|
|
| Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? (729191) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||
|
| (729453) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:42:41 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Jan 3 22:39:41 2009. The Worlds Fair line was ncessary for the fair, and the Pitkin line (as well as Wast New York station) was already built before the war. Bway East New York was all tiled and a full station, even before the war. They just didn't have the metal to make it function. Shephard, Van Siclen, Liberty, and Euclid stations shells were also all built and ready to go, although there was a lot more finishing work to be done than they had to do at Bway East New York, but the tunnels and shells were all built before we got involved in the war. |
|
|
| (729454) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:47:24 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Jan 4 04:02:54 2009. ) Robert Moses grabbing all available money for his highways and public works projects.A total fallacy. That was a trend all over the country to be spending on highways and bridges instead of transit. RSobert Moses brought THAT money to NY, which if he didn't it's not like it would have come for transit instead. No, instead, that FEDERAL money would have went to some other city for their road and bridges projects. NY was no different than cities around the country at the time. The interstate highway system, and the roads and bridges were a necessity, and NY would have fallen behind if they didn't build just like most other cities at the time. The problem was not that Robert Moses was here briging FEDERAL money to New York for Bridges and roads, etc. The problem was there wasn't a similar man campagining for money for transit. But there was no such man in almost any of the cities around the country at the time. new York is not unique in that. |
|
|
| (729457) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 4 09:12:50 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 3 23:00:02 2009. Reminds me of a high school yearbook photo of a vice principal in his office with his feet on his desk with a caption, "And just think, I get paid for this." |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (729460) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 4 09:18:43 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jan 4 06:06:31 2009. Many people found themselves with disposable income for the first time in their lives. |
|
|
| (729469) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 09:36:57 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jan 4 06:06:31 2009. You are ABSOLUTELY correct. |
|
|
| (729470) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 09:38:02 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 4 06:40:27 2009. Correct, moses was a man of his era and time. And while how he did things is often of course very questionable, we would be crippled as a city if not for a lot of the projects he helped push through. |
|
|
| (729473) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sun Jan 4 09:45:28 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 4 05:46:18 2009. Queens Plaza had a GRS machine.The only explanation I can come up with is that there were different contracts awarded as the Queens Blvd line expansion progressed. |
|
|
| (729474) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sun Jan 4 09:47:16 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 4 05:52:08 2009. The upper level was to go further eastward. It is longer than the lower level and has a wooden partition at the bumper blocks. |
|
|
| (729530) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 4 12:22:34 2009, in response to Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 17:56:31 2009. Blame Hitler and Tojo for delaying (and in the end, ruining) the planned extensions of both the Hillside Ave and Pitkin Ave IND lines. |
|
|
| (729531) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jan 4 12:25:12 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 4 12:22:34 2009. Imagine if instead of fighting WWII, the Germans had invested in huge expansions of the S-Bahn and U-Bahn and other infrastructure projects. |
|
|
| (729532) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 4 12:25:12 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Jan 3 22:01:17 2009. What was so bad about 169th as a terminal? There are plenty of switches east of it and I'm sure one of the 2 services used Parsons Blvd as it's terminal (I'm guessing the F) during this time. It was Rockaway Ave. that was a bad intermediate terminal, which is why Broadway-ENY was the first station opened when construction on the IND resumed in 1945. |
|
|
| (729536) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by olivermuc on Sun Jan 4 12:28:43 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jan 4 12:25:12 2009. Actually, S-Bahn construction in Munich has been halted by WWII. There was a short stretch of tunnel plus a station shell built from 1938 to 1941, then construction stopped.The tunnel was used as air raid shelter during the last years of WWII. When Munich won the Olympic bid for 1972 in the late 60's, the short stretch of tunnel was integrated into the newly-built Munich subway. The old station shell is today's "Goetheplatz" station. |
|
|
| (729541) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 4 12:32:40 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by olivermuc on Sat Jan 3 19:39:13 2009. I believe 179th was always meant to be a place to turn trains, with the lower 4 relay tracks being used (a la Church Ave. on the F) and the upper 4 continuing east towards Nassau Cty. |
|
|
| (729542) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by olivermuc on Sun Jan 4 12:34:19 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 4 12:25:12 2009. You're right, the F terminated at Parsons Blvd until 1950.1948 route information |
|
|
