|
|
| Tuscarora Almanac for May 28 (1549033) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (1549033) | |
Tuscarora Almanac for May 28 |
|
|
Posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Thu May 28 09:48:10 2020 Tuscarora Almanac - May 28, 1917 - The Book of First Runs Brooklyn and Queens, New York Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company The Contract IV Jamaica Line is extended a distance of two miles from the Cypress Hills Terminal to 111 Street. (Note that this refers to the present day el structure and not the earlier short-lived surface operation on Jamaica Avenue.) New stations are opened at Cypress Hills, Eldert’s Lane, Forest Parkway, Woodhaven Boulevard, 102nd Street and 111th Street. The Cypress Hills station is located on Jamaica Avenue and replaced the former City Line Terminal located on Crescent Street at Jamaica Avenue. Source: New York Division Bulletin, February 1971, article by Mr. Bernard Linder Rapid Transit in Brooklyn /1977 by Mr. Joseph Cunningham and Mr. Leonard DeHart Tuscarora Almanac - May 28, 1959 - The Book of First Runs Brooklyn, New York New York City Transit Authority BMT Division Route No.5 Culver Line is made into a fulltime shuttle between 9 Avenue (Lower Level) and Ditmas Avenue. Normal equipment is a two car train of A Types. As a partial compensation for the loss of through Culver service a free transfer point is established between the 9th Street Station of the BMT Fourth Avenue Line and the 4th Avenue Station of the IND South Brooklyn (Smith Street) Line. Midday operation of the No. 10 Myrtle Avenue-Chambers Street trains is discontinued as well. Former Staten Island Rapid Transit cars are assigned to the No.7 Franklin Avenue shuttle. Also on this date midday express service on the Brighton Line is discontinued. Source: New York Division Bulletin /August 1966, article by Mr. Bernard Linder Tuscarora Almanac - May 28, 1987 - The Book of First Runs Manhattan, New York New York City Transit Authority IND Division The first train of General Overhauled (GOH) R-38s entered service today. A small ceremony was held at 57th Street-6th Avenue and was attended by Mayor Ed Koch and NYCTA President David Gunn. An eight car train of clean and rebuilt R-38s was displayed on the southbound track. (B-5) Also on display was a four car train of grungified R-38s for comparison. The clean train had cars (s) 4131-0, 4092-3, 3992-3 and 4048-9 (n). The dirty train had cars (s) 4090-1, 4016-7 (n). After the ceremony the clean train was taken to the IND Pitkin Yard and readied for service. At 3PM it entered service on the A Line along with cars 4132-3. One standout feature of the rebuilt R-38s was the addition of the old TA logo with the R-10 on it. Credit: Thanks to Selkirk for the seal information Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (1549034) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28 |
|
|
Posted by qveensboro_plaza on Thu May 28 09:56:00 2020, in response to Tuscarora Almanac for May 28, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Thu May 28 09:48:10 2020. Re: the Jamaica El extension, does anyone know why the BRT didn't route the line over the private ROW that held the incline to Jamaica Ave?It would have avoided that sharp turn from Crescent St to Jamaica Ave. |
|
|
| (1549057) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28 |
|
|
Posted by zac on Thu May 28 13:27:40 2020, in response to Tuscarora Almanac for May 28, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Thu May 28 09:48:10 2020. The Brighton Express still ran midday, it just ran local in Brooklyn. I remember that it ran 9 cars of Triplexes or 3 units midday and 12 cars in rush hours. I've always guessed that this was to allow certain construction to happen but can't really say for sure. It was a few years later when they did "skip-stop" in rush hours. Maybe they planned to start sooner. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1549059) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28 |
|
|
Posted by BMT Standard on Thu May 28 13:35:36 2020, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28, posted by zac on Thu May 28 13:27:40 2020. The rush hour "skip-stop" on the Brighton line during 1964 (lasted about 11 months) was to allow for the lengthening of the platforms at Newkirk Ave (now Newkirk Plaza). During the widening operation, the express tracks were closed between Kings Highway and Prospect Park and all service ran on the local tracks, which had temporary crossovers to use the express side of the platforms at Newkirk. |
|
|
| (1549068) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28 |
|
|
Posted by zac on Thu May 28 14:16:03 2020, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28, posted by BMT Standard on Thu May 28 13:35:36 2020. They needed it to be able to hold 10x60 car D trains. All other platforms along the line were also extended where necessary but only at Newkirk did the need to cut into the retaining wall at the north end. Church was already long enough it appears since it has original stairs at both ends and are unchanged. I think Sheepshead Bay needed an extension but they had the room. I don't know about the other express stations. Parkside, Beverly and Cortelyou had cuts made into the wall. I don't remember them working on any of these except Newkirk, but then again I was only 9 in 1964.Maybe they did this midday and had both trains express in one direction and local the other way, pretty much what they do now when the Q runs express. The B will run local the other way, except that the B isn't running at all these days. |
