|
|
| R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. (1538627) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
|
| (1538644) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Feb 18 15:36:18 2020, in response to R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Dan on Tue Feb 18 14:35:15 2020. Interesting. I wonder if a 4-car set of R-44s would even fit (In it's later days, the Culver ran 4-car R-27s). Ditmas and 9 Av would not have been a problem of course, not sure about 13 Av and Ft Hamilton Pky. Also, was there a weight issue on the Culver. IIRC, the 27s that operated on it had their controllers adjusted as to not exceed Series.(unless I'm thinking of the Bronx Third Av el in it's final years).I guess the outside sign read Ninth | SS | Ditmas Avenue Avenue Was the Culver SS black in color on the 1968 map? I forget, and don't feel like checking nycsubway.org. |
|
|
| (1538650) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Feb 18 15:45:07 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Feb 18 15:36:18 2020. Both of those stations were built to take 8-car trains of BMT standards, so they certainly would have fit a four car R-44. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1538654) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Tue Feb 18 16:25:41 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Feb 18 15:36:18 2020. The R44s would have surely overloaded the Culver shuttle el. But it would have been something to see. By 1971 the el was in a decrepit state. AFAIK nothing newer than the R27/30s ran on the shuttle, not even on fantrips if indeed there were any.IIRC the R44s were ordered in 1971 when all the 'SS' were green as seen on that rollsign. What other surprises are on that R44 rollsign? |
|
|
| (1538670) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Feb 18 17:55:45 2020, in response to R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Dan on Tue Feb 18 14:35:15 2020. Whatever the case is, that is cool as the other side of the pillow. |
|
|
| (1538674) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 18 18:14:02 2020, in response to R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Dan on Tue Feb 18 14:35:15 2020. it looks like the person just scrolled to SS Culver for the photo op. You see the key in the panel. I wonder if he took a photo for each line on the rollsign? I'd love to see LL, J, and M. |
|
|
| (1538676) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by MTA T on Tue Feb 18 18:30:51 2020, in response to R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Dan on Tue Feb 18 14:35:15 2020. Maybe they did, because apparently the Culver Shuttle would have been relabeled "P" if it was kept. |
|
|
| (1538678) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Feb 18 18:41:02 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Feb 18 15:36:18 2020. There was no thought to reviving the Culver shuttle. The wooden platforms were left to rot. After a snow storm they abandoned the C2 track and removed the switch and that was the end of two-train operationWhat was left gave up the ghost in May 1975. http://thethirdrail.net/0007/culver.htm |
|
|
| (1538680) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 18 18:46:26 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by SLRT on Tue Feb 18 18:41:02 2020. They never should have shut it down until adequately replaced with the Lawrence Street/Jay Street connection, and elevators from the IND Brooklyn Line and BMT 4th Avenue line transfer at 4th Av/9th Street, which I think they have yet to do. |
|
|
| (1538681) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 18 18:46:59 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by MTA T on Tue Feb 18 18:30:51 2020. I thought P was for Franklin Shuttle ? |
|
|
| (1538684) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Feb 18 18:49:49 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 18 18:46:26 2020. And they never built the BMT-IND track connection at Ditmas that was provided for in the steel work. |
|
|
| (1538685) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Feb 18 18:53:31 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Feb 18 15:36:18 2020. It was a Dual Contract structure, so weight wasn't an issue. |
|
|
| (1538686) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 18 18:54:42 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by SLRT on Tue Feb 18 18:49:49 2020. The Culver Shuttle was on death row in 1954. People along the entire Culver line were to have a hard time getting to Wall Street area. Broadway/Nassau on the A train doesn't cut it. |
|
|
| (1538687) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 18 18:58:36 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by SLRT on Tue Feb 18 18:53:31 2020. Did they let the one remaining platform rot or crumble to the point that it could not handle a train over 4 SMEE cars ? |
|
|
| (1538690) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Feb 18 19:14:38 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 18 18:58:36 2020. What do you mean? A train on the platform or the passengers? |
|
|
| (1538694) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Feb 18 19:38:05 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 18 18:46:59 2020. Once the letter system was established for the BMT, all shuttles were designated “SS.” The only reason that “TT” was used for the West End shuttle was because that designation was also initially used for West End/Nassau St lcls. |
