|
|
| Franklin Shuttle (1418199) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (1418199) | |
Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Fri Dec 2 17:42:56 2016 With talk about the shuttle running on the Malborne Street (west or south side), it is interesting that the tunnel portal with that sharp S turn was designed to handle 75 foot cars, where parts of the eastern division, built after cannot. |
|
|
| (1418221) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Dec 2 19:25:40 2016, in response to Franklin Shuttle, posted by jabrams on Fri Dec 2 17:42:56 2016. I can't think of a part of the Eastern Division, built AFTER the Malbone curve, that has sharper curves than Malbone. |
|
|
| (1418239) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Dec 2 20:39:00 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by SLRT on Fri Dec 2 19:25:40 2016. Cypress Hills-Elderts Lane on the J/Z?? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1418240) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Dec 2 20:41:16 2016, in response to Franklin Shuttle, posted by jabrams on Fri Dec 2 17:42:56 2016. The Malbone St Tunnel has a single track. The major reason 75 footers don't use the Eastern Division is that the car body extends over an adjacent track. That's obviously not a problem here.Various tunnels were sculpted so that the 75 footers could pass through. I don't know if Malbone St were one of these. However, I would be surprised if it weren't. |
|
|
| (1418249) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Fri Dec 2 21:55:55 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Dec 2 20:39:00 2016. NO,THAT WAS BUILT IN 1916/17. |
|
|
| (1418250) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by gbs on Fri Dec 2 22:02:49 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Dec 2 20:41:16 2016. When the Stillwell terminal was completely rebuilt and the new tracks were embedded into the concrete, it was discovered afterwards that one of the tracks south of the N platform (not used in regular service) is too close to one of the Q tracks (always in regular service for Q trains entering and leaving the terminal), so the track south of the N platform was taken out of service and blocked off. And these tracks were installed only a few years ago with the 75' cars in use by those lines! |
|
|
| (1418251) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Dec 2 22:19:43 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Dec 2 20:41:16 2016. "Various tunnels were sculpted so that the 75 footers could pass through."IIRC, B division tunnels were built for 70 ft cars. Thus the need for two R-1s cut in half with an erector set mock up in the middle to stretch it to 75 ft with whiskers to check the clearances for the proposed 75ft R-44s. |
|
|
| (1418255) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Sat Dec 3 00:58:05 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by TUNNELRAT on Fri Dec 2 21:55:55 2016. What year?I couldn't hear you. |
|
|
| (1418273) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by zac on Sat Dec 3 07:59:29 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by gbs on Fri Dec 2 22:02:49 2016. Didn't they even have that problem on Second Ave? After all that work there were a few spots that were too tight. I never did read anything about how it was corrected, but my guess is it was minor. |
|
|
| (1418278) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Sat Dec 3 08:19:07 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Catfish 44 on Sat Dec 3 00:58:05 2016. The curve at Empire Blvd (Malbone Street) if I'm not mistaken was not part of the original construction or was it? Wasn't that curve put in as part of the construction of the Prspect Park Brighton station after the fact to connect to Flatbush Avenue and ultimately the 4th Avenue subway? Just curious. |
|
|
| (1418290) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Sat Dec 3 10:05:59 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by MATHA531 on Sat Dec 3 08:19:07 2016. Yes, it was added after. |
|
|
| (1418299) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Dec 3 10:55:24 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by zac on Sat Dec 3 07:59:29 2016. "Gimme the grinder!" |
|
|
| (1418300) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Dec 3 10:57:21 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Dec 2 20:41:16 2016. IINM 75-footers would sideswipe each other where the tracks swing over from Essex St. to the Williamsburg aka Howard Brothers Bridge. |
|
|
| (1418307) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Dec 3 11:46:08 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by MATHA531 on Sat Dec 3 08:19:07 2016. Yes, the curve is Dual Contract construction built to Dual Contract standards. |
|
|
| (1418308) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Dec 3 11:51:30 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by gbs on Fri Dec 2 22:02:49 2016. The Stillwell track you're referring to is Track B (platform track 2). The connection to A3 track was indeed unused, but is now in service. One of DJ's videos leaves from that track Connection. |
|
|
| (1418309) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Dec 3 11:55:34 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Dec 3 10:57:21 2016. A big issue was sideswipe in the connection from the Broadway L to the WillyB.This was supposed to have been corrected while the bridge was closed. |
|
|
