|
|
| Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station (1572972) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (1574195) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Sun Apr 25 16:16:34 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by jabrams on Sun Apr 25 11:33:31 2021. you are correct. |
|
|
| (1574196) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Sun Apr 25 16:30:30 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Apr 24 21:35:58 2021. My best evidence for it being a retrofit is that if it was planned as a two-level station from the beginning, the local tracks almost certainly would have been the upper level.I suppose a more creative solution also could have been found to put both Brooklyn-bound tracks on the upper level (think 125/Lex) but it was probably not possible or cost-effective for a retrofit. |
|
|
| (1574234) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Apr 25 22:12:01 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by K. Trout on Sun Apr 25 16:30:30 2021. I’ve seen plans for the original BMT Centre St Line that called for one of the stations (Canal I think) to be constructed as a bi level like Nostrand but long before the IND was even thought of. At one point I heard that the reason Nostrand was constructed the way it was had to do with a provision for the proposed Bedford Ave subway which would be at the end of the long mezzanine at the N/‘E of the station. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1574239) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Mon Apr 26 08:36:18 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by randyo on Sun Apr 25 22:12:01 2021. C`MON GUYS,I,VE POSTED AND PROVIDED THE NEWPAPER ACCOUNT OF WHY ITS BI LEVEL,ITS THE LAY OF THE LAND.TOO NARROW AT THAT POINT,TOO MUCH MONEY TO MAKE IT LEVEL[BUYING BUILDINGS] TO DEMOLISH. |
|
|
| (1574243) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Apr 26 11:09:14 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by TUNNELRAT on Mon Apr 26 08:36:18 2021. Then why is the express on the upper level? The only plausible explanation is that it was planned as a local station and that it was changed to express too late in the process for it to be built any other way. The inability to make it wider can be a factor in that as they couldn’t move the local tracks outward. But if that were the only reason it would have been built like Bergen Street. |
|
|
| (1574250) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by TransitChuckG on Mon Apr 26 14:50:15 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by TUNNELRAT on Mon Apr 26 08:36:18 2021. Thanks, Tunnel Rat! |
|
|
| (1574253) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon Apr 26 15:57:54 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Apr 26 11:09:14 2021. As I wrote before, the City planners had a few grandiose ideas about expanding business districts in Brooklyn. So, Nostrand Ave, originally a planned local stop, was rebuilt into what it is today. TUNNELRAT is right (kills me to admit that!) about the narrow width of Fulton St in that area. The IND was to remain within the building lines, without taking any private property. The City had encouraged the Brevoort Savings Bank to open a branch at Macon St & Nostrand Ave in 1929, It later encouraged the principal bank director, Charles Betts, to move their headquarters to Fulton/Nostrand, demolish the Fulton Theater, and incorporate their Macon St branch into one big building. The last thing the City wanted to do was to encroach on the new bank headquarters.By the way, the Lafayette Ave route for the "GG" crosstown line was also chosen because the City planners also wanted to expand the downtown Brooklyn shopping/business area, north and east, along it. Besides, a Lafayette Ave subway had long been proposed as far back as the Tri-Boro Plans, prior to the Dual Contracts of 1913. The lower level of Nevins St had been built to connect a lafayette Ave route to the IRT. |
|
|
| (1574255) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Apr 26 16:12:43 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by TUNNELRAT on Mon Apr 26 08:36:18 2021. My info came from the late Dave Rogoff, a longtime ERA member and extremely knowledgable about the history of the NYCTS. |
|
|
| (1574260) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Mon Apr 26 18:47:23 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by randyo on Mon Apr 26 16:12:43 2021. my info came from the original engineer`s report.sorry I never met rogoff,it would been an eye opener.randy,Rogoff also stated that NOTHING was built beyound the bulkhead at conduit blvd beyound tracks A7, A8 we both know that is wrong. |
|
|
| (1574267) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Apr 26 20:55:08 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by Elkeeper on Mon Apr 26 15:57:54 2021. Again, if width were the ONLY consideration, it would have been like Bergen with the express on the lower level and without the gap between the local tracks that perfectly corresponds to the location of the express tracks. Hell, the station is wider than a standard two level station like Bergen or 86/Lex because of the weird layout. |
|
|
| (1574268) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Apr 26 20:55:51 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by TUNNELRAT on Mon Apr 26 18:47:23 2021. LOL! |
|
|
| (1574269) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Apr 26 20:56:04 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by randyo on Mon Apr 26 16:12:43 2021. PWN3D! |
|
|
| (1574270) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for April 9, 1936 |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon Apr 26 21:00:59 2021, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for April 9, 1936, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Apr 21 13:23:21 2021. That sounds like just enough to keep new construction from disturbing existing in-use areas. |
