|
|
| Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? (1569146) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1569146) | |
Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 10:57:32 2021 There was an older thread posted on the message board from Trains.com about this vintage interior image that Mr. Dave Klepper posted back in August 2020. Our Sunchatters know what my answer is to the question he posted...This is an inteior of an R10 in service OR R9 1575 that was rebuilt to be the sample for the R10 order. My NYCTA experts tell me there is no way to determine which of the two it would be. Does anyone else have a clue?  Dave, you are reading this post somewhere, or if someone can alert you about this, the answer that this is a bona fide R-10 car. The giveaway at first are the 12-inch diameter fans and their connecting arms, which are basically positioned out straight. Car #1575, an R-7A rebuilt to look like an R-10, had to have its fan sockets adjusted and amended, looking "droopy" in a downward angle, after their original 10 inch ones were replaced with the 12-inch units eleven days after their public display at 34th Street-6th Avenue on 7/11/1947. With the top of its bulk head with the auxiliary lights to small, it was necessitated to have some room needed for the new fans on #1575. When the production line of the R-10's came about, the fan bulk head was slightly modified with a refined version.  Also, the R-10's side door panels do not have the pressed square frame around the car's windows, but #1575's does. The front storm door interior on the R-10 has a pressed rounded corner frame, where #1575 had the square ones, but on that museum car, only just one, as it was replaced by at one end salvaged from an R-10. All of this comes from a message thread that shows brand new R-10 cars being delivered to the Coney Island Yard, with Dave Klepper's own pictures, so the real credit goes to him. The link is right there for you to view... Winter 1947-48 delivery of R10 Subway cars via South Brooklyn Ry. Plwase note that the R-10's were actually delivered 1948-1949 though. -William A. Padron ["Wash. Hts.-207th St."] |
|
|
| (1569148) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 11:12:06 2021, in response to Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 10:57:32 2021. Slight correction and amendment...#1575 was display at Chambers Street-Hudson Terminal on 7/9/1947, and at 34th Street-6th Avenue on 7/10/1947. On 7/21/1947, the original ten inch fans were replaced with the twelve-inch ones, with the adjustments having to be made on the socket arms. Now, some views from nycsubway.org with R-7A #1575 with their original 10-inch fans and socket positions...    -William A. Padron ["Cab No. 1"] |
|
|
| (1569150) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 22 11:19:48 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 11:12:06 2021. When that car was reassigned to ENY, and the mylar signs upgraded for Eastern Division, was that an extension, or replacement of the IND signs that were there ? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1569156) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 11:53:28 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 22 11:19:48 2021. According to the book "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of New York City Subway Rollsigns and Ancillary Items - Volume 1 - BMT and IND Lines - 1914 to 1970's" on pages 168-169 in regards to car #1575, these were replacements and installed in 1967.Side route sign letters stenciled on; wording and route names taken from R-9 Eastern Division signs and pasted on material to fit sign box of 1575. Side destination signs are from R-9's, specially pieced together. So, the side route and destination curtains had only corresponded related to the "AA", "KK", "LL", "M", "MM" and "QJ" services, as noted in November 1970 by contributor Douglas Grotjahn. #1575's original IND 1947 signs no longer exist, and when it came time to be designated as a museum car in 1976, they did replaced those side signs with initially those salvaged from an R-10 car. -William A. Padron ["A | 8th Ave. Express"] |
|
|
| (1569159) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 22 12:02:54 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 11:53:28 2021. Why AA ? |
|
|
| (1569164) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 12:36:01 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 22 12:02:54 2021. Perhaps it was a planning idea that "AA" locals would be rerouted into the BMT Eastern Division, by using the new Chrystie Street connection going to/from Essex-Delancey. No one knows what if their outer terminals were to be anywhere that the other routes had their established locations.The signs had "MM" for 6th Avenue service, which is today's version of the "M", as it was planned to have their Manhattan terminal at 57th Street. Perhaps a "AA" local service from 168th-Broadway in Manhattan to 168th-Jamaica in Queens? I do not think so! -William A. Padron ["BJ1"] |
|
|
| (1569173) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 22 13:52:44 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 12:36:01 2021. Probably AA for non-rush hour KK to Metro Ave so as not to be redundantwith the E at WTC, closes the disconnect between Bway-Myrtle and W 4th Street. The CC served it rush hours. Notice no JJ. |
|
|
