|
|
| Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 (1514966) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (1514966) | |
Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Thu Jun 6 04:51:46 2019 Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 New York City Transit Authority Division B Route EE – Queens-Broadway Local A few weeks ago we looked at the operation of the first “EE” back in 1937. This will we will look at the second “EE” which most of us are familiar with. This article was originally written for the “Orphans of Chrystie Street” series. First Day of Operation: Monday, November 27, 1967 Last Day of Operation: Friday, August 27, 1976 Hours of Operation: Monday through Friday Approx. 6 AM to 8 PM Terminals: 71st-Continental Avenues, Forest Hills, Queens Canal Street (Broadway), Manhattan (Rush Hour Short Turns) Whitehall Street – South Ferry, Manhattan Route: IND Queens Line between Forest Hills and Queens Plaza, Queens 11th Street Connection and 60th Street Tunnel crossing the East River BMT Broadway Line between Lexington Avenue and Whitehall Street, Manhattan Length of Trip : Forest Hills – Whitehall Street : 13.64 Miles ; 48 Minutes Forest Hills – Canal Street : 12.24 Miles ; 42 Minutes Marker Lights: Green – Yellow Map Color : Orange Of all the new subway routes spawned by the opening of the Chrystie Street Subway in November, 1967 the “EE” didn’t garner much of the media attention that was focused on some of the other new routes but is was a solid and dependable service throughout its nine year run. It was not the first subway route to use the letters “EE” and it was not the first to operate through the 11th Street Connection between the BMT and IND in Queens and yet it became so strongly identified with that line that it is still remembered after over thirty years. History: A roll sign reading for “EE 8th Avenue Local” appeared on the roll-signs of the R-1’s when they were delivered in 1931. It was one of the eight original local routes provided in the initial planning of the IND. It was to be a local service connecting the Queens Boulevard Line in Queens with the 8th Avenue Line in Manhattan via the 53rd Street Tunnel. This first “EE” began operation on April 24, 1937 running between 169 Street, Queens and Church Avenue, Brooklyn via the 53rd Street Tunnel and the Rutgers Street Tunnel during non-rush hours. During the rush hours “E” trains would run between over the same route but would operate express in Queens while “GG” trains provided Queens Boulevard local service. Two months later on July 1, 1937 with the completion of the Crosstown Line the “E” was made a full time service and the “EE” joined the “AA” in temporary retirement. The proposed route the new “EE” would not have been possible prior to 1955. On December 1 of that year the 11th Street (Queens) Connection was opened between the local tracks of the IND Queens Boulevard Line just south of Queens Plaza Station and the BMT 60th Street Tunnel. The connection on the BMT end was made just inside the portal on the Queens side of the East River. This two track connection was signaled “GD1” for the Manhattan-bound track and “GD2” for the Queens-bound track. Initially service over this line was provided by the BMT’s Rt. 1 Brighton Line until 1961. On January 1, 1961 BMT Rt. 2 Fourth Avenue Local took over the service. With the delivery of the R-27 cars in 1960 these trains could also be identified as “RR Broadway-4th Avenue Local.” Service over the 11th Street connection was provided weekdays only from about 6 AM to 7 PM. The opening of the Chrystie Street Line would result in the functional merging of the BMT and IND divisions into a single entity to be known as “Division B.” Virtually every route of the BMT and IND would be changed, discontinued, re-routed or re-designated. There would also be several new routes, including the subject of this chapter, the “EE.” The main Brighton Local service, (QB/QT) which had previously run to Astoria was to be re-routed up the Nassau Street Line and the Williamsburg Bridge to Jamaica. The Fourth Avenue Local which had run to Forest Hills on weekdays from 6AM to 7PM and to 57th Street – 7th Avenue at all other times would now be extended to Astoria. A new service was now needed to run between Forest Hills and Whitehall Street . This new service would be designated “EE” and be