|
|
| (1574362) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 28 22:04:03 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Apr 26 20:55:08 2021. This is the major reason to support the theory it was a local station converted to express later in the process. It's pretty clear just from the construction that Nostrand was to be a local station only with a full level mezzanine above it. The current configuration doesn't even take width into account because it is no narrower than any other local station on the line, it's 4 tracks wide. If width was an issue here, the lower level would have been build below the upper level tracks, not alongside them. |
|
|
| (1574363) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 28 22:11:22 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by K. Trout on Sat Apr 24 20:51:13 2021. If this were the case the express tracks would be on the lower level, and the local tracks on top, and the two sets of tracks would be directly over/under each other, like every other station of this design. No other bi-level express station in the city has this configuration with the express over the local. |
|
|
| (1574372) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Wed Apr 28 23:09:12 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 28 22:04:03 2021. It seems that the station was wide enough to be a 4-across local station, but couldn't be expanded wider to allow the local tracks to flare out to make room for island platforms. |
|
|
| (1574378) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Apr 29 02:44:41 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 28 22:11:22 2021. As I mentioned in another post, during the construction of the Centre St subway, one of the stations, I believe Canal St, was planned to be built that way but plans were changed later. |
|
|
| (1574385) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Apr 29 07:01:11 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by K. Trout on Wed Apr 28 23:09:12 2021. I suppowe they could have done offset platforms, like 42nd / 8th, but they didn't want to. |
|
|
| (1574392) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Apr 29 09:52:00 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by randyo on Thu Apr 29 02:44:41 2021. The Centre Street line has four tracks, but no express/local split. |
|
|
| (1574393) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Apr 29 09:56:11 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by K. Trout on Wed Apr 28 23:09:12 2021. But again, if they couldn’t make it wide enough for a standard express station, it would have been built like Bergen. |
|
|
| (1574404) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Ancient Mariner on Thu Apr 29 12:03:48 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by K. Trout on Wed Apr 28 23:09:12 2021. Why isn't the width basically the same? There are the same six components whether they're arranged platform-track-track-track-track-platform (the typical local layout) or track-platform-track-track-platform-track (the typical express layout).I suppose that the express station platform might have to be wider, since they serve two tracks each rather than just one, but how great is the ususal difference?? |
|
|
| (1574409) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Thu Apr 29 13:23:11 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by Ancient Mariner on Thu Apr 29 12:03:48 2021. There must be some early documentation on the plans or replanning the station. I think we need a pole: (1) configured the current way to to the width of the street/building line. or (2) a last minute design change.Must IND local stations have a full mezzanine with the tracks two levels down. However, Franklin Ave. was built only one level down. Nostrand would have not been originally planned as an express stop as it was only 2 stations away from Utica. However, I can see an express stop there if the Nostrand/Bedford Ave. line was going cross. A much better location for an express stop should have been Franklun Ave. There are many places in the city where two lines cross and one is a local stop, such as Columbus Circle and 14th/6th on the IND. Broadway/Roosevelt on the IRT, etc. My vote is #2. |
|
|
| (1574420) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Thu Apr 29 15:45:17 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by jabrams on Thu Apr 29 13:23:11 2021. I have read that there were 3 proposals for the never-built Bedford Ave subway. One was to have the line continue under Bedford Ave, from South 4th St with a transfer to/from Fulton St. The second one was south on Bedford to Hancock, to Franklin Ave, to prospect Park. The last proposal, after the South 4th St project had been shelved, was to connect either a Bedford or Franklin line north to the IND Fulton subway, with no tunnels north of Fulton St. |
|
|
| (1574422) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Thu Apr 29 15:56:12 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by Joe V on Thu Apr 29 07:01:11 2021. I would have liked the idea of a station like the IND's 53rd St/7th Ave one. Upper platform for Queens bound expresses and locals. The lower one for Manhattan bound trains. |
|
|
| (1574426) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Apr 29 18:05:31 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Apr 29 09:52:00 2021. That’s the way it is now but not the way it was originally planned. |
|
|
