|
|
| BMT Crosstown line again (1589976) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1589976) | |
BMT Crosstown line again |
|
|
Posted by zac on Mon Nov 15 10:32:34 2021 I finally found a mention of the BMT Crosstown line in a transcript of an official document."To Be Constructed By Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company At Its Own Expense. Crosstown Line-Greenpoint. Elevated. Two tracks. 11.0" This is in section III of this from NYCSubway.org: Dual Contracts 1912 I've seen these scanned docs in some archive but can't seem to find the scans anymore. This reference would pre-date Queensboro Plaza and would explain why a provision would be made to build it even if it went no further than it did. It was in the contract! By the time QBP was built the BRT was bankrupt and wasn't building anything by itself, and the city wasn't keeping their end of the bargain up with its own commitments. |
|
|
| (1590018) | |
Re: BMT Crosstown line again |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon Nov 15 15:35:39 2021, in response to BMT Crosstown line again, posted by zac on Mon Nov 15 10:32:34 2021. You failed to mention the IRT's near bankruptcy in 1920-1922. That "reorganization" resulted in a lowering of bond interest, after the IRT leased the Manhattan Elevated Railway in 1903. |
|
|
| (1590057) | |
Re: BMT Crosstown line again |
|
|
Posted by Bob Andersen on Mon Nov 15 18:13:34 2021, in response to BMT Crosstown line again, posted by zac on Mon Nov 15 10:32:34 2021. Transit Truths, published by the BMT in 1924, mentions a proposed crosstown line in several places. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1590074) | |
Re: BMT Crosstown line again |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Mon Nov 15 19:59:52 2021, in response to BMT Crosstown line again, posted by zac on Mon Nov 15 10:32:34 2021. this looks like something from the b.r.t. it ends with a recommendation of a subway instead of an el.sorry about the crappy quality.  14 Jan 1913, Tue The Brooklyn Daily Eagle (Brooklyn, New York) Newspapers.com
|
|
|
| (1590078) | |
Re: BMT Crosstown line again |
|
|
Posted by zac on Mon Nov 15 20:13:42 2021, in response to Re: BMT Crosstown line again, posted by ntrainride on Mon Nov 15 19:59:52 2021. And there the BRT is trying to have the city build a subway while the contract has the BRT building the el. Sounds like they are trying to shift the burden even before they started, which of course they never did.The document above is interesting in that by 1924 they were still talking about it but only in passing. The 14th St and Nassau St lines were the hot topics. It is hard to read that page but I'll give it a try. |
|
|
| (1590079) | |
Re: BMT Crosstown line again |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Mon Nov 15 20:36:55 2021, in response to Re: BMT Crosstown line again, posted by zac on Mon Nov 15 20:13:42 2021. better quality clipping. 15 Jan 1913, Wed The Brooklyn Daily Eagle (Brooklyn, New York) Newspapers.com
|
|
|
| (1590080) | |
Re: BMT Crosstown line again |
|
|
Posted by TransitChuckG on Mon Nov 15 21:07:05 2021, in response to Re: BMT Crosstown line again, posted by ntrainride on Mon Nov 15 20:36:55 2021. Interesting! Thanks! |
|
|
| (1590085) | |
Re: BMT Crosstown line again |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Nov 16 01:20:43 2021, in response to BMT Crosstown line again, posted by zac on Mon Nov 15 10:32:34 2021. QBP opened in 1917 so the BRT was not yet bankrupt. |
|
|
| (1590094) | |
Re: BMT Crosstown line again |
|
|
Posted by zac on Tue Nov 16 09:45:10 2021, in response to Re: BMT Crosstown line again, posted by randyo on Tue Nov 16 01:20:43 2021. I guess I'm getting my timelines mixed up a bit then. Ultimately it was true.I was looking at the 1912 and 1913 docs on NYCSubway and I see that the crosstown line was dropped from the public pamphlet in 1913. But in 1924 there were still some references in passing. Maybe it was shelved by 1913 to be renegotiated later. In the meantime, when QBP was built, they left the provision in just like they did on the IND for the second system. |
|
|
| (1590101) | |
Re: BMT Crosstown line again |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Tue Nov 16 12:39:02 2021, in response to Re: BMT Crosstown line again, posted by zac on Tue Nov 16 09:45:10 2021. "...when QBP was built, they left the provision in"Where? |
|
|
| (1590104) | |
Re: BMT Crosstown line again |
|
|
Posted by zac on Tue Nov 16 13:13:46 2021, in response to Re: BMT Crosstown line again, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Tue Nov 16 12:39:02 2021. Bottom level, leading from Jackson to the north side platforms. The structure was ultimately used for the tail tracks.I'm standing on the corner of Jackson Ave, next to the Queens Plaza IND entrance. Those two trackways head straight to Jackson. The tail track was put on top of that.  Or street view: QBP Street View |