called identified as the Broadway Local or Queens-Broadway Local. An early proposal was to call the new service “QM” for “Queens-Manhattan.” A fleet of 176 R-1/9’s was assigned to the “EE” which needed a maximum of 22 eight cars trains during the rush hours. Most of the R-1/9’s came from the 1100-1399 group and had the proper route signs which would read “EE Via Broadway” others however did not and which decals with black letters reading “VIA BWAY” were pasted over the roll sign readings. The “VIA” and the “BWAY” were printed on top of each other in full size letters so it was impossible to fit the complete reading into the roll sign box. Some R-1/9’s simply carried the original “EE 8th Avenue Local” readings. As time went on other car classes showed up on the “EE” the R-38’s and R-40’s were there used on and off in 1969. The March 1970 car assignment called for 106 R-1/9s and 104 R-16’s though by October 1970 this was pared back to 88 R-1/9’s and 88 R-16’s. The R-1/9s’ were ordered off the “EE” by November 13, 1970 with the R-16’s assuming most of the service supplemented by R-38’s and R-40M’s. In the middle 1970’s the subway system was in a state of virtual collapse. Derailments and fires occurred on a nearly weekly basis while virtually every surface on the subway system; including tunnels, stations and cars were covered with graffiti. Punks and hoodlums roamed the subway system and made it unsafe to ride outside of the peak hours. Riders deserted the subway in droves for the new express buses or if they did ride they did so only during the rush hours. Money for repairs was in short supply as well so the Transit Authority decided on severe service cutbacks that included the complete elimination of the “EE” and the “KK.” The last day of operation was set for Friday, August 27, 1976. The last northbound train, left from Whitehall Street at the end of the PM rush with eight R-16’s; 6432,6441,6416,6491,6398,6430,6419,6482. The last southbound “EE” arrived at Canal Street at 8:20PM and had R-38’s 4031-0, 4087-6, 4066-7 and 4050-1. The “EE” replacement was a few rush hour only “N” trains running southbound from Forest Hills in the AM and northbound from Whitehall Street in the PM. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (1514968) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by andy on Thu Jun 6 05:08:27 2019, in response to Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Thu Jun 6 04:51:46 2019. In 1976 the N was extended from 57th St. to Forest Hills during the same hours the EE had operated. Difference was that most of the N trains did not serve stations south of Canal Street, except for the rush-hour trippers noted in the posting. The base N service operated between Forest Hills and Coney Island via the Manhattan Bridge. The rush hour Whitehall St. trippers were in addition to the Coney Island trips.I worked in Lower Manhattan, at the World Trade Center, at that time, so I observed this service pattern constantly. Since most EE passengers to/from Queens probably used Manhattan stations north of Canal Street, eliminating most N service south of Canal Street was not a big impact - passengers only had to transfer anywhere north of Canal Street if they wanted to reach stations between City Hall and Whitehall St. This pattern ended in 1987 when the R took over the Queens Blvd. local service. |
|
|
| (1514972) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jun 6 06:19:45 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by andy on Thu Jun 6 05:08:27 2019. The W is the new EE with northern terminals swapped with the R. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1514978) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Thu Jun 6 06:40:34 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Joe V on Thu Jun 6 06:19:45 2019. The W is the new EE with northern terminals swapped with the R. I always liked the "EE". It was reliable train that went about its own business. When it first began running it had Arnines and the roll-sign reading was "EE 8th Avenue Local". Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (1514984) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Thu Jun 6 07:27:18 2019, in response to Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Thu Jun 6 04:51:46 2019. The R46s carried 'EE' signage, were any ever assigned to the 'EE'? |
|
|
