|
|
| Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ (384882) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (385333) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Feb 11 19:08:55 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Rail Blue on Sun Feb 11 13:22:11 2007. And watch the hypothetical "EE" to Astoria morph into the "W".wayne |
|
|
| (385341) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 11 19:12:53 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by TonyBroadway on Sun Feb 11 17:32:07 2007. It did, but was never "brown" until 1987. It shared the same color as the Broadway version did. |
|
|
| (385342) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 11 19:14:20 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Michael549 on Sun Feb 11 18:54:52 2007. I agree. R service would be much better if a storage yard was available in Bay Ridge. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (385361) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by RedbirdR33 on Sun Feb 11 19:30:00 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Michael549 on Sun Feb 11 18:54:52 2007. Could some of the issues with the RJ train resulted from the fact that the RR/R lines did not have their own train yard until the Queens switch of the N and R lines?Mitch: You might be right. The equiptment for the QB, QJ and RJ as well as the nighttime and weekend JJ came from a common pool. The maximum requirement was for 38-8 car trains composed of R-11,R-16 and R-27's. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (385369) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 11 19:34:07 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by RedbirdR33 on Sun Feb 11 19:30:00 2007. So ENY only served cars for the M, LL and Myrtle Ave lines during this period? |
|
|
| (385373) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sun Feb 11 19:35:04 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Feb 11 19:08:55 2007. And watch the hypothetical "EE" to Astoria morph into the "W".wayne Imagine trying to say "WW" - "double-you-double-you" or "double-double-you" - it's a mouthful either way. |
|
|
| (385375) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sun Feb 11 19:35:59 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 11 19:12:53 2007. It did, but was never "brown" until 1987. It shared the same color as the Broadway version did.I sure hope the side signage was good... |
|
|
| (385423) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by RedbirdR33 on Sun Feb 11 20:21:17 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 11 19:34:07 2007. So ENY only served cars for the M, LL and Myrtle Ave lines during this period?I don't know for sure. The LL,M and the rush hour JJ were still using Standards right after Chrystie Street and they certainly were maintained at East New York. There were several early AM put-ins from Alabama Avenue to 168 Street on the QJ. Possibly these trains were laid up at ENY overnight but otherwise maintained at Coney Island. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (385438) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Feb 11 20:36:01 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Rail Blue on Sun Feb 11 12:47:38 2007. So much so,that the MTA didn't want them...and voted to change it..but RONAN..with his great wisdom said "Leave it as it is,it'll work"..Well,it worked all right..so well that only 1[ONE] of the Chrystie st changes are still around as planned... What line is it...? The F. |
|
|
| (385447) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 11 20:58:15 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 11 13:52:18 2007. It was never possible to route an 8 Av local into Dekalb since the diamond Xover between B-1 and B-3 tks S/O Bway/Laff had to be removed in order to ramp up B-3 and B-4 tks to Chrystie St. There was a proposal to construct a diamond Xover N/O Bway/Laff between B-1 and B-3 tks but it never got past the talking stage. |
|
|
| (385449) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Sun Feb 11 21:00:07 2007, in response to THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by RedbirdR33 on Sun Feb 11 09:21:57 2007. Thanks for the history lesson |
|
|
| (385452) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 11 21:03:20 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by VictorM on Sun Feb 11 17:10:28 2007. As far as I can recall the switches were always in place even when the original Chambes St tower was in use, since when first opened, Chambers St was a stub terminal for trains coming off the H tracks of the Manny B. |
|
|
| (385453) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Sun Feb 11 21:03:33 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by RedbirdR33 on Sun Feb 11 12:32:45 2007. Larry,I have a R-27/30 front end route sign I purchased from the Transit Museum store when Marvin Sommerfeld was running it. I was an abbreviated sign starting at HH Rockaway with most (not all) Southern Division BMT designations. There were two (RR)'s. One was (RR) Broadway and the other just plain (RR). I found out that since this was a stick on portion, I could safely peel it away without damaging the sign underneath. And as you might have guessed, underneath was (RJ). When the (RJ) was replaced by the (RR)to Chambers, they stuck on the just plain (RR). This was a cloth and not mylar rollsign. Bill "Newkirk" |
|
|
| (385458) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 11 21:14:48 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by randyo on Sun Feb 11 20:58:15 2007. Whoops! You're RIGHT ... I remember the local tracks on the 8th avenue level at W4 breaking into a Y and the diverge (left) brought you onto the 6th avenue local tracks, but now remember that the only time I ever ended up on 8th avenue once on the D was northbound. I'm guessing there's still the northbound crossover ... that's where I went wrong. Thought southbound did it as well but that can only go out to Culver OR to Broadway/Myrtle ... did THAT a couple of times also. Whoops! :) |