|
|
| (1538695) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Tue Feb 18 19:43:40 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 18 18:46:59 2020. Wasn't P supposed to be used for special express service from Jamaica to midtown in the event of an LIRR strike? IIRC that idea was kicked around back then. |
|
|
| (1538702) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Feb 18 20:14:50 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Tue Feb 18 19:43:40 2020. That was more recently. |
|
|
| (1538703) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Feb 18 21:02:29 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by SLRT on Tue Feb 18 20:14:50 2020. Using R-32s. |
|
|
| (1538706) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Feb 18 21:37:58 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by SLRT on Tue Feb 18 18:41:02 2020. I'm glad I rode it in the fall of 1974. I didn't know subway history then like I do now, so I thought it was odd that there was only one track. I missed out on lower Myrtle and the Third Av el, so at least I got that one in. |
|
|
| (1538707) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Feb 18 21:40:15 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 18 18:14:02 2020. Weren't those basically the same as the R-40/R-42 signs? (at least the outside format). At least before GOH. I remember the original R-44 signs had the same format:North Terminal | route bullet | South Terminal. |
|
|
| (1538725) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Feb 19 02:51:39 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Feb 18 21:02:29 2020. Correct. |
|
|
| (1538726) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Feb 19 02:56:45 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Tue Feb 18 19:43:40 2020. Initially. “P” wasn’t used for rather obvious reasons but was probably revived for the Jamaica to midtown service because it was intended to bring the passengers to (P)enn Station. It actually wasn’t so much for an LIRR strike but because of the threat of an Amtrak strike which would have prevented LIRR trains from going all the way to Penn Station but allow LIRR passengers access to NYCT trains from Jamaica to Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1538738) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by italianguyinsi on Wed Feb 19 09:35:31 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Feb 18 15:36:18 2020. No weight issues along the Culver, either the truncated portion or the entire length.ABs, D Types, R-1/9 units All piled the line without an issue. The R44s would have been a diet for the culver. |
|
|
| (1538746) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Wed Feb 19 10:22:06 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Feb 18 21:37:58 2020. Yeah, I also thought the single-track operation was odd when I rode the Culver Shuttle. I think remains of the opposite platforms/windscreens were still visible, but I'm not sure. I rode the (Bronx) Third Ave. El many times, but never did ride on the lower Myrtle. |
|
|
| (1538755) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Feb 19 11:19:28 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by italianguyinsi on Wed Feb 19 09:35:31 2020. And the R44's regularly plied the Culver Line between Ditmas and STL while running on the F. |
|
|
| (1538758) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by italianguyinsi on Wed Feb 19 11:31:32 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Feb 19 11:19:28 2020. Yes.Decades of holding up those D type horses....ow |
|
|
| (1538774) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Feb 19 16:34:50 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Dyre Dan on Wed Feb 19 10:22:06 2020. There was a brief period circa 1960 when the modified Lo-Vs were on the Culver that the shuttle single tracked on the NORTHBOUND track. I imagine that this was done to allow the S/B tk to be completely rehabbed so that it could be used for the long term single tk operation that eventually took place. |
|
|
| (1538775) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Feb 19 16:39:16 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by randyo on Wed Feb 19 02:56:45 2020. You are correct. It was a threat of an Amtrak Strike instead of an LIRR strike. |
|
|
| (1538776) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Feb 19 16:40:46 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 18 18:54:42 2020. The Wall Street area has been in continuous decline as a workplace. The IND was prescient in avoiding it. |
|
|
| (1538778) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Feb 19 16:43:55 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 18 18:46:26 2020. It's hardly the same. The Culver Shuttle had by 1975 been a connection between two different Sixth Avenue trains and thus provided no useful interconnection. The Jay Street transfer would never have provided anything that the Culver Shuttle did. |
|
|
| (1538784) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Feb 19 17:27:12 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Feb 19 16:40:46 2020. In the mid-1950's who saw the decline ? The Nassau Street service did quite well into the 1960's. |
|
|
| (1538785) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Feb 19 17:29:49 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Feb 19 16:43:55 2020. The Jay Street transfer would have at least gotten people on the McDonald Avenue portion to lower Manhattan via Montague. Culver Shuttle also connected McDonald Avenue to RR and TT trains. |