|
|
| (1590107) | |
One more thing |
|
|
Posted by zac on Tue Nov 16 13:34:13 2021, in response to Re: BMT Crosstown line again, posted by zac on Tue Nov 16 13:13:46 2021. That building is set back a lot from the street. Makes me wonder if the property line is such that there was room made for the structure that the city still owns.I'm having a hard time believing that I may have found something that has escaped everybody here in the past. It's in plain sight. Maybe there is something to be said for taking pictures from my bike. Having visited most of the places that had connections torn down I've become familiar with it all, and this is one without explanation because it never had the connection. |
|
|
| (1590115) | |
Re: BMT Crosstown line again |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Tue Nov 16 14:04:03 2021, in response to Re: BMT Crosstown line again, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Tue Nov 16 12:39:02 2021. If that had been built, this would have been one amazing junction point!!! |
|
|
| (1590122) | |
Re: One more thing |
|
|
Posted by qveensboro_plaza on Tue Nov 16 15:17:27 2021, in response to One more thing, posted by zac on Tue Nov 16 13:34:13 2021. Here are two 1936 views of the structure at Queensborough Plaza [CLICK TO ENLARGE]. The connection to the proposed Crosstown el is plainly visible at the right of the top photo and the left side of the bottom one. Given that the adjacent property was just a diner and a parking lot, the BMT would have had little trouble acquiring it if needed - but it looks as though the proposed elevated structure connection would have (just barely) cleared the property line. The distinctive open clock tower of the Brewster Building in the left background (now Jet Blue) was still intact - too bad it was ever taken down.You can also see the BMT tail track lead in use in the upper photo -- what appears to be a train of Standards is moving through it:  The lower photo has a lot of forever-lost transit action, with two Steinway Lines trolleys marked "Northern Blvd" passing each other; a third streetcar of a different type in front of them, headed, possibly, to Steinway Street or 31st Street. And finally, on the structure above, the rear cars of a Second Avenue El train taking the curve on their way to Astoria: 
|
|
|
| (1590133) | |
Re: BMT Crosstown line again |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Nov 16 15:44:00 2021, in response to Re: BMT Crosstown line again, posted by randyo on Tue Nov 16 01:20:43 2021. But the BMT Broadway subway did not connect to QBP until August 1st, 1920, 7 months after the BMT declared bankruptcy on 12/31/1919. |
|
|
| (1590136) | |
Re: One more thing |
|
|
Posted by X-Astorian on Tue Nov 16 15:57:50 2021, in response to Re: One more thing, posted by qveensboro_plaza on Tue Nov 16 15:17:27 2021. q_p,Thanks for the great historic photos. You're so right - so much forever lost. |
|
|
| (1590141) | |
Re: BMT Crosstown line again |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Nov 16 16:15:27 2021, in response to Re: BMT Crosstown line again, posted by Elkeeper on Tue Nov 16 15:44:00 2021. True, but the structure with all its provisions was in place. |
|
|
| (1590148) | |
Re: One more thing |
|
|
Posted by zac on Tue Nov 16 16:32:54 2021, in response to Re: One more thing, posted by qveensboro_plaza on Tue Nov 16 15:17:27 2021. Those are great. Are there any pics from the other side? |
|
|
| (1590152) | |
Re: One more thing |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Tue Nov 16 17:38:04 2021, in response to One more thing, posted by zac on Tue Nov 16 13:34:13 2021. Been by there a million times & never noticed. On my next trip to NYC, I'll make a point of seeing it for myself. |
|
|
| (1590183) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by qveensboro_plaza on Tue Nov 16 20:40:32 2021, in response to Re: One more thing, posted by zac on Tue Nov 16 16:32:54 2021. Are there any pics from the other side?Two things: The first picture shows the recently-abandoned tracks for the north side of QBP, probably taken in the late 1940s or early 1950s. Dual service had ended in 1949 and this structure was demolished in the early 1960s. There is a train of R1-9s on the former IRT Astoria line, which had been used by Second Avenue El trains as well as IRT trains from Times Square. Someone here may know if R1-9s were in BMT service at this time or if it is a fan trip. The tracks on the lower left were for the BMT shuttle service to Astoria. Looking at the tracks on the lower level, the two left tracks provided BMT shuttle service to Flushing. It was a round-robin service, so the arriving Astoria shuttle became the outbound Flushing shuttle, and vice-versa. Note that the eastbound track goes under the IRT structure. The remains of these trackways can still be seen from the 7 train. The two tracks on the lower right led to the BMT layup track that ran next to the IRT Flushing tracks over the Sunnyside Yards. If the Crosstown line had been built instead, these tracks would have curved to the right to continue over Jackson Avenue.  