| (1514985) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jun 6 07:28:44 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Dan on Thu Jun 6 07:27:18 2019. Related question, did EE ever get 600' long trains ? |
|
|
| (1514987) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Thu Jun 6 07:39:01 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Dan on Thu Jun 6 07:27:18 2019. The R46s carried 'EE' signage, were any ever assigned to the 'EE'? Without checking my records I would say no. Although in the chaotic days after the opening of the Chrystie Street subway anything was possible. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (1514988) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jun 6 07:54:33 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Thu Jun 6 07:39:01 2019. By the time the EE was gone, R46 deliveries were not all complete. |
|
|
| (1514992) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Thu Jun 6 08:41:41 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Joe V on Thu Jun 6 07:54:33 2019. Nevertheless, at least the first R46s were delivered with EE on the front rollsign. Saw it myself on the "1776/1976" unit that was displayed in the Transit Exhibit. |
|
|
| (1514995) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Thu Jun 6 08:53:20 2019, in response to Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Thu Jun 6 04:51:46 2019. Thank you. Being only 8 years old when the EE ended, I never got to ride it in service (I basically only got to ride the subway on weekends). But I knew of its existence, and I was sorry to see it go. In fact, ever since, I've been favorably disposed towards any transit route with an "orange" designation, including WMATA's Orange Line, the Long Beach branch of LIRR, and of course, the Orange M, which in the beginning, was basically a weekday route (I know of the Bushwick-Ridgewood shuttle service).Today's W is the descendant of the EE, and if we were using the old double letter system, it could be the NN. |
|
|
| (1514997) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Thu Jun 6 09:21:15 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by MainR3664 on Thu Jun 6 08:53:20 2019. The only time I rode the EE (AFAIK) is when I did a "ride on the lines" railfan trip in August 1976, a few weeks before I would move to Southern California (ironically, 8/27/76 was not only the last day for the EE and K, it was my last full day as a resident of NYC. On 8/28, my mother and I set out for L. A. by car, an 8-day extravaganza that would take us to Cleveland, Chicago, Omaha, Denver, Albuquerque, Tuscon and L. A.) |
|
|
| (1515021) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jun 6 13:00:03 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Thu Jun 6 06:40:34 2019. At some point the R-9s that didn’t have proper EE/Via Bway Signs had the words “8th Ave” painted out so that the signs read “EE/ Local.” There was an incident involving a bad order EE in the 60 the St tube that made the TA in typical knee jerk reaction remove all R-9s from the EE and operate only SMEEs. The problem was that the BO train was not an R-9 but a SMEE. |
|
|
| (1515022) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jun 6 13:00:57 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Thu Jun 6 07:39:01 2019. R-46s didn’t start coming in till 9 years after Chrystie. |
|
|
| (1515023) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Bklynsubwaybob on Thu Jun 6 13:01:50 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by randyo on Thu Jun 6 13:00:03 2019. That figures. |
|
|
| (1515037) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Jun 6 15:59:44 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by randyo on Thu Jun 6 13:00:03 2019. You really have to wonder who was running things. |
|
|
| (1515039) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Thu Jun 6 16:06:36 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Thu Jun 6 06:40:34 2019. I'd posted this on your earlier EE profile:I rode this route once, (maybe twice) during the summer or 1970. I enjoyed riding the Arnines on the BMT, getting on at either Whitehall St. or City Hall. I remember sitting by the window on a trasverse seat, as the train continued north along Broadway. :) |
|
|
