of New York city and by Frederick W. Whitrldge, as receiver of the Union Railway Company, under section 68 of the Railroad Law, to the Public Service Commission for the First District, asking the Commission to fix and deter- mine the crossing of the applicant's street railroad tracks to be extended on 230th street, borough of The Bronx, between Broadway and Bailey avenue, with the tracks of the Putnam division of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company (an existing steam railroad) and asking for a determination whether the tracks of the Union Railway Company (a street railroad corporation) shall pass above, below or at grade of the tracks of the Putnam Division of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company. Ordered, That a hearing be had in the hearing room, in the office of the Public Service Commission for the First District. No. 154 Nassau street, citv of New York, at 2.30 o'clock p. m., October 13, 1908, at which hearing the said applica- tion will be considered. Further Ordered, That notice of this hearing be given by mall to the Union Railway Company, to Frederick W. Whitrldge, as receiver of the said Union Rail- way Company, to the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, to the city of New York, to the corporation counsel and to the following property owners, being the owners of all the property on Two Hundred and Thirtieth street on the line of the proposed extension from Broadway to Bailey avenue, in the borough of the Bronx: Emma L. Moller, Cortlandt Godwin, George G. Godwin, Baynor Godwin, Waldo S. Godwin and Ada Godwin Randall. Hearing held October 13th. The matter is not determined. =============================================== I cannot locate the data I found the other day about subcontract 15 of the original contract one construction, but it too was vague as to whether it was built or not. Hopefully someone else can dig it up, need to get some sleep. However, given the lack of any record of its existence, I'm inclined to believe that it wasn't built and that the redirect of the line to Van Cortlandt Park was set in stone before the steel actually got there. But I'll keep an open mind ... |
|
|
| (1257015) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Nov 4 05:38:29 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Nov 4 05:32:02 2013. Forgot to finish my point there - the 2008 hearing about trackage rights seems to not mention anything about Interborough or any existing or non-existing facilities - it's possible that they might have existed and had been completely removed by then, but then again it wouldn't be like the PSC to have not invited comment since if any construction had been done, there would be valuable data about the street and local environment that they could have obtained.So looks like it's possible that it wasn't built at all ... but like I said, I have nothing either way. |
|
|
| (1257016) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Nov 4 05:38:57 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Mon Nov 4 04:58:12 2013. Yep ... |
|
|
| (1257021) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Nov 4 07:05:21 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by randyo on Fri Nov 1 19:28:02 2013. I believe that Marble Hill is to this day, still legally Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1257028) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Nov 4 10:19:08 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Mon Nov 4 04:58:12 2013. I believe that he was referring to the "original" double deck bridge that was specifically designed for rapid transit as opposed to the single deck bridge which was removed to 207 St. |
|
|
| (1257029) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Nov 4 10:24:01 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Nov 3 23:47:42 2013. The PSC document really doesn't say it was actually built, bur just proposed. The terminology uses the term "omitted" rather than demolished seeming to indicate that the station was never built at all. As I mentioned, I believe somewhere in this thread, by the time construction had reached that point, the NYC Putnam Div station where the Bailey Av terminal was to be was closed thereby eliminating the main source of ridership for the original proposed station. |
|
|
| (1257033) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Nov 4 10:46:22 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 1 21:49:41 2013. The absence of photos from that far back is neither proof or a denial of its existence - cameras were very big and bulky, very very expensive, and you really needed a genuine reason to send one out to take a picture back in those days. So the absence of any photos wouldn't be a surprise one way or the other.The IRT was pretty diligent with photos to document construction, many of which are in the New York Transit Museum collection. This is Broadway at 230th Street looking north, May 28, 1907:  This photo is captioned Tracks near 230th Street in the Bronx on the IRT West Side / Seventh Avenue Line and is probably the NYC. It's dated February 27, 1907. 
|
|
|
| (1257034) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Nov 4 10:49:19 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Nov 3 23:47:42 2013. 1906 it says that the station was built, 1907 says that the plans had been changed for 242 ... and that's about it. :-\225th Street opened as the northern terminus on January 14, 1907. There was no station at 230th in 1906. |
|
|
| (1257038) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Tony Clifton on Mon Nov 4 12:26:36 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Nov 4 10:46:22 2013. Might the top photo be facing south? |
|
|
| (1257044) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Mon Nov 4 13:30:57 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Nov 4 10:49:19 2013. GREAT article! |
|
|
| (1257045) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Nov 4 13:41:45 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Tony Clifton on Mon Nov 4 12:26:36 2013. What looks like the Con Ed power plant S/O 207 St in the distance does seem to make it look like it is facing south. |
|
|
| (1257048) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Nov 4 13:54:59 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Mon Nov 4 04:58:12 2013. The original subway bridge. The first bridge had no rapid transit tracks. |
|
|
| (1257049) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Nov 4 13:59:19 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Nov 4 05:32:02 2013. The first one does not in any way imply that the connection to 230th/Bailey was actually completed.The second one mentions "street railway tracks" having nothing to do with the IRT. |
|
|
| (1257060) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by chud1 on Mon Nov 4 15:07:55 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Nov 4 10:46:22 2013. 5 drooling stars out of 5 drooling stars on these pictures.chud1. :).... |
|
|
| (1257065) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Nov 4 16:25:21 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by randyo on Mon Nov 4 10:24:01 2013. Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm leaning. The interesting NEW morsel though is that the streetcar line proposed in 2008 was going to go there. When I was with PSC, got to read an awful lot of historicals when cable was planning to go underground with distribution and back in those days, if something existed at all, they'd dig up the blueprints and geology data in order to use anything that already existed for data.I see the absence of any request to Interborough for data interesting. But still, there's reports of a "viaduct" with an island platform there, so something's amiss. Given that PSC paperwork that I've found is lacking in any details though as well as the change order on subcontract 15 to head for the park, looks like it might not have gotten built at all by the time the changes were made. I wonder where that description of a finished terminal came from? And of course the IRT map showing it existing rather than proposed? |
|
|
| (1257069) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Nov 4 16:42:31 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Nov 4 10:46:22 2013. Yep ... as others have observed, the museum's got it wrong, that's looking south with the Con Ed steam plant at 207 in the background. Second photo looks to be the Put owing to the apartment buildings on Bailey there.I don't see any signs of a terminal for the IRT in the second photo which should be visible there to the right, but the first photo is definitely the nail in the proverbial coffin for there being any construction along 230th. There'd definitely be signs of steel work or at least pillar posts and there are not. Add to that the viaduct below where that turn would be is being constructed, and in 1907 at that clearly removes anything from 2006 from the table. THANKS! We have a definitive answer now! |
|
|
| (1257070) | |
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Nov 4 16:48:38 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Nov 4 10:49:19 2013. Yep ... that photo you just posted pretty much sealed it. And yet the PSC contract one report stated that there was. Yet another PSC document noted the change order, but was written in such a way as to indicate that the steel was going to be rerouted to 242. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