| (729544) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 4 12:35:46 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 4 05:52:08 2009. I remember it during the pre-Archer Ave era. Trains would stack up to Parsons Blvd even with all that capacity (mostly by idling E trains at 169th, that was the major bus-transfer station back then). |
|
|
| (729550) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 4 12:43:12 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:47:24 2009. A total fallacy.In the context of the post in which you responded, almost. Looking at the broad view, Robert moses did receive a disproportionate amount of public outlays starting in the 1930s. This was not part of a national trend. Robert Moses led the trend. By the end of the 1930s Mayor LaGuardia was expressing regret about giving Moses so much leeway. Highways and parks were getting funded, but schools and other traditional government capital projects were not. Also, Moses had been repeatedly asked to included provisions in his transportation projects for rail. Even if it was not to be implemented at that time, allow it to be added later. Moses always refused, even though the cost would have been minimal at the time that these projects were executed. Moses does not deserve a free pass on these decisions. He had a perfect vision for 1922, but he refused to allow that vision to be modified to the world in which he was wielding power. |
|
|
| (729554) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 4 12:45:40 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jan 4 12:25:12 2009. I'm sure European Jews would have been happy with that. |
|
|
| (729559) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jan 4 12:48:09 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by olivermuc on Sun Jan 4 12:28:43 2009. Thanks for those details. |
|
|
| (729567) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 4 12:52:55 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jan 3 21:47:37 2009. >i>Because 184th St isn't far enough to justify a station.I* think you could make a case now for a station at 188th Street, because the north side of Hillside Av has been rezoned in that area, and as the economy recovers, you're going to see higher density housing develop from 169 St to 188th Street. Using the ruler in Google Earth, 179th St to 184th St is 0.36 miles. 179th St to 188th St is 0.60 miles. 188th looks like the winner. |
|
|
| (729571) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 4 12:55:13 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 4 12:32:40 2009. I believe 179th was always meant to be a place to turn trains, with the lower 4 relay tracks being used (a la Church Ave. on the F) and the upper 4 continuing east towards Nassau Cty.Any idea what the total turning capacity at 179th St is? |
|
|
| (729580) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 4 13:00:25 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 4 12:55:13 2009. Probably at least 60 tph. |
|
|
| (729587) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 4 13:06:05 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 09:38:02 2009. Exactly:We would be crippled now if we didn't have the highways. That said, in retrospect, Moses should have realized that mass transit also needed to be considered, and provisions in the highways should have been made so subway lines could have been built inside/alongside those lines (much like for instance the stretch of the Market-Frankford Line in Philly between the 2nd and Spring Garden Street stations where the line is nestled between I-95 for example). Of course, we say that now 50-60 years after Moses had his visions knowing the need for mass transit that was not thought out as well back in the day. |
|
|
| (729598) | |
Re: Extending the F beyond 179th Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 4 13:19:58 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sun Jan 4 06:54:23 2009. Bill:From what I have read, the original intention was to have 179 be a terminal for some trains (hence the layup tracks) while others continued beyond 179, which is why the tracks apparently went to 184th on the upper level with the full intention of them continuing. We are not talking about that big of an extension here, but one that could be very important long term as Queens continues to expand. Beyond that, however, I do agree it would difficult to justify unless you can come up with a ton of federal funding. |
|
|
| (729615) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Sun Jan 4 13:43:54 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:35:47 2009. The thing that has always suprised me is that, despite material shortages, construction and completion of the LIRR Atlantic Avenue tunnel (actually it's a subway without stations) continued through the thick of the war and was completed in 1944. It may have been so that Atlantic Ave would become the major artery it now is. |
|
|
| (729616) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 13:45:19 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 4 12:25:12 2009. It was Rockaway Ave. that was a bad intermediate terminal, which is why Broadway-ENY was the first station opened when construction on the IND resumed in 1945.Why it was so easy to open Broadway-East New York was because once the war was over, and metal was once again available, all they had to do is lay the tracks and finish the signalling system. The station itself was already all tiled and ready to go, even when Rockaway Ave was the termporary terminal. The unfortunate part was that there were no tracks, and the wiring wasn't done yet, and metal wasn't available. That's also why Bway East New York is also done in the old style tiles, as it was done already when the line west of there was done. |
|
|
| (729617) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 4 13:45:50 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by VictorM on Sun Jan 4 13:43:54 2009. That one was a fairly cheap job, though, right? Barely underneath the surface, cut and cover, probably the most complicated part was the work at ENY. |
