|
|
| Park Row Track Layout (630331) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (630331) | |
Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by H.S.Relay on Sun Jun 8 10:10:49 2008 Could someone post a link to a BRT Park Row Terminal track layout (if extant?)Thanks |
|
|
| (630343) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by kearney210 on Sun Jun 8 11:13:53 2008, in response to Park Row Track Layout, posted by H.S.Relay on Sun Jun 8 10:10:49 2008. Could this be Park Avenue Trolly Tunnel(39th St), on NYCSubway.Org site:http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/38st.html Joe Kearney |
|
|
| (630356) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 8 11:31:15 2008, in response to Park Row Track Layout, posted by H.S.Relay on Sun Jun 8 10:10:49 2008. This is the layout c.1908, when the station was at its height.The tracks were lettered, like at Coney Island. The main tracks were A-B-C-D and the tail tracks E-F. http://3drail.com/images/1908_parkrow.jpg  |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (630384) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jun 8 12:13:01 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by kearney210 on Sun Jun 8 11:13:53 2008. Interesting but that's a different terminal far to the north; Park Row is by City Hall and the Brooklyn Bridge. |
|
|
| (630914) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by H.S.Relay on Mon Jun 9 17:20:36 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 8 11:31:15 2008. Thanks."Terminal Sidings 1003' " And yet 7+52 - 2+50 = only 502' Is 1003' feet the total amount of available platform boarding area? |
|
|
| (631063) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 9 22:18:38 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by H.S.Relay on Mon Jun 9 17:20:36 2008. Well, 1003' is obviously just about double 502', but I have no idea what they mean by "terminal sidings." I would interpret terminal sidings to be non-revenue trackage, but maybe that's not what it means here. |
|
|
| (631434) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by H.S.Relay on Tue Jun 10 18:39:28 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 9 22:18:38 2008. To get maximum throughput out of this layout you'd have to have a train coming out of the relay from E to C at the same time a train was arriving on B, with the obvious liability of the train berthing at B overrunning and broadsiding the E to C move.Interesting. |
|
|
| (631503) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Jun 10 20:48:48 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by H.S.Relay on Tue Jun 10 18:39:28 2008. But the tail tracks E and F weren't strictly relays. They had their own platforms and some lines boarded there. Trains that boarded on E track (for example) then had to follow trains boarding on C out of the station, meaning that they pretty much had to finish boarding simultaneously so that C and E tracks would clear and another train could come from A into E to relay out to C behind the previous two trains.AND, as you say, the same pattern existed on B, D and F with a level crossing. I think I would have loved to just stand on the platforms in Park Row in the "glory days" just to watch it done. |
|
|
| (631527) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jun 10 21:03:14 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by SLRT on Tue Jun 10 20:48:48 2008. I think I would have loved to just stand on the platforms in Park Row in the "glory days" just to watch it done.Definitely! Maybe one of our old-timers here got to see Park Row in action and can report? |
|
|
| (631556) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Jun 10 21:56:41 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jun 10 21:03:14 2008. Well, after August 1920 traffic diminished somewhat because West End, Sea Beach and Brighton trains no longer used the station. About 1933 or so the tail tracks were removed and, by the end in 1944 only the C and D tracks survived, So someone who could tell us what it was like would have to be nearly 90. I think that describes Vincent Seyfried but the LIRR and trolleys were his big interest, IIRC. |
|
|
| (631558) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jun 10 22:00:34 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by SLRT on Tue Jun 10 21:56:41 2008. Darn. I didn't realize that the tail tracks were removed already in the early 1930s. |
|
|
| (631947) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by Mellow One on Wed Jun 11 17:15:25 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jun 10 22:00:34 2008. The Park Row terminal structure was lengthened out over City Hall Park around 1905, then shortened back to the (original?) curb line about 1919 and then shortened again back to the frontage on Park Row.The Dual Contract construction projects linking BMT subway and BRT elevated lines and expanding elevated subway service with the Culver and New Utrecht (West End) and Sea Beach Lines diminished the need for the Park Row Terminal. Other factors that lessened the use of the Park Row Terminal were severing of The Fulton / Brighton connection and the Myrtle Ave Line was connected to the Broadway (subway) Line. Later, the 14th St Subway opened to East NY in 1928. In 1933, the IND Subway opened to replace the Fulton St El in Brooklyn (and the 9th Ave El in Manhattan (although, the 6th Ave El went first in 1937 to facilitate the IND 6th Ave Subway being built beneath it) in 1940). |