To give you an idea of how it might have looked, here is a fanciful artist's impression of QBP from 1914, before any construction actually began. It bears almost resemblance to what was actually built. It would have been a switching nightmare, like an aerial DeKalb Avenue. Second Avenue El and BRT trains share the upper level of the Queensborough Bridge, as was originally planned, leading to a single-level station with five platforms, which also accommodate the IRT Queensborough line from (then) Grand Central, as well as the BRT Brooklyn Crosstown line. The BRT trains are shown using el-type rolling stock, although the larger Standards were most certainly in development at that point. 
|
|
|
| (1590189) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by zac on Tue Nov 16 22:34:51 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by qveensboro_plaza on Tue Nov 16 20:40:32 2021. That's a great shot! All the original is still there but the BMT has already shifted to the south side platform which has been shaved back to accomodate it. I can't tell you what the R1 story is but it isn't too unusual.Yes, you can see the trackways originally led to Jackson Ave from below. I had made the comment that railfans feet never touch the actual ground, that's why they've never seen the Crosstown connection. You don't see it from above. That second shot shows all the crossings at grade. That would never have worked. |
|
|
| (1590200) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Wed Nov 17 07:20:53 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by qveensboro_plaza on Tue Nov 16 20:40:32 2021. I can see how the Brooklyn Crosstown line would have branched off.Actually, this thread is the first I've heard of the BRT/BMT Crosstown LIne-0 and I thought I knew a lot about the subway!! So chalk one up to new knowledge! |
|
|
| (1590216) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Nov 17 11:05:40 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by qveensboro_plaza on Tue Nov 16 20:40:32 2021. So you're saying the 2 tracks directly east of the station that made up the BMT tail track along the Flushing line were originally purposed to go down Jackson Ave w/o a tail track ever existing? |
|
|
| (1590217) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Nov 17 11:39:10 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by qveensboro_plaza on Tue Nov 16 20:40:32 2021. R1s were used by the BMT #2 line from the beginning of BMT only service to Astoria due to a BMT car shortage. I believe these cars came back to the IND when the Culver connection opened. |
|
|
| (1590218) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Nov 17 11:40:06 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by MainR3664 on Wed Nov 17 07:20:53 2021. I've heard of it but this thread has had more tangible stuff posted to it than any other before. |
|
|
| (1590219) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by qveensboro_plaza on Wed Nov 17 12:24:51 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Nov 17 11:05:40 2021. So you're saying the 2 tracks directly east of the station that made up the BMT tail track along the Flushing line were originally purposed to go down Jackson Ave w/o a tail track ever existing?This is a very good question! It was stated somewhere along this thread that the tail track was not part of the original BMT layout at QBP. Someone suggested that the track was only installed before the 1939 World's Fair. Your question prompted me to do a bit of web sleuthing, and that led to the 1923 annual report of the New York (State) Transit Commission, which addresses the matter on page 132 [LINK]. To simplify matters, here is a frame grab of the relevant paragraph, which I think answers your question:  It is possible that the structure, as built in 1917, included a provision for the Crosstown connection at Jackson Avenue. The subsequent problem of accommodating the wider BMT trains was more important, and so that part of the structure was rebuilt for the layup track leads. It sounds as though the crosstown project was becoming less and less likely anyway, and if it had ever been implemented, the BMT could have built a new layup track on the Jackson Avenue structure. |
|
|
| (1590220) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by zac on Wed Nov 17 12:27:06 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Nov 17 11:05:40 2021. Yes. The tail track was built later over the lead to Jackson. By then it was clear the crosstown line was never going to be built. |
|
|