|
|
| (385477) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Feb 11 21:38:45 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Feb 11 13:15:32 2007. I thought maybe there was a time, however, when it ended at West 4th, probably around the time the yellow S (Queensbridge to 57th St) existed, and did that yellow S go to 34th St ever or only 57th St?You're correct. Weekdays, it ran to 34th, to connect to the Q train. Weekends, it only ran to 57/7th. I have the may '99 map which indicates this service pattern in a small box in the lower left hand corner. |
|
|
| (385479) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Feb 11 21:39:36 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 11 12:44:49 2007. I've also wondered what was the logic behind running the M express on 4th Ave and the N local from 1986 to 1994.I believe it had something to do with trying to get West End riders off of the crowded 6th av train, and onto the M. |
|
|
| (385485) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Feb 11 21:52:12 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by RedbirdR33 on Sun Feb 11 12:43:45 2007. There was very little logical about the Chrsytie Street Connection from the get go and we've spent 40 years trying to figure it out.Let's not get carried away. The Chrystie re-alignment was an excellent idea with respect to what it did for manhattan bridge service. Before Chrystie St, the H tracks connected to Nassau street in a rather useless fashion. Now, both tracks connect to midtown, allowing us to have the present level of service. The connection from 6th ave to Broadway Brooklyn might have been a bit useless, but the realignment of the manhattan bridge was excellent. |
|
|
| (385489) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Sun Feb 11 22:01:07 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by randyo on Sun Feb 11 21:03:20 2007. No, I clearly remember the new switch construction that took place during the first half of 1968. A simple switch that connected with the southbound former Nassau loop track was changed to a single slip switch, and the crossover extended to the former northbound Nassau loop track. Before that, only the southbound loop track could have been used for relays and layups. |
|
|
| (385539) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 11 22:50:43 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by VictorM on Sun Feb 11 22:01:07 2007. The new switch construction that you are speaking about was the installation of new switch machines in conjunction with placing Chambers St on the Essex St model board. |
|
|
| (385558) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Feb 11 23:03:51 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Feb 11 16:47:43 2007. Also..saner minds will prevail over the 41st street station..and get the thing built.This is a golden oppertunity here handed to them on a silver platter! A short extention fron the end of tunnel work could bringthis line smack dab into the west Villiage..and a transfer to the 14TH Street Crosstown line. Whats he problem here? Lack of funds or forsight? Lets kick them in the pants and get the ball rolling on this. |
|
|
| (385567) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Feb 11 23:12:09 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 11 15:28:17 2007. How so?The MTA made the Q a full time line to save them money..on wear and tear on car equipment by running a shorter route[Q]..LESS TRAINS..than what was needed for the D. No 6th avenue service on the Brighton weekend..while 4th avenue has Both!.. 6th avenue service is terrible during the weekends with only D/F service... I'll say it AGAIN..those so called "service improvements" were SERVICE CUTS..not to beifit RIDERS..but STAFF. Operate Weekend B service..if only between Prospect Park and 145th st.That way 6th ave won't be so jacked up..Brighton would get their direct service back..and CPW riders won't have to wait FOREVER for a slow ass C train. |
|
|
| (385579) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Feb 11 23:26:27 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by J trainloco on Sun Feb 11 21:52:12 2007. It wasn't useless..far from it.The fact of the matter is,that the MTA "said" they ran out of money to finish the "improvements" to the eastern division els. What was excluded from the Chrystie Project for the East.. Platform extentions to all stations... Line relocation for the Fulton st El.. Structural improvements for the newwer cars... New Signal system simular to what was placed on the Culver and Rockaway line. Also..it was suggested that the new 6th avenue service operate as the Broadway Brooklyn service FULL TIME..Not RUSH HOUR LOCAL..as implimented...and from the looks of it..this service is STILL NEEDED TO THIS VERY DAY... |
|
|
| (385842) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 12 12:54:14 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Rail Blue on Sun Feb 11 19:35:59 2007. It could be deceptive, since both Broadway and Nassau St. trains used the same cars. You had to pay attention to signage. After the N/R swap, it got a lot easier, since the Broadway R now used R46 and clean R32's, while the Nassau St. version used the R27/30/42's the M used. In my experience, this train was virtually useless, even before the M was moved over to the 4th Ave. line. It served it's misson of augmenting 4th Ave. local service just fine, but few used it to access Nassau St. And God help you if the RR was having problems. They'd simply send your train up Broadway without even thinking twice. |
|
|
| (386483) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Feb 13 16:38:06 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by RedbirdR33 on Sun Feb 11 12:43:45 2007. Yeah - TIMMMMMMM-BERRRRRRRRRRR@!!!! |