|
|
| (1549145) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28 |
|
|
Posted by BMT Standard on Thu May 28 23:01:32 2020, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28, posted by zac on Thu May 28 14:16:03 2020. In addition to Church Ave., Prospect Park and Sheepshead Bay stations were also already long enough to accommodate 600 ft trains at that time. Sheepshead Bay was extended when the Voorhies Ave. exit was added, I believe when the Belt Parkway was built in the 1930s. There was room to extend Kings Highway island platforms without moving tracks. |
|
|
| (1549261) | |
Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat May 30 00:18:27 2020, in response to Tuscarora Almanac for May 28, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Thu May 28 09:48:10 2020. In retrospect, it was a mistake to sever and eventually demolish the Culver line from the 4th Avenue line:That is one line I've said before I'd be looking to rebuild as two levels of single track with spots to allow for crossovers for GOs and so forth and likely with a new upper level on the northbound side of Ditmas Avenue with northbound trains on an upper level and southbound trains on a lower level (with the platform at Ditmas as it was from the shuttle days redone on the south side) and the lower level of 9th Avenue refurbished so it could be used as it once was again. |
|
|
| (1549262) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat May 30 00:21:39 2020, in response to Culver Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat May 30 00:18:27 2020. The operative question is whether there is a travel market along this route. In my view, there are extensions into subway deserts far more deserving of new trackage. |
|
|
| (1549264) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat May 30 00:47:37 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat May 30 00:21:39 2020. Maybe if the line lasted, housing would have built around it. |
|
|
| (1549265) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat May 30 01:08:21 2020, in response to Culver Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat May 30 00:18:27 2020. I think it was a mistake to get rid of any of the elevated lines. If we still had the elevated system that we had in 100 or so years ago, shorn up to carry heavy subway trains, with our mosern subway lines, imagine all the new routes we could have |
|
|
| (1549266) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat May 30 01:21:22 2020, in response to Culver Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat May 30 00:18:27 2020. There were a couple of problems that justified the eventual removed of the Culver Line from the BMT. one was a chronic cars shortage that the BMT had which was actually mentioned in a pre 1940 article in the Bkln Spectator. It mentioned that the 4 Av Subway was suffering overcrowding due to a car shortage on the BMT but it was expected to be relieved when the Culver was connected to the City Subway which was planned almost as soon as the IND opened. Another factor was that with the Culver operating through to Manhattan, there would be 3 local services operating on 4 Ave joined by a fourth through the Montague tube when joined by the Brighton Lcl at Dekalb. Even allowing fo some Culvers operating as expresses via the bridge into Nassau St at some point there would still be 4 lcl service operating through the tunnel either in the peak direction of traffic or against it when returning. The connection of the IND to the Culver S/O Ditmas not only provided Culver passengers with a one seat ride to midtown Manhattan which was unavailable under BMT operation, but also freed up rolling stock leaving it available to be used for lengthening trains on other lines that were overcrowded. |
|
|
| (1549267) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat May 30 01:28:35 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by LuchAAA on Sat May 30 00:47:37 2020. what I'm saying is, who knew Brooklyn would rebound so strong? |
|
|
| (1549268) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Sat May 30 01:35:25 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by LuchAAA on Sat May 30 01:28:35 2020. All the people that invested going back to the 1980s. |
|
|
| (1549269) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat May 30 02:07:35 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Catfish 44 on Sat May 30 01:35:25 2020. good point. |
|
|
| (1549271) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat May 30 02:19:44 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat May 30 01:08:21 2020. Having watched about 2/3 of the posted film, I come away with a realization that most of those trains were short, low capacity services. Somewhat remind me of a few bits of CTA in the 50s when base day trains were 4 cars and rarely full when I rode them. Today, one of those routes has had the platforms lengthened to berth 8 car trains and midday they are fairly full--most seats full many standees.though not crush loaded.So, I ask,because I wasn't riding any of the Brooklyn Els except the lower Myrtle in its last 2 years, if despite lower TPH than optimal, is there not greater net capacity than before the Els were demolished? For example, IINM the Ds and then Fs of my time in NYC (66-70) became 10x60; how long were Culver trains before the IND takeover? |