| (1515040) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Thu Jun 6 16:14:45 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Thu Jun 6 09:21:15 2019. re: an 8-day extravaganzaan off topic question, but did you take interestate routes all the way out, or did you use any state or local roads/highways? |
|
|
| (1515044) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Thu Jun 6 17:24:46 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Express Rider on Thu Jun 6 16:14:45 2019. IIRC, interstates (of course, the Interstate Highway System was not complete in 1976, so there were some stretches on local roads, but under the guise of an interstate.Best of my recollection, I-80 to Cleveland (Day 1), I-71 (I think) to Columbus, then I-70 to Indianapolis, then I-65 to West Lafayette, IN (quick visit to someone living at Purdue University), then back on 65 to Chicago (Day 2). Actually, Day 3 was in Chicago all day. Day 4, I-80 to Omaha. Day 5, I-80 to I-76 to Denver. Day 6, I-25 to Albuquerque. Day 7, I-25 to Las Cruces, NM, then I-10 to Tucson. Day 8, Tucson to L. A. Not the most direct route, but we were staying with friends in Cleveland and Tucson. |
|
|
| (1515046) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Thu Jun 6 17:55:02 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Thu Jun 6 17:24:46 2019. Thank you! |
|
|
| (1515078) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Jun 7 11:12:48 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Thu Jun 6 07:39:01 2019. R46 cars did carry ALL Queens Blvd services Including the N,which was planned to operate along the new Archer ave subway.However, the EE never had those cars assigned since all cars were pressed into E/F service at that time. In August,the N replaced the EE,received new R46s that operated along with it's R32s. A few years later,All 75ft cars were removed from the N and D due to the Manhattan Bridge problem. |
|
|
| (1515080) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Jun 7 11:17:33 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Joe V on Thu Jun 6 07:54:33 2019. First cars came in the fall of 1975,years late.By the time the EE was cancelled,enough cars were available to be placed in N service. |
|
|
| (1515081) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Jun 7 11:18:38 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Joe V on Thu Jun 6 07:28:44 2019. No. |
|
|
| (1515084) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Jun 7 11:38:35 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by randyo on Thu Jun 6 13:00:03 2019. Thats correct. It was a set of R-16s that crapped out.One story I heard was that a set of R-9s was stuck in behind with most cars interior paddle fans not working. Resulting heat & lac of ventilation made several passengers sick & overcome by the heat. That was the excuse for the TA to give the R-9s the boot from the EE & Broadway Subway. Heard that story from a retired M/M but was never able to confirm it |
|
|
| (1515088) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Fri Jun 7 13:01:38 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Edwards! on Fri Jun 7 11:12:48 2019. Were any R44s ever assigned to the 'EE'? |
|
|
| (1515092) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jun 7 14:03:34 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Dan on Fri Jun 7 13:01:38 2019. Not officially, but after the N started running to Ctl I rode an R-44 on the N in Bkln so it’s highly possible one or two might have made it to the EE. |
|
|
| (1515093) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jun 7 14:05:30 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Jun 7 11:38:35 2019. That sounds like a typical TA knee JERK (note the emphasis on “jerk”) reaction! |
|
|
| (1515110) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by gbs on Fri Jun 7 21:32:07 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Edwards! on Fri Jun 7 11:12:48 2019. When the N replaced the EE, several trains of R16s ran on the N. By then they had the mylar side scroll signs with the gold (yes, gold, not yellow) bullets (with white N letters). I was terribly disappointed because I wanted R32s on Queens Blvd to replace the noisy, rickety R16s. |
|
|
| (1515227) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Sun Jun 9 07:57:42 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by randyo on Fri Jun 7 14:03:34 2019. Thanks. Found this photo but it not proof/proff that the R44s ever ran on the EE.