|
|
| (386485) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Feb 13 16:38:59 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Feb 11 19:08:55 2007. An Eeww-Ewwww to a Woo-Woo-Woo-Woo.:)Soitanly! |
|
|
| (386486) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Feb 13 16:39:55 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 11 16:40:22 2007. Oh, please, Wilbur.:)Say Kev, ever hear of Goldman's on the Grand Concourse? |
|
|
| (386487) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Feb 13 16:43:55 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 11 13:01:01 2007. I would have continuned to turn the JJ at Canal St. |
|
|
| (386488) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Feb 13 16:46:09 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 11 12:15:32 2007. The JJ did not operate to Jamaica in the evening. |
|
|
| (386489) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Feb 13 16:48:09 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by RedbirdR33 on Sun Feb 11 20:21:17 2007. R-27/30s were turning up on the JJ shortly afterwards. That JJ I rode on in March of 1968 was an R-27/30 consist. |
|
|
| (386513) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 13 18:05:05 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Edwards! on Sun Feb 11 23:12:09 2007. Extensive surveys were done before 2004 and conclusively demonstrated that Broadway is (and always was) the more highly desired Manhattan trunk Brighton riders wanted their trains to access. THAT fact led to the Q becoming the 24/7 Brighton route. The desire for the Broadway trunk increases even more on weekends, so that's why 2 services cross the south side on weekends, while one one on the north side does. This is how it should have been done in 1967. They adopted a pattern which basically forced Brighton line riders to use 6th Ave, most likely to ram as many bodies up the new connection as possible. The BMT was still a second class citizen back then. |
|
|
| (386911) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Feb 14 09:11:38 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Edwards! on Tue Feb 13 16:46:09 2007. That's right. Even my 1967 map says, "During PM rush hours, JJ trains do not operate between Crescent and 168th Sts." |
|
|
| (386937) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by wzlirr on Wed Feb 14 10:02:32 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 11 13:43:29 2007. I agree -- I lived in Brooklyn at the time and hated what they did to the BMT service patterns. I agree that the retored [Q] along Broadway makes much more sense, and when I get on at 14 St-Union Square, I see that the Q is well-patronized. |
|
|
| (387000) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 14 11:46:15 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by wzlirr on Wed Feb 14 10:02:32 2007. There's a nice balance on the Brighton line right now. Back before 1986, the D would usually be crush loaded and the few QB runs hardly taxed, assuming they were actually running. The M was a glorified shuttle for the D expresses. The 1986-88 skip-stop pattern worked nicely, since both trains travelled along Broadway and no express service was available. The D/Q pattern of the 90's led to the same imbalance. Now, you have the less popular route travelling the more popular express run, which evens things out while providing express service. It's the perfect pattern. Notice that 4th Ave. trains are not balanced at all. N's usually cross more crowded than D's do (which seem to have the least crowding of any Manhattan Bridge route during the rush hours, at least to my unscientific eyes). |
|
|
| (387005) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Wed Feb 14 12:05:10 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 11 12:44:49 2007. Oh yeah, I remember the M being express. I was living off of the N line at 20th Avenue at the time. But I always had a feeling that it was good to see one of the Broadway Brooklyn lines get some kind of service enhancement somewhere. Even if it was odd, having the train express only from 36th to Pacific. I liked it anyway. Seemed like a four track local/express railroad ought to have some oddball routings taking advantage of the infrastructure. |
|
|
| (387011) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 14 12:13:14 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by ntrainride on Wed Feb 14 12:05:10 2007. The only logical explanation for running the M express that I can think of is that it made it a more inviting alternative to West End riders, who saw significant cuts in B service when the line was shifted over to Broadway in 1986. That doesn't explain why it remained that way for 8 years. N riders really got screwed over this period. |
|
|
| (387012) | |
El Lover: Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Wed Feb 14 12:15:09 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Feb 11 13:19:25 2007. "El structures freak me out in general..."...then don't go shopping along 86th Street in Brooklyn, where the West End Line passes overhead. Some serious rumblin' and shakin' under that bad boy. Me, I really really like being around elevated train lines. That could be `cause the earliest memories I have are of my mom taking a few of my eight brothers and sisters up to Jamaica to shop when I was around 4 or 5 and we were living in Rockaway Beach on Beach 100th Street. Come to think of it, the old LIRR / subway el in Rockaway is probably an even earlier memory. Either way, it burned the love of els into me. |
|
|
| (387017) | |
Re: El Lover: Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 14 12:20:11 2007, in response to El Lover: Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by ntrainride on Wed Feb 14 12:15:09 2007. I loved els as a kid. Didn't need a token to watch the trains run. |
|
|
| (387066) | |
