|
|
| Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards (1451968) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (1451968) | |
Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat Oct 14 19:18:40 2017 
|
|
|
| (1451979) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Oct 14 19:57:34 2017, in response to Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat Oct 14 19:18:40 2017. Interesting find! Couldn't help but notice that on the route sign list "Corona Local" & "Corona Exp." are listed. However, in the destination sign column there are no Corona Line stations listed. |
|
|
| (1451980) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat Oct 14 20:02:04 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Oct 14 19:57:34 2017. Interesting find! Couldn't help but notice that on the route sign list "Corona Local" & "Corona Exp." are listed. However, in the destination sign column there are no Corona Line stations listed.Yeah, that's strange, Wasn't Alburtis Ave the original end of the line before Main St. opened ? Maybe they would have added that later of this would become BMT line ? We'll never know. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1451984) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by northshore on Sat Oct 14 20:12:55 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Oct 14 19:57:34 2017. The Corona Line was extended to 111 St at one point. Perhaps 11 At refers to that as the destination |
|
|
| (1451986) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Oct 14 20:18:33 2017, in response to Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat Oct 14 19:18:40 2017. Wonder what they had in mind for "Richmond Hill" ? 102nd or 121st Street ? |
|
|
| (1451987) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat Oct 14 20:21:00 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Joe V on Sat Oct 14 20:18:33 2017. Wonder what they had in mind for "Richmond Hill" ? 102nd or 121st Street ?Possibly, it proves the BRT had a wild imagination. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1451988) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Oct 14 20:25:16 2017, in response to Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat Oct 14 19:18:40 2017. I take this with a grain of salt. I've seen a lot of early and original material on the BRT and BMT and have never seen so many fanciful destinations. |
|
|
| (1451989) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Oct 14 20:28:21 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat Oct 14 20:21:00 2017. I suspect 102nd. The had visions of a middle track and making Woodhaven Blvd an express station. So maybe trains could have relayed at 102nd. |
|
|
| (1451990) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Oct 14 20:35:02 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by northshore on Sat Oct 14 20:12:55 2017. It could have been used as such. |
|
|
| (1451996) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Union Tpke on Sat Oct 14 21:00:41 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Joe V on Sat Oct 14 20:28:21 2017. What documentation is there for this? |
|
|
| (1451997) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Oct 14 21:04:02 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Union Tpke on Sat Oct 14 21:00:41 2017. Indeed. |
|
|
| (1451999) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Oct 14 21:10:39 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Union Tpke on Sat Oct 14 21:00:41 2017. Indeed. |
|
|
| (1452009) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Oct 14 21:56:37 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Union Tpke on Sat Oct 14 21:00:41 2017. Some of these routes/destinations are difficult to fathom. For example, FULTON FERRY. Had the Ashland Place subway portal been installed, wooden cars would have used the unrebuilt el, west of it.As for, FIFTH AVE EXP or LOCAL, I believe there were plans for a rebuilt BRT 5th Ave el, had the IRT won the 4th Ave subway franchise. But, that never happened. |
|
|
| (1452015) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Oct 14 22:03:19 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Joe V on Sat Oct 14 20:28:21 2017. If they had visions of Woodhaven Blvd becoming a future express stop, why not build it like Wyckoff Ave, on the "M" line, with the center track area unused? |
|
|
| (1452033) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Sat Oct 14 23:49:03 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Oct 14 21:56:37 2017. another interesting destination is SEAGATE.could there have very, very tentative thoughts/plans on the BRT drawing boards to have rapid transit take over the trolley route? and, saw the Fourth Ave. Express route - was a potential expected for express service above 36th st. if the trains became fully crowded after the 8 stops north of 95th st? |
|
|
| (1452053) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 15 07:41:13 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Union Tpke on Sat Oct 14 21:00:41 2017. There is structural evidence in the el at Woodhaven Blvd station that widening it was contemplated |
|
|
| (1452054) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 15 07:43:29 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Oct 14 22:03:19 2017. Since there is no express track on the Jamaica el, it was considered a more remote possibility, but putting Richmond Hill on the roll sign doesn't cost anything. |
|
|