|
|
| (1549280) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Sat May 30 05:40:34 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat May 30 01:08:21 2020. In Manhattan that would have meant, three express services on both the east and west sides: Lex, 2nd & 3rd; IRT 7th Ave/B'Way, IND 8th Ave. "A", & 9th ave. el expresses |
|
|
| (1549292) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat May 30 09:30:34 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat May 30 02:19:44 2020. IIRC, Culver subway trains were typically 6 or 7 cars of B-types.But there were also elevated car shuttles that ran only to 9th Avenue. When you see "short" BMT elevated trains you have to remember that the el cars (except C's and Q's) were very labor intensive. Six car train meant 6 employees (motorman, conductor and 4 guards). So there was great incentive not to run longer trains when the demand wasn't there. Example Myrtle BUs were 6 cars in rush hour, 3 at other times. |
|
|
| (1549295) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Sat May 30 09:38:32 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by SLRT on Sat May 30 09:30:34 2020. A neighor a few doors down when my family lived in Amityville remembered the Culver el - gate cars and guards. |
|
|
| (1549303) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28 |
|
|
Posted by Chicago44 on Sat May 30 11:46:13 2020, in response to Tuscarora Almanac for May 28, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Thu May 28 09:48:10 2020. What year did the transfer point started construction between the 9 St station & 4 Av station? |
|
|
| (1549307) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28 |
|
|
Posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Sat May 30 12:00:37 2020, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28, posted by Chicago44 on Sat May 30 11:46:13 2020. What year did the transfer point started construction between the 9 St station & 4 Av station? I can only guess 1958 or 59. Maybe someone here knows for sure. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (1549308) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28 |
|
|
Posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Sat May 30 12:00:46 2020, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28, posted by Chicago44 on Sat May 30 11:46:13 2020. What year did the transfer point started construction between the 9 St station & 4 Av station? I can only guess 1958 or 59. Maybe someone here knows for sure. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (1549312) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by murray1575 on Sat May 30 13:05:08 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by SLRT on Sat May 30 09:30:34 2020. They used to do the same on Myrtle Ave. after the Q cars replaced the gate cars. It was interesting watching the man in the track pit connecting the cables between the three car sets. Of course it didn't save any labor since the Q cars had MUDC. It did save electricity and wear and tear on those old cars. |
|
|
| (1549314) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat May 30 13:22:58 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by murray1575 on Sat May 30 13:05:08 2020. And when they ran a single Q unit they operated the Triplex-like door controls from inside. |
|
|
| (1549315) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat May 30 13:24:48 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by SLRT on Sat May 30 09:30:34 2020. I'm surprised that the BRT/BMT didn't build 9 foot wide versions of their "C" cars, or something similar, to save manpower on those gates. |
|
|
| (1549316) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat May 30 13:48:00 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by SLRT on Sat May 30 13:22:58 2020. Wasn't that the same way, when they operated a single 3 unit "C" car? |
|
|
| (1549319) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28 |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat May 30 13:54:23 2020, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28, posted by Chicago44 on Sat May 30 11:46:13 2020. I haven't found the actual 9St/4Av transfer date yet, but take a look at the May 27th, 1948 (page 1) edition of the Brooklyn Eagle. They explain why certain potential transfer locations, including 9St/4Av were not made free back then. |
|
|
| (1549321) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28 |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Sat May 30 14:03:30 2020, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28, posted by Chicago44 on Sat May 30 11:46:13 2020. The interior tilework is quite seamless and quite reminiscent of the 1930s IND, especially the lettering on the directional signs. It makes me wonder how much of the connection was original construction, because the most recently opened stations prior to 1959 (179 St, Fulton extensions) look nothing like that.  Especially interesting that this "CONEY ISLAND" sign also appears to be of the same vintage, actually pointing towards the Culver platform. Of course it was always part of the IND plans to extend the line, so it would make sense to put up the sign. In that sense it's similar to the "TO THE ROCKAWAYS" signs along Queens Blvd. 