| (1418317) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 12:35:20 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Dec 2 20:41:16 2016. Could it be such Malbone tunnel "sculpting" eradicated all traces of the disaster there 100 years ago ? |
|
|
| (1418318) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 12:37:11 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by SLRT on Sat Dec 3 11:55:34 2016. It seems to me the western most of the 2 reverse curves at the Bridge Plaza seems less severe and taken at higher speed than before the rebuild. |
|
|
| (1418319) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Dec 3 12:38:24 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 12:35:20 2016. It wasn't sculpted. Most changes for 75 foot cars involved trackside furniture. You can't just hack away at load bearing surfaces. |
|
|
| (1418320) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 12:38:27 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Dec 2 20:39:00 2016. The other curve at Crescent/Fulton Street is far nastier. |
|
|
| (1418321) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Dec 3 12:40:01 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 12:37:11 2016. I think that's true since that's where the problem was. |
|
|
| (1418324) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Dec 3 12:42:27 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 12:38:27 2016. And way older. And it used to be worse. It was reconfigured at least once, to enable 67-foot cars to be used. |
|
|
| (1418325) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Dec 3 12:42:31 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 12:38:27 2016. And BMT standards navigated it for years. |
|
|
| (1418345) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Dec 3 15:36:05 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 12:35:20 2016. I'm sure the Malbone tunnel was "Sculpeted' long before that! |
|
|
| (1418359) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Dec 3 16:55:08 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by SLRT on Sat Dec 3 11:46:08 2016. Yes, and the horrific 1918 crash was due more to an incompetent motorman grossly speeding than the sharpness of the curve. |
|
|
| (1418364) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Dec 3 17:28:31 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by TUNNELRAT on Fri Dec 2 21:55:55 2016. But it was part of the dual contracts. Actually, it’s the curve at Crescent St that is the problem although that’s not entirely it either. The chief problem is the curve coming off the Willy B which of itself doesn’t preclude the operation of 75 footers but prevents 2 trains of 75 footers from passing each other in opposite directions. There are also some problems on the leads into ENY Yd most of which is pre dual contracts. |
|
|
| (1418367) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Dec 3 18:05:54 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Dec 3 16:55:08 2016. Yes |
|
|
| (1418371) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Dec 3 18:22:15 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by gbs on Fri Dec 2 22:02:49 2016. Track 2 connecting to tk 3 shouldn’t present a clearance problem since it is merely a switch between the 2 lines. |
|
|
| (1418372) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Dec 3 18:24:01 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Dec 2 22:19:43 2016. AFAIK, the BMT/IND tunnels were actually designed for 60 rte cars which is why the BMT steels ended up with a long end excess when they were designed for 67 ft length. |
|
|
| (1418390) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Dec 3 19:27:29 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by randyo on Sat Dec 3 18:24:01 2016. There were no 60 foot subway cars in NYC until the R1s. |
|
|
| (1418401) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Dec 3 20:24:52 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by SLRT on Sat Dec 3 19:27:29 2016. As per a PSC report circa 1913, the dual contract lines were designed to accommodate 60 ft long standard railroad coaches. |
|
|
| (1418404) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 20:30:49 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by randyo on Sat Dec 3 20:24:52 2016. What were they thinking of ?The New York Central MU was 58' The PRR/LIRR MU was 65'. |
|
|
| (1418408) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Dec 3 20:55:15 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Dec 3 16:55:08 2016. He really wasn't a motorman, rather a supervisor during a strike.They gave him handles and told him to move the train. No experience, he did not know the line. |
|
|
| (1418412) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Dec 3 21:06:41 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Dec 3 20:55:15 2016. He had about 2 hours of hands-on training. |
|
|
| (1418417) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Dec 3 21:27:31 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 20:30:49 2016. If you get a chance, in GCT lower level , tks 100-104 loop tracks were constructed only to fit 60 ft cars. That was the norm for NYCRR & NH commuter cars of the 1910-20s . One day back in the late 90s,, someone tried to yard move an empty set of 85ft M-2s around the loop of track 102 going south from the east end. The train derailed & amidship of one of the cars mounted the tail end of the platform due to the tight curve. This resulted in a few long unpaid vacations.With post 9/11 security in place, it might be a problem to get down there nowadays.If you can, the scrape marks on the platform & the tunnel sidewall are still visible. |