| (1590226) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by zac on Wed Nov 17 13:30:23 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by qveensboro_plaza on Wed Nov 17 12:24:51 2021. Yes! This is exactly what I speculated. The tail track was built over the Jackson connection provision after QBP was originally built.I also found a Transit Commission letter (again in plain sight on NYCSubway.org) from 1922 talking about expansions that calls for building the Crosstown SUBWAY, and that the initial plan for the Crosstown El was deferred due to opposition to an el, and the city had no funds left to build it as a subway. "Brooklyn Crosstown Line (5) The so-called Brooklyn Crosstown Line was originally projected as an elevated when the dual system was laid out, but its construction was deferred because of local objection to elevated construction, and because of the fact that the city's resources for the more expensive alternative of subway building had been exhausted. It is the opinion of the Commission that the line should be built as a subway without further delay; first, as a means of articulating all of the rapid transit lines at present traversing Brooklyn and Queens, so that any one of these can be reached conveniently and quickly from any other one; second, as a means of access to the shore front of Brooklyn and Queens north of the Navy Yard; and third, as a direct means of carrying passengers from Manhattan and Queens to Brooklyn and Coney Island without traversing the congested district of lower Manhattan. Such a line will tend further to decentralize traffic by building up another prosperous business thoroughfare north and south in Brooklyn, and will save the Queens traffic bound for Brooklyn from a long detour through Manhattan. Through Long Island City the line will follow Jackson Avenue, one of the widest and most important thoroughfares in the business section of Queens. Through the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn, it will follow Manhattan Avenue, the principal business street of that section, and thence through Roebling Street, Williamsburgh, and by the cutting of a new street, of about three blocks in length, from Roebling Street to Bedford Avenue, to a connection with the Brighton Beach Line at Fulton Street and Franklin Avenue. In its progress it would furnish points of transfer to the stations of all the other lines it would intercept-the Broadway, Myrtle and Lexington Avenue elevated lines, and the 14th Street-Eastern subway. The Commission has also in view a further connection between this line by way of Flushing Avenue or Park Avenue and Jay and Smith Streets, to the Borough Hall section of Brooklyn. At some future time, no doubt, it will also be desirable to connect the northern end of the line directly with the Astoria branch of the Queensborough System, thence into Manhattan at 125th Street and across 125th Street to Fort Lee Ferry. The estimated cost of the line as now proposed is $24,000,000, and the time to complete from three to three and one-half years." https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/New_Subways:_Proposed_Additions_to_Rapid_Transit_System..._(1922 The article does not specify the connection at QBP, it may have been a subway there too. It finally got built as the IND. |
|
|
| (1590235) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Wed Nov 17 13:46:15 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by zac on Wed Nov 17 13:30:23 2021. Wow- what a dream that was- too bad it didn't really materialize.The IND sort of approximates it, but ties into Culver, rather than Brighton, and doesn't connect easily to Astoria - if you want to get from the Queens Blvd line to Astoria without leaving the system, you'd have to ride the R all the way to Lexington Avenue, and double-back. To get from the G to Astoria, you'd have to make a walking transfer at 21 st to the 7, then back to Queensborough Plaza. As I understand it, the BRT/BMT plan would've provided for transfer between the Astoria the Corona-Flushing, and Crosstown lines all at Queensborough Plaza. The BRT/BMT plan would also avoided making an orphan out of the Franklin Line. |
|
|
| (1590253) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Wed Nov 17 14:48:28 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by zac on Wed Nov 17 13:30:23 2021. IIRC,I remembr seeing a photo of BMT steels laid up on this track just before rawson st in an old ERA bulletin. |
|
|
| (1590256) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Wed Nov 17 15:23:09 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by MainR3664 on Wed Nov 17 13:46:15 2021. In 1922, the BRT was still under receivership, so there were no monies available to equip this Crosstown line. Its successor, the BMT did not want to spend the $40 million needed to buy 200 steel cars for the Ashland Place portal from the Fulton St el, let alone spend money on this Crosstown project. |