Re: El Lover: Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 14 14:45:04 2007, in response to Re: El Lover: Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 14 12:20:11 2007. As a kid I used to love seeing the Brighton trains in the open cut. I remember the thrill I used to get at Empire Blvd peeking through the rectangular oval holes in the cement for design purposes (perfect for a kids eye view)looking down at the Franklin Shuttle. (I actually thought that was their purpose, so a kid could see the trains go by.) I felt bad for all the little railfans who would not be able to do this after they filled in the holes with cement. By that time I was tall enough to see over the top. |
|
|
| (387067) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 14 14:51:02 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 14 12:13:14 2007. I don't know why it ran express but I do know why the M was shifted from the Brighton Line to the West End. The new head of Operations Planning (who was a real jerk) appointed by David Gunn, wanted to provide a direct route for the Hassidic Jews living in Borough Park to the Lower East Side and Williamsburg. He may have made it express to provide them with a faster ride at the expense of N line riders. (Not everything the TA does is based on studies and numbers.) I think he was no longer in charge by the time the M became the local. You might say he was a pro-semite. |
|
|
| (387082) | |
Re: El Lover: Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 14 15:26:32 2007, in response to Re: El Lover: Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 14 14:45:04 2007. When I was 5, we moved to an apartment on Jamaica Av. Front row for train watching ... |
|
|
| (387085) | |
Re: El Lover: Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 14 15:32:25 2007, in response to Re: El Lover: Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 14 15:26:32 2007. If you were the one who got your parents to move, you were a very persuasive child and your parents loved you, or else they are or were railfans too. |
|
|
| (387086) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 14 15:34:05 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 14 14:51:02 2007. That's a new one I've never heard. I was under the impression that Brighton line riders, thru their elected officials, demanded another route replace the useless, decrepit M. |
|
|
| (387087) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 14 15:36:07 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 13 18:05:05 2007. By ramming people down the 6th Avenue line, the could show what a success the Chrystie Street connection was by the increase in 6 Avenue riders. |
|
|
| (387101) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 14 15:53:30 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 14 15:36:07 2007. An increase was unavoidable, since 2 6th Ave routes which ended in Manhattan would be thru-routed into Brooklyn. What they didn't want was people choosing the old BMT route up Broadway over the new IND route up 6th Ave. Given that no transfers existed at Pacific/Atlantic until the mid-70's, the Broadway run, with it's mass of connections at each express station south of 57th St would most certainly have been the choice of most southern Brooklyn BMT riders. |
|
|
| (387105) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Feb 14 16:12:13 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 11 13:37:22 2007. Looks like the Jamaica El above Fulton st...Im wondering though,they strengthened the El ABOVE AND BELOW Broadway sometime in the 560's early 60's...and they STILL removed it . I knew there was more to it being removed than just AGE..if that was the case..ALL of the EL's would have been removed.... |
|
|
| (387108) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by ItalianGuyInSI on Wed Feb 14 16:16:43 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Feb 11 13:19:25 2007. The structures were designed (BRT ones) for I believe the combined stress of several six car Standard MUs lash ups in addition to all track, structure, signals, rails, ties, etc. There is a technical formula that was done my the Municipal Railway which I have and I believe was just recently posted to Dave's site that gives great detail.I would prefer slab-floor (IRT Flushing Queens Blvd, IRT Woodlawn at Bedford Park, BMT West End at Bay Parkway as examples) as opposed to open-floor however. |
|
|
| (387191) | |
Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Wed Feb 14 19:56:12 2007, in response to Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 13 18:05:05 2007. I used to thnk that as well, until recently, when someone pointed out that there had been a lot of overcrowding, and thus a need for more capacity on the Brighton express. That's why that line had the stations extended first, thus pushing the 6th Ave as the primary service. Chrystie St. after all was a measure to increase capacity, so all the available capacity on 6th Ave had to go somewhere, even if the people didn't really ask for it. |
|
|
| (387261) | |
Re: El Lover: Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Wed Feb 14 21:16:33 2007, in response to El Lover: Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by ntrainride on Wed Feb 14 12:15:09 2007. ' the old LIRR / subway el in Rockaway is probably an even earlier memory. Either way, it burned the love of els into me.'did you get 'burned' when the LIRR trestle caught fire prior to city takeover? |
|
|
| (387415) | |
Re: El Lover: Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Thu Feb 15 10:17:41 2007, in response to Re: El Lover: Re: THE ORPHANS OF CHRYSTIE STREET, PART 1 THE RJ, posted by monorail on Wed Feb 14 21:16:33 2007. "did you get 'burned' when the LIRR trestle caught fire prior to city takeover?"Nagh. Burned in, what, 1950? I arrived on this planet in 1954. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