| (1574428) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Thu Apr 29 18:12:41 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by jabrams on Thu Apr 29 13:23:11 2021. I suspect the express decision was made late enough in the project that converting the upper level probably required the least demolition. Adding island platforms would have required reconfiguring and demolishing tunnel walls and supports, which would be a tricky proposition because they had to support the el. Not impossible, but elevating the express tracks compares favorably cost-wise and time-wise against more complex options if significant amounts of the tunnel structure had already been built. |
|
|
| (1574430) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Apr 29 18:17:12 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Apr 29 09:56:11 2021. As I have mentioned in many posts, the reason it was made like that was to provide a passageway to the proposed Bedford Ave subway. |
|
|
| (1574432) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Apr 29 18:43:41 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by jabrams on Thu Apr 29 13:23:11 2021. When the original IRT line was built, I'm sure no one had any idea that one day another line would burrow beneath it at Columbus Circle. Times Square is another story. They just plain goofed by making it a local stop. |
|
|
| (1574438) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by murray1575 on Thu Apr 29 21:15:30 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Apr 29 18:43:41 2021. The Dual Contracts corrected that mistake by making Times Square an express stop on the newly opened line to South Ferry and Brooklyn. The same was done on the new BMT Broadway line. However it did not become a free transfer point until after WWII. The IRT and BMT were competitors and each had its own fare control. |
|
|
| (1574489) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Apr 30 17:54:16 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by murray1575 on Thu Apr 29 21:15:30 2021. There were a few mistakes made when the dual contracts were planned some of which were corrected during construction. I have a PSC report that indicates that 49 St was supposed to be a lcl stop and 57 St a lcl stop on the BMT when it was actually built as the opposite. Although i hve no documentation, I had heard that Dekalb was supposed to be a lcl stop but during construction it was changed to an exp stop but since construction was already well underway, it was configured the current way as an exp stop with the bypass tks. The choices of what stations would be express and what stations would be lcl often seem to defy logic. While Myrtle/Wyckoff on the el was made an express station in anticipation of an express service which never happened, no such provision was made anywhere on the Jamaica Line. |
|
|
| (1574512) | |
Dekalb Ave. - (subject line changed) |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Fri Apr 30 21:22:41 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by randyo on Fri Apr 30 17:54:16 2021. Actually Dekalb Ave. is a local stop for the 4th Ave. line. The Bypass tracks are actually the 4th Ave. (N and D) expresses. The outside (against the wall tracks) are just cross platform transfers to/from the Brighton line which at that point is only a 2 track line. Just because it looks like an express stop with 2 island platforms, it really isn't. |
|
|
| (1574517) | |
Re: Dekalb Ave. - (subject line changed) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Apr 30 23:02:13 2021, in response to Dekalb Ave. - (subject line changed), posted by jabrams on Fri Apr 30 21:22:41 2021. AsI mentioned, it was intended to be just a local stop but not just for the 4th Av Line but the Brighton Line also but with trains coming off the Manny B and later Nassau St not to mention that the Ashland Pl connection to the Fulton St el was under consideration it was decided to add the extra tracks. |
|
|
| (1574532) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat May 1 08:54:17 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by randyo on Fri Apr 30 17:54:16 2021. Brian Cudahy mentioned in Under the Sidewalks of New York that Times Square was going to be a local stop on the Dual Contracts lines before they realized it would be deja vu all over again. Luckily those planners came to their senses before construction got under way. |
|
|
| (1574554) | |
Re: Dekalb Ave. - (subject line changed) |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat May 1 14:42:33 2021, in response to Re: Dekalb Ave. - (subject line changed), posted by randyo on Fri Apr 30 23:02:13 2021. Randy, when they built Dekalb Ave, did they include the return loop track, just north of the station? Or, did that come later? |
|
|
| (1574556) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sat May 1 15:10:32 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by randyo on Fri Apr 30 17:54:16 2021. If the false ceiling isn't there at DeKalb, you can see the difference in the ceiling construction between the outermost tracks and the rest of the station. It's enough to make you think the outermost tracks were add-ons. |
|
|
| (1574557) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sat May 1 15:11:44 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat May 1 08:54:17 2021. It would have fit the express/local station pattern for the rest of the Broadway line. |
|
|
| (1574558) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sat May 1 15:15:48 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by randyo on Thu Apr 29 02:44:41 2021. I don't think it was Canal St. I remember seeing an old planned track map which showed Canal with all 4 tracks at the same level, but then showed all 4 tracks proceeding to Chambers. |
|
|
| (1574649) | |
Re: Dekalb Ave. - (subject line changed) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun May 2 22:25:49 2021, in response to Re: Dekalb Ave. - (subject line changed), posted by Elkeeper on Sat May 1 14:42:33 2021. Not sure, but I imagine it was part of the original plans. |