| (1452063) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Sun Oct 15 09:47:35 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Express Rider on Sat Oct 14 23:49:03 2017. If Standards were to be used on a Sea Gate route, they would have been Culver trains. The long demolished overpass for the Norton's Point trolley line would have easily supported heavy steel cars. I guess Culver trains using the Norton's Point line would be a one seat ride to Sea Gate. However the BRT thought otherwise and made it a trolley route instead. See two photos:   |
|
|
| (1452065) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Sun Oct 15 09:55:13 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by SLRT on Sat Oct 14 20:25:16 2017. I take this with a grain of salt. I've seen a lot of early and original material on the BRT and BMT and have never seen so many fanciful destinations.I don't know who the author of this list was. I can't say whether it was his personal fantasy of a roll sign or did he crank the roll sign and jot down all the readings. We'll never know. But what if the BRT had some of those unusual route and destinations in mind. When the Standard first plied the rails, it was the R-160 of its time. Nothing the IRT could compare. So maybe the BRT thought down the road of rebuilding some els for heavy steel subway cars and replace the "el" cars. Of course something happened below Malbone St. and the BRT wasn't long for this world. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1452068) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Sun Oct 15 10:28:16 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Bill Newkirk on Sun Oct 15 09:47:35 2017. WoW!!!What great photos!! Thank you! :) I have maybe seen only one photo (and only a partial view at that) of the pedestrian walkway to the trolley, and no photos at all of this overpass*, both views excellent, especially the second interior view of its ROW. *have never seen views of the boarding area at Coney Island for Seagate trolleys either. I've seen at least one picture of the ramp that's been posted here, but never had a clear idea what kind of structure there was for the trolleys to go from the elevated subway structure to the ramp. also, re: the el routes/destinations - those ramp provisions above and just south of Chambers St. sta. plus, the former unfinished approach ramps from the city side of the BB are the known evidence of BRT plans to run subway trains over their el routes. |
|
|
| (1452069) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Sun Oct 15 10:37:33 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Bill Newkirk on Sun Oct 15 09:55:13 2017. it was the R-160 of its timeand the Standards had/have* much more character. I would think this is an actual list of routes/ destinations, whether hand cranked and copied down, or copied from a BRT doc. Personal "fantasies" usually seemed to be "un-reined" and inclusive of all possibilities. this list clearly includes unusual destinations, but not anything that might seem implausible, (given the Dual Contracts era) the way a fantasy list might be *museum train + seashore's(?) and branford's & 2204 |
|
|
| (1452070) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 15 10:44:27 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Express Rider on Sun Oct 15 10:37:33 2017. The City's IND detested those Standards, and all the articulateds and light-weights that followed.The Arnine, 15 years later, was nothing more than a glorified Lo-V. When they supplanted the Standards on the Eastern Division in 1969, I am sure most passengers regarded them as a step back, not step forward. The cars seemed just as old and were noisy as hell. |
|
|
| (1452072) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Sun Oct 15 10:46:33 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Express Rider on Sun Oct 15 10:28:16 2017. eddie,eddie,eddie.its an EL,not an elevated subway. |
|
|
| (1452074) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Sun Oct 15 11:11:51 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Bill Newkirk on Sun Oct 15 09:47:35 2017. That would have been something to see. Standards running at grade through Coney Island to Sea Gate. |
|
|
| (1452075) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Sun Oct 15 11:17:50 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Express Rider on Sat Oct 14 23:49:03 2017. ed,at one time brt gate cars using trolley poles once ran into Seagate,i,ve 1 photo of this. |
|
|
| (1452077) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by heypaul on Sun Oct 15 11:37:56 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Bill Newkirk on Sun Oct 15 09:47:35 2017. Check out the movement of cars at 1:02 in thisNorton's Point video |
|
|
| (1452083) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Sun Oct 15 13:20:52 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by TUNNELRAT on Sun Oct 15 10:46:33 2017. Thanks Steve! Capisce! next Nathan's hot dog is on me! :) |
|
|
| (1452084) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Oct 15 13:21:06 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Bill Newkirk on Sun Oct 15 09:55:13 2017. What if?How did you get this? Why do you think it has a snowball's chance in Hell of being real? The reason I care about this is because this is how nonsense history starts, especially in the Internet Age, for serious historians to waste valuable time trying to refute. |
|
|