|
|
|
| (1515247) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 9 13:44:09 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by randyo on Fri Jun 7 14:03:34 2019. Don't know,but the 44s had a different 'feel to them than the 46s.Maybe the seats were a little lower to the floor..or perhaps it was the floor itself. I ALWAYS KNEW which was which just by stepping in. |
|
|
| (1515270) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jun 9 20:48:49 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 9 13:44:09 2019. Initially, the 46s had a different truck from the 44s, the notorious Rockwell truck, so it would stand to reason that they would ride differently. I would suspect that after the truck change the difference would be less noticeable if noticeable at all. |
|
|
| (1515289) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Jun 10 03:19:35 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Dan on Sun Jun 9 07:57:42 2019. Right. This pic proves the cars had EE signs (which I could and have personally recounted elsewhere in this thread. It does not prove they ever ran in service as EEs). |
|
|
| (1515290) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Jun 10 03:20:01 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Dan on Sun Jun 9 07:57:42 2019. Right. This pic proves the cars had EE signs (which I could and have personally recounted elsewhere in this thread. It does not prove they ever ran in service as EEs). |
|
|
| (1515305) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Mon Jun 10 04:19:28 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by MainR3664 on Mon Jun 10 03:20:01 2019. IAWTP. Besides, the EE was long gone by the time that car was delivered (1977?) |
|
|
| (1515355) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Mon Jun 10 09:27:08 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 9 13:44:09 2019. IIRC, the R-44s had the red (and yellow?) glitter floors, which also had more friction. The R-46 flooring may have been more standard, I don't remember. And, of course, the air brakes sounded totally different. |
|
|
| (1515356) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Mon Jun 10 09:33:26 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by MainR3664 on Thu Jun 6 08:53:20 2019. Yeah, I used to ride the EE and the RR when my mother took us to Central Park (5th Ave and 60th St). I remember most of the types mentioned, including the Arnines. I always did like the colored roll signs that the R-16s got, and wondered why more cars didn't get them. The orange color, though, I mostly associate with the D train (damn 6th Ave express!). |
|
|
| (1515358) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Jun 10 09:38:20 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Jun 7 11:38:35 2019. Yet a small sign - not the usual "zebra" type remained at the conductor's position on the Queens-bound Whitehall Street platform, center track saying "R 1/9 trains stop here" well into the 1990s- probably until the station was renovated around the Y2K-ish time frame..I wonder if those signs were installed anywhere else along the original BMT subway? At the time, I assumed it was installed post-Chrystie, but now I realize it could have dated all the way back to 1949. |
|
|
| (1515359) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jun 10 09:40:07 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by randyo on Sun Jun 9 20:48:49 2019. Maybe,but that 'feeling' the 44s had was consistent,even after the 46s received new trucks.Im going with the flooring,but perhaps it was the way the cars rode or sat On the trucks due to Springs and no airbags. Dont know..maybe someone else could identify witj this. Its almost like how the the R 160s were very different in FEEL from what came before it. You didn't get that rough grinding ride..those cars were bouncy and buoyant😁. |
|
|
| (1515367) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Mon Jun 10 10:00:19 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Edwards! on Mon Jun 10 09:40:07 2019. The original Rockwell trucks always sounded way different than other trucks. You could instantly tell it was a Rockwell by the more metallic clanging over the rail joints, and the low-pitched grinding (bending?) sound they made when the cars went around a curve. |
|
|
| (1515404) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jun 10 13:36:59 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Mon Jun 10 04:19:28 2019. Although the EE was gone by the time that car was delivered, the order still included the signs for all the cars in the order. The same thing happened with the R-10s which were delivered with HH Fulton St lcl signs even though HH service ended 2 years before the first of the R-10s was delivered. |
|
|
| (1515405) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jun 10 13:51:17 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by 3-9 on Mon Jun 10 09:27:08 2019. The air brakes were different because they were from two completely different manufacturers. The R-44s had RT-5 brakes from WABCO whereas the R-46s had a similar brake package manufactured by Westcode. There was one train of R-44s which had Westcode brakes which may have been the reason that the MTA decided to go with Westcode for the R-46s. |
|
|