|
|
| (1418419) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Sat Dec 3 21:40:30 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Dec 3 21:27:31 2016. lower level is where the IRT was supposed to connect to the NYC tracks. |
|
|
| (1418420) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Dec 3 21:56:39 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by tunnelrat on Sat Dec 3 21:40:30 2016. Yep. That thin stretch of wall dividing the lower level loop track with the Shuttle tracks is still there. That will account for the tight curve on those LL loop tracks I mentioned, to accomidate the shorter IRT equiptment in the original plans. |
|
|
| (1418423) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Dec 3 22:21:39 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Dec 3 16:55:08 2016. I read that he came east on Fulton St so fast, Franklin Tower thought it was a City Line train. That's why he overran the switch and had to back up to go down the franklin line. |
|
|
| (1418439) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Dec 4 04:18:29 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Dec 3 21:27:31 2016. Since there are no 60' cars, is there any reason to keep those loop tracks? Save for the occasional engine (which would be full-diesel anyway) is there anything that it would even be useful for? Or are they kept so that arriving trains can enter at a higher speed than if there was a bumper block... |
|
|
| (1418452) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Dec 4 07:52:25 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Dec 4 04:18:29 2016. They are out of service, but MTA has plans to repurpose them in a 2nd phase of ESA for supplemental pedestrian access for between the LIRR terminal and the subways. |
|
|
| (1418456) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Dec 4 08:30:26 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Dec 3 22:21:39 2016. His marker lights were out, so the tower didn't know what he was. |
|
|
| (1418522) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Dec 4 17:21:52 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by SLRT on Sun Dec 4 08:30:26 2016. I wondered about that. Even if Luciano were approaching at an excessive speed, the Tw/M should have been able to check the train’s ID from the markers. Perhaps if he had derailed on that part of the structure, the injuries might have been less especially if the train made it on to the solid embankment of the shuttle ROW and not fallen off the structure. |
|
|
| (1418553) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Dec 4 20:06:55 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by randyo on Sun Dec 4 17:21:52 2016. "...Perhaps if he had derailed on that part of the structure, the injuries might have been less""If the lineup wasn't set for thru City Line express, the train speeding at 40-50 Mph taking that switch would have clearly flipped on to the street. Many more would have died that did not die before.I know that its "next century" quarterbacking but that observation was also shared in Brian J Cudahy's "Under The Sidewalks Of New York" book. |
|
|
| (1418562) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Dec 4 21:31:24 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Dec 4 20:06:55 2016. Luciano accepted the wrong lineup, possibly out of ignorance, and stopped at the tower to yell up to the towerman that he was a Brighton train, so he had the train under control at that point. By the time he executed a reverse move, he was really late. I don't think it was ever determined whether a sense of urgency contributed to the ultimate accident. |
|
|
| (1418584) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Mon Dec 5 06:18:38 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by randyo on Sun Dec 4 17:21:52 2016. 
|
|
|
| (1418597) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Dec 5 08:02:32 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Bill Newkirk on Mon Dec 5 06:18:38 2016. I have seen this picture before.1- They are not wearing hard hats 2- They are not wearing Safety Vests 3- That guys on the far right is rather quaint - holding hack saws in the face of this mess. ROAR |
|
|
| (1418612) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Dec 5 12:26:34 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Dec 5 08:02:32 2016. #80 (the car we're looking at) was dismantled at the scene. Hack saws were the right tool. |
|
|
| (1418628) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Dec 5 13:30:01 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Dec 5 08:02:32 2016. Back then many of the safety standards we now take for granted didn’t exist. If a job was hazardous, then it was just that and death was an accepted part of life. |
|
|
| (1418645) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon Dec 5 15:15:09 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Bill Newkirk on Mon Dec 5 06:18:38 2016. I assume that the trucks were reused. |
|
|
| (1418646) | |
Re: Franklin Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Mon Dec 5 15:17:34 2016, in response to Re: Franklin Shuttle, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Dec 5 08:02:32 2016. You've been in the jungle too long. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