|
|
| (1590257) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Wed Nov 17 15:39:49 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by MainR3664 on Wed Nov 17 13:46:15 2021. I often wondered why the IND did not run the Crosstown line under Franklin Ave to Fulton St, after Bedford-Nostrand. The Franklin shuttle could have been connected to it after Unification.I can only guess that the Lafayette Ave route to downtown had always been in various plans as far back as 1908. Plus, the City wanted Nostand/Fulton as the express stop. |
|
|
| (1590261) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Nov 17 16:38:23 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by TUNNELRAT on Wed Nov 17 14:48:28 2021. Check out this video by Roger Arcara. Appx 4:51 into it shows BMT equipment on the tail track next to the Flushing Line |
|
|
| (1590267) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Wed Nov 17 17:30:23 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Nov 17 16:38:23 2021. GIVE ME A TIME CHECK ON WHERE IT APPEARS,THANKS. |
|
|
| (1590271) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Nov 17 18:25:50 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by TUNNELRAT on Wed Nov 17 17:30:23 2021. Look between 4:40 & 4:50 |
|
|
| (1590291) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Wed Nov 17 21:56:29 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Nov 17 16:38:23 2021. thanks,I new I had seen it. |
|
|
| (1590300) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Nov 18 02:06:41 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by zac on Tue Nov 16 22:34:51 2021. When the BMT was extended to Astoria some R-1s were sent to the BMT to ease the resulting car shortage. |
|
|
| (1590301) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Nov 18 02:11:45 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by Elkeeper on Wed Nov 17 15:39:49 2021. Not to mention that the initial purpose of the IND was to put the BMT out of business so the city at that point wanted nothing to do with connecting to a line like the Brighton which was totally BMT owned. The Culver, on the other hand was built by the city so it ripe for reclaiming. |
|
|
| (1590305) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by TransitChuckG on Thu Nov 18 04:13:11 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by randyo on Thu Nov 18 02:11:45 2021. Ah, thanks!randyo |
|
|
| (1590309) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Nov 18 08:13:18 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by randyo on Thu Nov 18 02:11:45 2021. Unfortunately, it made the G line considerably less convenient in retrospect. The G only connects with the L and A/C between Queens Plaza and Bergen St, whereas the BMT crosstown could have connected with those and the Broadway, Myrtle, and Main line els before reaching Prospect Park. If the BMT crosstown provided the local service along Brighton, they might have even set up Brighton Beach so that the locals terminated there more conveniently and the expresses went on to Coney Island. |
|
|
| (1590312) | |
Re: One more thing |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Nov 18 08:32:02 2021, in response to One more thing, posted by zac on Tue Nov 16 13:34:13 2021. To be honest, I might have noticed it in passing, but Queensboro Plaza is such a mess of steel I would've just thought it was one of the leftovers from when they shrank the station. :-S |
|
|
| (1590313) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Thu Nov 18 08:49:28 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by qveensboro_plaza on Wed Nov 17 12:24:51 2021. BTW, Thank you for taking the time & trouble for researching & posting that! |
|
|
| (1590320) | |
Re: BMT Crosstown line again |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Nov 18 09:57:57 2021, in response to Re: BMT Crosstown line again, posted by MainR3664 on Tue Nov 16 14:04:03 2021. Not only that, they probably wouldn't have shrunk QBP, and it would still be at least 4 platforms today, though maybe only 6 tracks. |
|
|
| (1590323) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Thu Nov 18 10:09:47 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by qveensboro_plaza on Tue Nov 16 20:40:32 2021. damn good find. |
|
|
| (1590324) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Thu Nov 18 10:19:21 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by randyo on Thu Nov 18 02:11:45 2021. it's hindsight, sure, but that was some kind of seriously bad rationale. |
|
|
| (1590333) | |
Re: One more thing [PHOTOS] |
|
|
Posted by qveensboro_plaza on Thu Nov 18 13:32:33 2021, in response to Re: One more thing [PHOTOS], posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Thu Nov 18 08:49:28 2021. You are most welcome. It's fun to unearth these details. |
|
|