|
|
| (631961) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jun 11 17:45:27 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by Mellow One on Wed Jun 11 17:15:25 2008. Thanks for the information.NYC, via the IND, certainly wasted little time in following through on Hylan's plans to bring down the els. |
|
|
| (631962) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by B47man on Wed Jun 11 17:59:58 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jun 11 17:45:27 2008. And if "Red Mike" had his way,the Jerome Ave line would have come down too. |
|
|
| (631964) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Wed Jun 11 18:08:44 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 8 11:31:15 2008. Where was the 3rd Av El Park Row Station in relation to that station. |
|
|
| (631965) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Wed Jun 11 18:13:14 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by Jeff Rosen on Wed Jun 11 18:08:44 2008. IIRC between City Hall and The Municipal Building. |
|
|
| (631992) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Wed Jun 11 19:27:51 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by Jeff Rosen on Wed Jun 11 18:08:44 2008. It cane in at about a 45 degree angle from Park Row to the left and the end was only a couple of 100 feet from the end of the Park Row station. At its height there was a walkway between the two so you didn't have to go down to street level to change, but no free transfer. |
|
|
| (632023) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jun 11 20:16:17 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by Mellow One on Wed Jun 11 17:15:25 2008. The Dual Contract construction projects linking BMT subway and BRT elevated lines and expanding elevated subway service with the Culver and New Utrecht (West End) and Sea Beach Lines diminished the need for the Park Row Terminal. Other factors that lessened the use of the Park Row Terminal were severing of The Fulton / Brighton connection and the Myrtle Ave Line was connected to the Broadway (subway) Line. Later, the 14th St Subway opened to East NY in 1928. In 1933, the IND Subway opened to replace the Fulton St El in Brooklyn (and the 9th Ave El in Manhattan (although, the 6th Ave El went first in 1937 to facilitate the IND 6th Ave Subway being built beneath it) in 1940).Use at the Park Row Terminal peaked in 1908. That was the year that IRT service opened to Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (632141) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by Mellow One on Wed Jun 11 23:13:39 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jun 11 20:16:17 2008. Yes, that IRT service was not in conflict with the Brooklyn Bridge trafffic as it opened up new territory. The Manhattan Bridge BMT subway was not initially in conflict with the BB either. However, that would change as new BMT tunnels were built for the Dual Contracts. And, in general the population of New York City and Brooklyn was growing at a very high rate as the flow of immigrants into the City was peaking out. |
|
|
| (632203) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by Mellow One on Thu Jun 12 01:44:56 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by Jeff Rosen on Wed Jun 11 18:08:44 2008. 
|
|
|
| (632214) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Thu Jun 12 02:04:39 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by Mellow One on Thu Jun 12 01:44:56 2008. And on the lower left hand side is the entrance to the IRT LexingtonAve Subway. |
|
|
| (632270) | |
Re: Park Row Track Layout |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jun 12 07:09:04 2008, in response to Re: Park Row Track Layout, posted by Mellow One on Wed Jun 11 23:13:39 2008. IRT service was not in conflict with the Brooklyn Bridge trafffic as it opened up new territory.The BRT Brooklyn Bridge tracks were the only rapid transit route between Brooklyn and Manhattan prior to 1908. Brooklyn IRT service wasn't extended beyond Atlantic Ave until 1920. The IRT's route was under BRT's Fulton St El with the following station correspondence: Borough Hall <--> Court St; Hoyt St <--> Elm&Duffield; Nevins <--> Flatbush Ave. The IRT's Atlantic Ave terminal was under the BRT El's Atlantic Ave station of the Culver/West End/Bay Ridge/Sea Beach lines. Not exactly what I would call "new territory". Atlantic Ave was probably the most important station because it served as a transfer to the LIRR's Flatbush Ave Terminal. Remember, the LIRR provided significant local service for Brooklyn and Queens in those days. People already used to two fares were better off with the new IRT service because the IRT had better Manhattan coverage. The BRT forced passengers to walk or take additional transportation after dumping them on Park Row. The fact that traffic at Park Row peaked and that the IRT's Brooklyn line opened in 1908 wasn't a coincidence. It had already declined significantly before Dual Contract lines were opened. |
|
|