|
|
| (1538786) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Feb 19 17:30:48 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Feb 18 19:14:38 2020. What I mean is what shape were the single track platforms in in latter years ? |
|
|
| (1538792) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Wed Feb 19 19:50:53 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by randyo on Wed Feb 19 16:34:50 2020. I assume they switched to the s/b just before Ditmas, else that would have been a mess crossing over the tracks coming from the Smith St line. |
|
|
| (1538795) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Feb 19 20:25:16 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Joe V on Wed Feb 19 17:30:48 2020. Deteriorating wooden platforms. I railfanned the line often. |
|
|
| (1538802) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Wed Feb 19 21:39:05 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by FYBklyn1959 on Wed Feb 19 19:50:53 2020. Once the D train took over the Culver there was no track connection between the IND and BMT at either Ditmas or W8. |
|
|
| (1538803) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Wed Feb 19 21:42:07 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Feb 19 16:40:46 2020. When I worked there in the 60s it wasn't in decline. |
|
|
| (1538815) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Feb 20 12:26:04 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by SLRT on Wed Feb 19 21:42:07 2020. Nor when I worked there in the 70s. |
|
|
| (1538816) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Feb 20 12:27:23 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Feb 19 16:40:46 2020. They weren't prescient. There was no room for an additional trunk line south of Fulton. |
|
|
| (1538827) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Feb 20 14:32:09 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by SLRT on Wed Feb 19 21:39:05 2020. But they connected at Stillwell Ave., did they not? And through the yards at Coney Island? So keeping them separate at Ditmas seems silly, but that is what they did. |
|
|
| (1538831) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Feb 20 14:54:30 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by italianstallion on Thu Feb 20 12:27:23 2020. Water Street.Prescient is the wrong word. I meant that they avoided it, and ended up on the right side of history. |
|
|
| (1538833) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Feb 20 15:02:22 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Joe V on Wed Feb 19 17:29:49 2020. Before 1967 it connected to the TT, but not after. If you want to argue that it connected to the RR by way of using the D one stop, then F passengers could also transfer to the QJ and M at Delancey/Essex, or take the A/E to Broadway-Nassau and transfer to the 2/3, 4/5 or QJ/RR* there.*RR Nassau |
|
|
| (1538848) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Feb 20 16:05:07 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by italianstallion on Thu Feb 20 12:27:23 2020. Had the SAS been built as originally planned, there definitely would have been an additional trunk line S/O Fulton. |
|
|
| (1538849) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Feb 20 16:08:59 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by SLRT on Wed Feb 19 21:39:05 2020. Since the IND did connect to the BNT at Stl, I never understood why the track connection at W 8 St was broken. It would have come in handy during the reconstruction of Stl terminal that took place years later. |
|
|
| (1538850) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Feb 20 16:10:42 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Feb 20 15:02:22 2020. After 1967 it still connected to the TT since the midnight and Sunday West End service was still provided by trains signed as TT. |
|
|
| (1538859) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Feb 20 18:07:47 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by randyo on Thu Feb 20 16:10:42 2020. Not relevant as that TT ended at 36th Street. |
|
|
| (1538886) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Feb 21 12:05:00 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Feb 20 14:54:30 2020. Water Street would not have been a good choice. Especially back in the day, you were in the realm of decrepit (but cool) warehouses, a long walk from the work destinations most people were looking for. |
|
|
| (1538887) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Feb 21 12:11:13 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by randyo on Thu Feb 20 16:08:59 2020. Yes. The lower level tracks are still A1 and A2.You could argue one less junction to deal with, but there was a strange effort to keep Culver from being even slightly BMT, even rechaining the line as IND "B" almost to W8. "City Yard," which was built specifically to provide an isolated yard for the future city-run Culver has only a single track connection to the whole rest of Coney Island Yard, to this day. |
|
|
| (1538899) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Feb 21 12:25:07 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Feb 19 16:43:55 2020. It is well to remember that the TA continued some semblance of no normal Culver Service, both express and local, for nearly five years (except nights and weekends) until May 29, 1959. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