| (1452086) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Sun Oct 15 13:27:49 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 15 10:44:27 2017. didn't know there was a dislike of Standards & the BMT equipment that followed, by the City and/or BOT.and yeah, by the time arnine's went to the eastern division, they did not seem to have not been well maintained, and the graffittee wsa starting. |
|
|
| (1452087) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Sun Oct 15 13:29:42 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by TUNNELRAT on Sun Oct 15 11:17:50 2017. nice! thanks for the info. And you have a photo? can you or someone else scan it? |
|
|
| (1452088) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Oct 15 13:33:23 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by TUNNELRAT on Sun Oct 15 11:17:50 2017. At the time the Culver Line was covered 100% by gate cars. They did use elevated cars to Sea Gate but they decided not to continue that and went to all trolleys.If only all the fantasy maps that railfans (myself included) drew over the years were "discovered" and taken seriously, we'd have threads running into the next century. |
|
|
| (1452091) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Union Tpke on Sun Oct 15 14:06:07 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 15 07:41:13 2017. I have heard this claim multiple times without anything to back it up. I think that a Jamaica express with an express stop at Woodhaven should be implemented, and would like this to be true, but claims that aren't back don't mean much. |
|
|
| (1452100) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Oct 15 15:17:32 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat Oct 14 20:02:04 2017. Yes...Alburtis Ave (103.St Corona Plaza) was the original last stop on that line when it first opened for business. Since the Standards would never fit in the Steinway Tunnel, someone might have envisioned Corona (& Soon Flushing) line trains going thru the 60th St tunnel with Astoria trains. Another one for the "We'll never know" file. |
|
|
| (1452105) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Oct 15 17:05:05 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Oct 15 15:17:32 2017. Had an agreement been reached between the BMT and the IRT regarding either gantlet track ot gap fillers to allow both IRT and BMT sized cars to operate to Corona/Flushing, that’s exactly how it would have been done, BMT subway trains via 60 St and using the same tracks that the el shuttles used to get to Flushing. It’s interesting that although there was an older Ditmars Ave reading on the steels, it was never used but a new reading “Astoria” was installed. |
|
|
| (1452106) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Oct 15 17:07:43 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by randyo on Sun Oct 15 17:05:05 2017. You're assuming this list is real. |
|
|
| (1452107) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Oct 15 17:13:32 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Union Tpke on Sun Oct 15 14:06:07 2017. What is interesting about that is although the Wyckoff Av station on the Myrtle el was built as an express station, the same was not done with Woodhaven Blvd. Also with the partial third tracking of the Fulton St el, I’ve never seen any documentation as to which stations would have been express stations if the 3rd tracking had been completed except possibly for Franklin. |
|
|
| (1452108) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Oct 15 17:24:03 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Express Rider on Sun Oct 15 13:27:49 2017. I don’t think there was a dislike for BMT equipment by the city since the R-1/9 design was loosely based on the design of the D types. Part of the problem was that many of the technological advancements that BMT equipment had such as running lights changeable from the reverser, interlocks to prevent the train from moving with the doors open and tripcocks that could be reset from the cab were in all likelihood patented by the BRT/BMT and would have required royalties to be paid by anyone else using them. With the initial purpose of the IND being to put the BMT out of business, It’s doubtful that the city would want to give any money at all to a company it was out to ruin. As for the R-9s not being well maintained, while that may or may not be true, a group of R-9s had its airbrake and other systems rebuilt and/or reconditioned in various configurations while still on the Queens IND and these were the first cars transferred to the BMT Eastern. The R-9s actually served about 4 years in the Eastern before the graffiti epidemic seriously took hold,. |
|
|
| (1452110) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Oct 15 17:32:33 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by SLRT on Sun Oct 15 17:07:43 2017. I see no reason to assume it’s not. Don’t forget the BRT was a very progressive company and may have had the foresight to plan ahead since at the time the first steels were ordered, it fully believed that various improvements on the el lines under construction under the dual contracts would be completed. As for the notations of certain readings never being used, I would have to know exactly when those notes were made since many of the services indicated such as the 4 Av Express and Jamaica Express and Lcl were operated so those signs would have had to be used for them. |
|
|