| (1515406) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jun 10 13:56:53 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by 3-9 on Mon Jun 10 09:33:26 2019. When the pre MTA TA decided on colors they wanted a different color for each line. The problem was that there were more lines than colors and there ended up being duplications which is why the MTA eventually changed to having different colors for trunk lines only. Even with that, there is a sort of duplication in that the Lex Av lines and the G both use green even though the G is a slightly lighter shade. The NYCTS unlike other cities is not a good candidate for color coded lines although going back to the pre Chrystie coding of the BMT, IRT and IND Divisions would probably work. |
|
|
| (1515411) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jun 10 14:16:03 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by MainR3664 on Mon Jun 10 09:38:20 2019. The Bway and 4th Av subways didn’t need special zebra boards (called “tell tale” boards at the time) since the 8 car trains of R-1/9s could use the same boards as the SMEEs operating on those lines when operating 4X4. By the way at that time C/R boards were not required for less than maximum length trains since it was expected that the C/R on a shorter train would be able to see that the train was completely in the station. The only circumstance in which a C/R board would be required for a short train was with the BMT steels since the C/R was unable to observe the platform from inside the car before the doors were opened. When the R-42s were introduced on the BMT Lines in the Eastern Div and other BMT lines that had less than 600 ft platforms also had to have a board for the R-42s since the C/R operated 5 north X 3 south on an 8 car train. As a side note, in the Eastern Div, C/Rs on 6 car R-16 trains operated 3X3 but In the Southern Div C/Rs on 6 car trains operate 4 north X 2 south. The reason was that starting with the R-32s, the TA eliminated seats from the #2 (C/R only) cabs since they wanted the C/Rs to ride outside the cabs when possible. As a favor to the C/Rs the BMT supt ordered that C/Rs always operate from cabs with a seat hence the unusual operating configuration. |
|
|
| (1515427) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by gbs on Mon Jun 10 23:07:49 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by randyo on Mon Jun 10 13:51:17 2019. Weren't the air pressures different too, with the R44 having much more than the R46 (or any other class for that matter)? |
|
|
| (1515473) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jun 11 14:13:58 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by gbs on Mon Jun 10 23:07:49 2019. As built, the 44s and 46s had the same brake pipe pressure. When the R-44s received the Westcode version of RT-2 (SMEE) which actually happened pre GOH, the brake pipe pressure remained the same. When the R-46s were GOHed, 2 experimental trains were outfitted, one with WABCO RT-2 and the other with the NYAB version called Newtran. After the tests, NYAB won the contract and the GOHed 46s received the Newtran brake package with the standard SMEE brake pipe pressure. |
|
|
| (1515478) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by murray1575 on Tue Jun 11 16:41:44 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by Joe V on Thu Jun 6 06:19:45 2019. The W today is more like a short turn late hour N. In fact it gets its equipment from the same pool of cars and some early morning and late evening W trains operate to and from 86th St. on the N line as locals via the tunnel. I used to ride one frequently from Atlantic Ave/Barclays Center (still called Pacific St. at the time) to Whitehall St. to get to work in the AM. When the W was cut in 2010 I switched to the 4/5 to Bowling Green. |
|
|
| (1515489) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Wed Jun 12 02:38:27 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by 3-9 on Mon Jun 10 09:33:26 2019. Well, the D has had the orange color for more than 50 years, whereas the EE only lived for 8.75 years and the Orange M is just coming up on its 9th birthday. So I guess it's understandable to closely associate the color orange with the D. |
|
|
| (1515499) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Wed Jun 12 04:08:31 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by MainR3664 on Wed Jun 12 02:38:27 2019. Nah, I got the associated the orange color with the D from way back, when I first became aware of the different lines. |
|
|
| (1515604) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by gbs on Wed Jun 12 23:18:54 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by randyo on Tue Jun 11 14:13:58 2019. It always seemed to me that the "Whoosh" on the R44s when the air was released prior to leaving a station was much louder than any other car class. I don't remember noticing that on the original R46s, I only remember them as they are today. |
|
|
| (1515658) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jun 13 13:04:40 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by gbs on Wed Jun 12 23:18:54 2019. The R-46 Westcode brakes emitted a sort of whistling sound when they released, definitely not as loud as the 44s. |
|
|
| (1515659) | |
Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Jun 13 13:26:19 2019, in response to Re: Tuscarora Train of the Week No. 17, posted by randyo on Thu Jun 13 13:04:40 2019. Yeah.I LOVED that high pitched whine of the R46. Became the most favorite. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