| (1569177) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Mon Feb 22 15:08:36 2021, in response to Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 10:57:32 2021. William: Please correct me if I am wrong. They didn't actually rebuild car 1575. They built one more car shell for the R-10's and put in on the wheel trucks of 1575 preserving the original undercarriage electrical equipment . Is this correct? Thank you, Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (1569179) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Feb 22 15:31:28 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Mon Feb 22 15:08:36 2021. Years ago there was a post here with a photo of 1575 during the rebuild. It was in fact a rebuild- The interior was changed bit by bit. It doesn't make much sense to me, but I've seen photo proof. |
|
|
| (1569182) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 15:53:17 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by R30A on Mon Feb 22 15:31:28 2021. According to the NYCTA specs and the notes say this about #1575...General Note: Car wrecked 1946. Rebuilt to simulate future R-10 type car body. Underframe, trucks & equipment generally the same, but superstructure is new - of welded construction. Delivered 6-30-1947. I believe what the photos that may have been circulated around where the test mock-ups placed on the older IND cars instead. However, the car body on #1575 is a brand new one built from the ground up. -William A. Padron ["Sheet No. 8A, 402-2001-C"] |
|
|
| (1569183) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 15:58:37 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Mon Feb 22 15:08:36 2021. The new prototype car shell came in 1947, and it was the first real one in that design. First, the IRT R-12 and then the IND-BMT R-10 fleets began being built a year later in 1948. #1575 always had and has still AMUE equipment.-William A. Padron ["a.c.f."] |
|
|
| (1569189) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Mon Feb 22 16:19:32 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 15:53:17 2021. Thank you William. Its the only answer that makes sense. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (1569192) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 22 16:35:34 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 15:53:17 2021. Was putting the new body on old frame done in Berwick, 207th, or Coney Island ? |
|
|
| (1569193) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Feb 22 16:46:07 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 12:36:01 2021. There was actually a thought to have a AA service operating to somewhere on the BMT Eastern in the early stages when the TA planners were still trying to decide what the post Chrystie routes were going to be so a few possible destinations were added just in case. As for the MM, as I have mentioned before in this forum there were 4 AM KKs that returned to Met instead of E/Pky which were technically MMs but kept the KK signs. |
|
|
| (1569195) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 22 17:03:47 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by randyo on Mon Feb 22 16:46:07 2021. It would have been tedious to schedule an off-peak (call it AA) from 168th to Metro Ave and to keep the Coney Island and ENY equipment from getting mixed up.In the AM, The first off-peak train from Metro to 168th would be expected to follow the last B or CC by a few minutes north of 59th, probably run with KK equipment. The first off-peak train from 168th to Metro would be expected to follow the last B or CC, probably with equipment from the last northward B train. AA would likely run with a mixture of CI and ENY trains, then would have to straighten it all out for the PM rush. Each carbarn's trains lacked roll signs for the other. |
|
|
| (1569197) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Feb 22 17:15:08 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 22 17:03:47 2021. That may have been among the reasons why it wasn’t done. It seems that the TA and even in some cases the B of T before it was rather short sided when it came to planning for potential routes leaving out quite a few readings. |
|
|
| (1569200) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 17:47:09 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 22 16:35:34 2021. It was done at the A.C.F. plant in Berwick, Pennsylvania. The wrecked R-7 original car body was sent to them, and came back with the new one from the factory, but still with the AMUE hardware and equipment.When it was completed there in Berwick, it sported its original white on black number plates from the previous design. However, when that car returned back to New York and eventually to 207th Street Yard with the new body, it now received those new orange on grey number plates. As seen from his own collection, railfan George Votova photographed that car at 207th Street Yard on 7/2/1947 -William A. Padron ["a.c.f."] |
|
|
| (1569204) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Feb 22 18:31:37 2021, in response to Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 10:57:32 2021. Already signed as the train they will be forever associated with.:) |
|
|
| (1569205) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Feb 22 18:36:36 2021, in response to Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 10:57:32 2021. That top photo appears to be a real R-10. The inside surface of each side door leaf is flat right up to the window. On 1575, the inside surface is recessed slightly around each window. |
|
|