| (1452116) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Oct 15 18:17:09 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by randyo on Sun Oct 15 17:32:33 2017. No author. No provenance. No source to check against. Just speculation and that it's interesting.Newkirk doesn't give a hint of how he got it. |
|
|
| (1452121) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Oct 15 20:09:27 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by randyo on Sun Oct 15 17:05:05 2017. A few thoughts here. BMT & IRT cars could never operate in revenue service on the same line. A gauntlet track wouldn't work a/c third rail issues. Two sets or running rail, maybe. Where are you going to spot the 3d rail? cant see it. And two sets of running rail to maintain? Now u r talkin serious $$$ in track maintenance.Then there's gap fillers. Assuming you mean the type used at 14th St, would have serious problems used in an elevated line situation. The elements as in snow & rain would induce serious maintenance issues. Last there's the tripcocks. Two sets, one on each side? Here's what they should have done when the were divvying up the IRT-BMT Queens line pie: Send Flushing & Astoria trains thru the 60th St tunnell Create an IRT shuttle service between QBP & Times Sq with a possible future connection built at TS to the 7th Ave IRT Subway Re-configure QBP station to make this work. |
|
|
| (1452122) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Oct 15 20:12:21 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by northshore on Sat Oct 14 20:12:55 2017. I think it was for the Jamaica Line's 111th st. |
|
|
| (1452144) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Oct 16 00:26:16 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Oct 15 20:09:27 2017. You bring up interesting points, but nevertheless, both gantlet track and gap fillers were considered in an attempt to work out joint operation on both lines. The 3rd rail issue probably would have made the gap filler solution the more practical one since as is currently the case both IRT and BMT/IND cars can use the same 3rd rails and IRT cars do use the BMT/IND 3rd rail to get to/from the BMT and IND yards where they are maintained. |
|
|
| (1452145) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Oct 16 00:27:28 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Oct 15 20:12:21 2017. That is definitely the case since certain BMT Bway Bkln services did have short turns that terminated there as well as Crescent St. |
|
|
| (1452146) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Oct 16 00:30:21 2017, in response to Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat Oct 14 19:18:40 2017. Some of those readings look like they would have been used on portions of the BMT els that were only partially rebuilt to dual contract standards before the extensions were complete. |
|
|
| (1452147) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Oct 16 00:30:26 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Oct 15 20:12:21 2017. That is definitely the case since certain BMT Bway Bkln services did have short turns that terminated there as well as Crescent St. |
|
|
| (1452153) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Mon Oct 16 04:36:26 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by randyo on Sun Oct 15 17:24:03 2017. Thanks for the details and facts.Interesting about the patents and royalties issues. Were the R-9's with reconditioned brakes the ones in photos I've seen - they had different colored number plates (white or off-white), numbers had one or two leading zeros, and were numbered in sets of five? Did not know about these cars first operating in Queens. Maybe those LI Press articles about performance failures in the IND fleet were referring to the earlier R numbered cars? I rode the R-9s on the Eastern Division sporadically in 68 or 69 while railfanning. In later years, could they have been not well maintained due to the deferred maintenance which is always mentioned as occurring during the 1970s? |
|
|
| (1452159) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by FormerVanWyckBlvdUser on Mon Oct 16 07:13:12 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Express Rider on Mon Oct 16 04:36:26 2017. Yes, look at the Retired Cars, Independent Fleet on nycsubway.org. Scroll down to the Car Notes section for the info. 100 cars in total, 5 groups of 20 - they had to remain together with like-modififed mates.Link is http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/The_Independent_Fleet_(1932-1939). |
|
|
| (1452175) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Oct 16 11:32:55 2017, in response to Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat Oct 14 19:18:40 2017. Whoever made up this list, or typed it, seemed to have trouble spelling "Manhattan". "VIA LOWER MAN'H'T'N" has a completely superfluous first apostrophe, and "59th ST. MANHATTEN" is spelled with an E instead of an A in the last syllable. |
|
|
| (1452176) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Mon Oct 16 11:34:45 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by FormerVanWyckBlvdUser on Mon Oct 16 07:13:12 2017. cool. Thanks for letting me know where to find this info! :) |
|
|
| (1452179) | |
Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Mon Oct 16 11:52:28 2017, in response to Re: Interesting Read: Original Destination and Route Designation for BMT Standards, posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Oct 16 11:32:55 2017. maybe typing using the "two finger express" |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