|
|
|
| (1549322) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28 |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Sat May 30 14:18:13 2020, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28, posted by Elkeeper on Sat May 30 13:54:23 2020. Apparently only the southbound stairway existed at that time, and paper tickets for the northbound transfer (also requiring a walk to the next block) were not considered because of the operational cost. |
|
|
| (1549328) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat May 30 15:27:42 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Elkeeper on Sat May 30 13:48:00 2020. I never saw that myself, but I suppose so. You could do it with Triplexes themselves, but I never saw a single-unit Triplex in service. |
|
|
| (1549329) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat May 30 15:29:11 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Elkeeper on Sat May 30 13:24:48 2020. The Q-Types? |
|
|
| (1549330) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by BMT Standard on Sat May 30 16:18:16 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by randyo on Sat May 30 01:21:22 2020. The IND Culver connection really did nothing to address the BMT car shortage. The IND did not have "surplus" cars to extend service from Church Ave to Coney Island. Where did the cars come from then? They came from "repatriating" the 100 or so R1-9s that were transferred to the BMT when the R10s arrived. Also, around this time, the R16s were being delivered. However, even with the 200 R16s, there was still a car shortage, leading to running ex-SIRT cars and some modified IRT low-Vs in the BMT until the R27s arrived in 1960-61. |
|
|
| (1549331) | |
[PHOTOS] Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat May 30 16:19:00 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by SLRT on Sat May 30 15:27:42 2020.  
|
|
|
| (1549332) | |
Re: [PHOTOS] Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat May 30 16:27:15 2020, in response to [PHOTOS] Re: Culver Line, posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat May 30 16:19:00 2020. Nice. |
|
|
| (1549335) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Sat May 30 17:33:43 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat May 30 00:21:39 2020. Not necessarily. The Culver "shuttle" was much like the Paulina Connector in Chicago. In both cases, construction of a new subway connection rendered the slower elevated obsolete. The elevated Culver line was retained for passenger shuttle service, while the Paulina Connector was retained for non-passenger use as the sole connection between several west side lines and the rest of the rapid transit system. A portion of the Paulina Connection, not necessary for maintaining that connection, was demolished in 1964. But the rest remained to provide a physical connection with the rest of the system. Critically for passenger services, this connection provided flexibility. In the late 1950s, Douglas Park trains used the connector when the Garfield Park route was not available and the Congress Expressway had not yet been completed. Douglas Park trains returned to that route again, this time permanently, starting in 2006. Both times, however, no intermediate stations were served. In other words, there was no attempt to serve "travel demand" along the Paulina Connection. The sole purpose of the Paulina Connection was to provide routing flexibility and to be able to increase service levels where bottlenecks restricted throughput. In the case of the Culver "shuttle," there was no need to maintain a physical connection between two separated rapid transit networks. But the route served to provide flexibility in the provision of service. And that utility does not require that there be a "travel market" along 39th Street, just as the reactivation of the Paulina Connection did not require that there be a "travel market" along Paulina Street. It is that operational flexibility that would be the most significant basis for reconstructing the Culver "shuttle," more so than there being a "travel market"; if there were definitively no need for that flexibility, then there would no cause for its reconstruction. |
|
|
| (1549338) | |
Re: [PHOTOS] Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Sat May 30 18:20:22 2020, in response to [PHOTOS] Re: Culver Line, posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat May 30 16:19:00 2020. Really nice. What does it say beneath Ditmas Ave.? |
|
|
| (1549339) | |
Re: [PHOTOS] Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat May 30 18:44:06 2020, in response to Re: [PHOTOS] Re: Culver Line, posted by Catfish 44 on Sat May 30 18:20:22 2020. Really nice. What does it say beneath Ditmas Ave.?I can't make it out. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1549345) | |