| (1569209) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Mon Feb 22 18:50:17 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Feb 22 18:36:36 2021. That top photo appears to be a real R-10. The inside surface of each side door leaf is flat right up to the window. On 1575, the inside surface is recessed slightly around each window.I knew it was an R-10 and not R-7A #1575 by looking at the storm door glass that lines up in both cars. If the other car was an arnine, the door glass would be of different dimensions. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1569217) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Feb 22 19:41:13 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 17:47:09 2021. The number plates on the R-1/9s wee not white on black, but white on Pullman green. |
|
|
| (1569227) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by Handbrake on Mon Feb 22 20:41:49 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Mon Feb 22 15:58:37 2021. If you look at the end of the car body, the side edge corners of 1575 body overhang the car anti-climber unique to 1575, where on a standard SMEE car body, the car body corners do not overhang the anti-climber. |
|
|
| (1569238) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Tue Feb 23 00:49:14 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by Handbrake on Mon Feb 22 20:41:49 2021. Wow, that's very subtle.No overhang on 103:  Nor on 1823:  But it's quite visible once you know what to look for:  |
|
|
| (1569242) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Feb 23 01:41:39 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by Handbrake on Mon Feb 22 20:41:49 2021. That may have been because while the R-10s were a completely new design the new body for 1575 had to be fitted on a frame that was made for a standard bodied R-7/9 body so it didn’t quite fit properly. The other giveaway is that on 157s like all the R-1/9s the taillight box takes up the entire space between the C/R’s step and the anticlimber while on the R-10s, the taillight box is smaller and leaves a small space between the bottom of the box and the anticlimber. |
|
|
| (1569244) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by murray1575 on Tue Feb 23 06:11:22 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by randyo on Mon Feb 22 19:41:13 2021. Here we go again. You must own an early Lionel 2332 GG-1 which was painted black. Later production models were painted the correct shade of dark green after Lionel got paint samples from the PRR. Subsequent two motor 2330, 2340, and 2360 GG-1's were also painted the correct shade of green. I will check out the museum cars someday to see if you are correct. |
|
|
| (1569248) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Tue Feb 23 06:45:57 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by K. Trout on Tue Feb 23 00:49:14 2021. A set of R-10 museum car images, all photographed at 207th Street Yard, looking at the sides as best possible. All from nycsubway.org.R-7A #1575, 207th Street Yard, November 29, 2011.  R-10 #3184, 207th Street Yard, July 27, 2017.  R-10 #3189, 207th Street Yard, September 22, 2019.  -William A. Padron ["207"] |
|
|
| (1569256) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Tue Feb 23 07:46:43 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Feb 22 18:31:37 2021. Yeah, and some of the images I have seen, even in the test runs on the BMT Sea Beach Line in 1948-1949.R-10 #1818, Fort Hamilton Parkway, BMT Sea Beach Line, October 16, 1948. Note: This car was renumbered as #2965 during the year 1970.  -William A. Padron ["'A' \ 8th Ave."] |
|
|
| (1569270) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 23 09:02:07 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Tue Feb 23 07:46:43 2021. Ironic that most R10's originally had BMT numbers, but they seldom ran on it. |
|
|
| (1569273) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Tue Feb 23 09:50:29 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Tue Feb 23 06:45:57 2021. And yes, remember always, #1575 was, is and will be always an R-7A that just has the look of an R-10.#3184 and #3189 are the bona fide R-10's. That's all Folks! -William A. Padron ["Wash. Hts.-8th Av. Exp."] |
|
|
| (1569274) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Tue Feb 23 10:03:31 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 23 09:02:07 2021. From what I understood, there were separate sets of rollsigns, each for the IND and BMT, for the R-10's. It was previously posted that car #3000 was delivered with BMT signs, but that was changed though prior to service.It was not until the 30 cars (G.E. units #3320-3349) which were sent to the BMT Eastern Division in 1954 that they finally were sporting them. They were known to be operated on routes #14 (Broadway Short Line), #15 (Jamaica) and #16 (Canarsie) in regular service. To whit, the earliest known image of them at their new assignment, from nycsubway.org. R-10's, Fulton Street, BMT Nassau Street-Jamaica Line, November 11, 1954.  -William A. Padron ["Fultn"] |
|
|