|
|
| (1574651) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun May 2 22:37:09 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by 3-9 on Sat May 1 15:10:32 2021. That’s not too dissimilar from the IRT construction in the area. As originally designed, the Bkln portion of the IRT between Boro Hall and Atlantic was supposed to be a 2 tk line with a middle tk in Nevins St station. The 2 tks were what became the present exp tks and during construction, the 2 outside tks were added along with the ramp up to the outside tk from beneath the Boro Hall station which was intended for a connection to the Manhattan Bridge and eventually was used for the connection from the 7 Ave Line. Along with the amended construction were the lower level at Nevins St and a ramp up to the N/B lcl tk intended for a connection to the 4th Ave subway. At one point when the PSC decided to award the 4 Av subway to the BRT (BMT) the IRT withdrew from dual contract negotiations but later reentered. Af course as we know, the Nevins St lower level was never used and the ramp on the east (N/B) side of the subway infrastructure was covered over when the tracks between Nevins and Atlantic were realigned circa 1960. |
|
|
| (1574656) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun May 2 22:46:57 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by 3-9 on Sat May 1 15:15:48 2021. I don’t remember what station it was either but there is an old ERA Bulletin that has that info with some track maps. |
|
|
| (1574670) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Mon May 3 01:48:42 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by randyo on Sun May 2 22:37:09 2021. What's now the connection to the 7th Av IRT at Borough Hall was originally intended to connect to the Brooklyn Bridge. The Manhattan Bridge IRT connection was to go straight up Flatbush Av Extension at Nevins St. See this Joe Brennan map. |
|
|
| (1574671) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon May 3 02:50:54 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by VictorM on Mon May 3 01:48:42 2021. I though it might it might have been the Bkln Br but the alignment of the bridge relative to the IRT subway doesn’t seem right which is why I thought Manny B. |
|
|
| (1574702) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon May 3 15:03:47 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by VictorM on Mon May 3 01:48:42 2021. Lower level Nevins St was intended for Third Ave elevated trains coming over the north side tracks of the Manhattan Bridge. Manhattan bound trains were to turn off the upper level local track (I don't know if that wall pocket still exists). This service, along with rebuilding the 3rd Ave el for steel cars, had been proposed to the PSC in 1908 by the IRT. The proposal was denied, 3 years later, in 1911. |
|
|
| (1574748) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue May 4 01:45:42 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by Elkeeper on Mon May 3 15:03:47 2021. There is also a very small bellmouth coming off the N/B lcl tk N/O Nevins for trains going to the Manny B. |
|
|
| (1574819) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue May 4 17:11:03 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by randyo on Tue May 4 01:45:42 2021. That was supposed to be the NB track to go over the bridge, to the 3rd Ave el, and north on the el. As we know, both sets of tracks went to the BRT, instead. perhaps, the PSC was still pissed off at the IRT? back in 1907. the PSC had asked the IRT to order multiple unit el cars and lengthen the Manhattan el platforms. The IRT, instead, continued to order gate cars, although the 464 cars, ordered between 1903-1911 for the MER were later converted into the vestibuled MUDC's. |
|
|
| (1574833) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue May 4 18:41:19 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by jabrams on Thu Apr 29 13:23:11 2021. Ralph and Lafayette have full length mezzanines....Nostrand was undoubtedly the same design, modified. |
|
|
| (1574835) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue May 4 18:45:39 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Apr 29 09:56:11 2021. This is why I think the decision to make it an express stop happened after construction began, or, more likely after the final designs were approved. If you wanted to build an express station like Bergen you'd probably have to redesign it, and that would most likely delay construction. The solution they came up with would have saved time and money by simply ramping up the express tracks to the mezzanine level and not changing anything else of the design. |
|
|
| (1574844) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue May 4 20:10:50 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by Elkeeper on Tue May 4 17:11:03 2021. I doubt that the PSC would have ordered MUDC for the Manhattan els since MUDC had probably not even been developed by that time. Even the first of the Lo-Vs ordered circa 1914 while they had pneumatic door controls did not have MUDC and the BMT steels ordered about the same time did not have MUDC as built either. |
|
|
| (1574850) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue May 4 20:23:41 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by randyo on Tue May 4 20:10:50 2021. Are you saying that there were no MUDC trains anywhere, prior yo 1914? |
|
|
| (1574874) | |
Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed May 5 02:15:19 2021, in response to Re: Nostrand Avenue (A) Station, posted by Elkeeper on Tue May 4 20:23:41 2021. Not that I know of. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