Re: [PHOTOS] Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat May 30 19:13:30 2020, in response to Re: [PHOTOS] Re: Culver Line, posted by Catfish 44 on Sat May 30 18:20:22 2020. Really nice. What does it say beneath Ditmas Ave.?Just found out. Since there are two mezzanines at Ditmas Ave, one arrow points to Ditmas Ave and the other to Cortelyou Rd. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1549347) | |
Re: [PHOTOS] Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat May 30 19:18:22 2020, in response to [PHOTOS] Re: Culver Line, posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat May 30 16:19:00 2020. Wrong route sign in the second pic!:) |
|
|
| (1549350) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28 |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat May 30 19:53:04 2020, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28, posted by K. Trout on Sat May 30 14:03:30 2020. It was probably put in place but not opened for decades, like 14St/6Av, Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1549352) | |
Re: [PHOTOS] Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat May 30 20:01:20 2020, in response to Re: [PHOTOS] Re: Culver Line, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat May 30 19:18:22 2020. Wrong route sign in the second pic!:)The other end said 5 Ninth Ave ! Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1549353) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat May 30 20:08:14 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by SLRT on Sat May 30 15:29:11 2020. No, around 15 years before that when the time the IRT was re-building most of their 1903-1911 gate cars into MUDC's. |
|
|
| (1549354) | |
Re: [PHOTOS] Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Sat May 30 20:10:45 2020, in response to Re: [PHOTOS] Re: Culver Line, posted by Bill Newkirk on Sat May 30 19:13:30 2020. Thank you very very much!!! |
|
|
| (1549355) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28 |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat May 30 20:11:59 2020, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Sat May 30 12:00:46 2020. May 28th, 1959. |
|
|
| (1549359) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat May 30 21:12:55 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by BusMgr on Sat May 30 17:33:43 2020. Isn’t there some sort of a sports arena along the Paulina Connection that would provide a travel market? |
|
|
| (1549376) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat May 30 23:51:16 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by randyo on Sat May 30 21:12:55 2020. Yes. Near the demolished Madison Street station. The old arena was replaced with the United Center, but CTA has not restored the station.https://www.chicago-l.org/operations/lines/paulina.html for history in depth. I would say that CTA has neglected the area although they are in the process of restoring a station at Damen and Lake which is also near the arena and also demolished decades ago. One of the deficits of elevated systems is how easily a station can be closed and torn down. Conversely, other than 18th on the original IRT, most subway stations in NY remain. |
|
|
| (1549382) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun May 31 03:39:13 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat May 30 23:51:16 2020. We also lost 91 St/Bway and Worth St. |
|
|
| (1549386) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28 |
|
|
Posted by Union Tpke on Sun May 31 07:12:22 2020, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28, posted by BMT Standard on Thu May 28 23:01:32 2020. I would love to add this information to Wikipedia. Where did you hear this information? Thanks. |
|
|
| (1549387) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28 |
|
|
Posted by Union Tpke on Sun May 31 07:15:14 2020, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for May 28, posted by Elkeeper on Sat May 30 13:54:23 2020. The transfer was added to compensate for the loss of through Culver service via the Fourth Avenue Line on May 28, 1959. Why don't you believe that date. 'Bright New Day' For BMT Riders Has Grey Shades Thu, May 21, 1959 – 502 · Daily News (New York, New York) · Newspapers.com
|
|
|
| (1549390) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun May 31 08:01:23 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by randyo on Sun May 31 03:39:13 2020. Not to mention Myrtle Ave. Honorable mention goes to the World's Fair terminal on the IND spur, even if it was only temporary. |
|
|
| (1549391) | |
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun May 31 08:01:24 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by randyo on Sun May 31 03:39:13 2020. Not to mention Myrtle Ave. Honorable mention goes to the World's Fair terminal on the IND spur, even if it was only temporary. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