| (1569292) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Tue Feb 23 13:13:39 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Tue Feb 23 09:50:29 2021. And yes, remember always, #1575 was, is and will be always an R-7A that just has the look of an R-10. William: I believe that 1575 is the only surviving R-7A from either of the two builders. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (1569295) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Tue Feb 23 13:48:17 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Tue Feb 23 13:13:39 2021. Yeah, R-7A #1575's original car body was by built by Pullman-Standard, and rebuilt by American Car and Foundry. #1575's linkage does lead back to Pullman, at least its components.Alas, R-6-2 #1208 was a museum car from Pullman, but later scrapped. One could say that #1575 is literally the only survivor of the entire R-1/9 fleet that originally came from Pullman. However, in a turnabout way, when R-10 cars #3029 and #3240 were involved in the Dyckman Street sideswipe in 1958, both of them were sent to Pullman-Standard. While car #3029 looked pretty much the same (it ended its career as a green-painted car in 1989), car #3240 had its lighting made more brighter with all brand newer lenses, much like the R-16 thru R-22 cars. Both cars are gone too. -William A. Padron ["200"] |
|
|
| (1569315) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Feb 23 15:25:07 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by murray1575 on Tue Feb 23 06:11:22 2021. I know about the black GG1s because my uncle had one. As for the number plated on the R-1/9s I noticed that back in the 1950s and 60s when I first became a railfan. It seems that the IND believed in having the number plates match the color of the car as it did with the R-10s. By the time of the R-15s the B of T got away from that by having yellow on black number plates and from the R-16s on up went to white on black. The again went with a more matching color with the white on blue number plates on the R-32s but quickly went back to white on black with the R-38s. |
|
|
| (1569317) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Feb 23 15:36:48 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Tue Feb 23 10:03:31 2021. By the way, for those of you who aren’t aware, the destination signs for the steels read simply “Jamaica” and “Canarsie.” It wasn’t till the R types that the readings “168 St Jamaica” and “Rockaway Pkwy” were put on the cars. The BMT was a bit inconsistent with its destinations choosing for example to use “Metropolitan Ave” and “Lefferts Ave” instead of simply "Middle Village” or “Richmond Hill” for the Myrtle and Fulton St els. |
|
|
| (1569333) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Tue Feb 23 16:23:06 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by randyo on Tue Feb 23 15:36:48 2021. This may be a surprise to all, but according to the book "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of New York City Subway Rollsigns and Ancillary Items - Volume 1 - BMT and IND Lines - 1914 to 1970's" on page 41, the BRT/BMT AB's original signs were said to include a very lengthy list each of route and designation signs on the curtains.According to the book inside... It was recorded in 1915 by Walter Druck when the cars were placed into service on the new Fourth Avenue Subway. Many of the readings were never used. When these rollsigns were designed, the BMT had trackage rights to operate over the Astoria and Flushing (originally called Corona) lines. The IRT maintained all the trackage, signals and power. The plan was for these cars to serve both lines. So, looking at that list, they are such extra readings but were not used supposedly, marked with an "*" as... Route signs = Fourth Av. Exp., Fifth Av. Local, Fifth Av. Exp., Fulton St. Local, Fulton St. Exp., Lexington Av. Local, Lexington Av. Exp., Asroria Local, Astoria Exp., Corona Local, Corona Exp., Via Tube, Via Whitehall St., and Via Lower Man'h't'n. Later ones were said to have Jamaica Local and Jamaica Exp. Destination signs = Sheepshead Bay, Sea Gate, 65th St., Ditmars Ave., Lefferts Ave., Fulton Ferry, Park Row, Sands St., Grant Ave., Brooklyn Bridge, Cypress Hills and Richmond Hill. Later ones were said to have 168th Street [duplicates Jamaica on the roll] and Broadway Ferry. Obviously, if this is the true and is the case, the BRT/BMT were really thinking big isn puttimg their AB cars anywhere if they wanted to, but there were limitations as soon as they found out later. -William A. Padron ["Standards"] |
|
|
| (1569335) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Tue Feb 23 16:32:05 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Tue Feb 23 16:23:06 2021. Extra!The AB's also had, looking at this list again, 86th St. [4th Ave.], 59th St. Manhattan, Manhattan [?}, New Lots Road, Montrose Ave., Fresh Pond Rd., and Manhattan Jct. No reading seen for Corona as a terminal listing though. -William A. Padron ["#2000-2899, #4000-4049"] |
|
|
| (1569336) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Feb 23 16:32:15 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by William A. Padron on Tue Feb 23 10:03:31 2021. I wonder if my grandfather ever operated the R-10 when it was on the BMT. I think I heard he started out in the Southern Division, so they may have returned to the IND by the time he was at ENY.(That's not him in the pic, BTW) |
|
|
| (1569340) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 23 16:44:42 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by randyo on Tue Feb 23 15:36:48 2021. Yes, through the R38, were content with "ASTORIA" |
|
|
| (1569382) | |
Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Feb 24 01:11:06 2021, in response to Re: Answer For Mr. Dave Klepper's Question, Is It An R-10 or #1575?, posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 23 16:44:42 2021. Which is interesting since the destination sign for the 14 St Line “Canarsie” was replaced on the R types by the full "Rockaway Parkway." |
|
|