|
|
| (729620) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 13:53:56 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 4 12:43:12 2009. Looking at the broad view, Robert moses did receive a disproportionate amount of public outlays starting in the 1930s. This was not part of a national trend. Robert Moses led the trend.Correct, Moses was very good at getting money HERE. Probably more FEDERAL money than he should have, but he GOT it here. Again, it's not like that FEDERAL money would have come here instead for transit, it would have instead went to some other city for THEIR bridge or road project. Just about no one was building transit at the time. Again, the problem is not that Robert Moses got money for roads and bridges, the problem was there wasn't a similar guy doing that for transit, but then again, no one really had such a person at the time. |
|
|
| (729621) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Sun Jan 4 13:55:13 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 4 13:45:50 2009. That's right, and the tunnel itself was completed shortly before the war, but the tracks, signals, etc. were installed during the war. I remember the two temporary tracks that ran close to the building line to allow construction of the tunnel. I also remember them pouring concrete like crazy to complete the avenue after the temporary tracks were removed. |
|
|
| (729622) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 13:56:08 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 4 13:06:05 2009. Yes, you are correct.But again, we are looking back with 20/20 vision, back then, people didn't care about transit like they do today. But again, no where was it being done in any large way vs road and bridges at the time. |
|
|
| (729623) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 4 14:06:50 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by VictorM on Sun Jan 4 13:55:13 2009. Wow - that must have been an impressive sight, to see that in action!Do you know if the street has Park Av-like restrictions on what can be built, vaults and basements and such? To this day, it looks like the stretch at street level is underdeveloped. |
|
|
| (729627) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Sun Jan 4 14:30:31 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 4 14:06:50 2009. They were apparently hiring anybody they could get to finish the job. On several occasions I saw a crane truck trying to lift a large object behind it, but instead of object being lifted, the front of the truck went up instead!As far as I know, there are no restrictions on construction along Atlantic Ave. The LIRR tunnel takes up only about the middle third of the avenue. Unfortunately, the fact that Atlantic Ave is underdeveloped probably has more to do with the neighborhoods it passes through (and I live in one of them!} than with anything else. |
|
|
| (729635) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 4 15:07:15 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by VictorM on Sun Jan 4 14:30:31 2009. They were apparently hiring anybody they could get to finish the job. On several occasions I saw a crane truck trying to lift a large object behind it, but instead of object being lifted, the front of the truck went up instead!No union labor restrictions and rules back then, I guess! Unfortunately, the fact that Atlantic Ave is underdeveloped probably has more to do with the neighborhoods it passes through (and I live in one of them!} than with anything else. Alas, that's true. Some fairly rough stretches, although the City had been improving, at least while the economy was doing well. |
|
|
| (729641) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 4 15:23:22 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 4 13:00:25 2009. Good guess, that's the upper limit for capacity on both the arriving express and local tracks. Other factors would probably restrict it further. Prior to Archer Ave, E's ran at 12 TPH and the F ran at 18. |
|
|
| (729647) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jan 4 15:51:50 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 4 15:23:22 2009. Other factors would probably restrict it further.Yeah, if some relay moves and tracks are unavailable, that might create the potential for conflicting moves. It might be possible based on the time that a signal clears once passed to run in excess of 30 tph, but given Queens Blvd Line express ridership, I don't see that happening, even with the caveat that running more trains would mean less people on each individual train. Possibly if all local trains made all stops to 179 St, they could run in excess of 30 tph, but ideally one would want to see that to believe it. Prior to Archer Ave, E's ran at 12 TPH and the F ran at 18. Curiously, genuine E route (Jamaica Center-World Trade Center) is still 12 tph because of the congestion at Jamaica Center. |
|
|
| (729656) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 4 16:26:52 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 4 15:23:22 2009. From a previous message: "Good guess, that's the upper limit for capacity on both the arriving express and local tracks. Other factors would probably restrict it further.Prior to Archer Ave, E's ran at 12 TPH and the F ran at 18. " I suppose the major constraint is that the 179th Street terminal must share its local tracks with the current R and V trains at the 71 Avenue-Forest Hills station. Hence whatever trains it can put out has share the express tracks. In another reality, the 179th Street could be the main terminal for the entire Queens Blvd line, with some trains going to Archer Avenue. While I am not suggesting this, for example, R and V trains could use the local tracks out of 179th Street all of the way to the Queens Plaza station, while E and F trains use the express tracks for almost of the entire distance. E trains could run as they do to/from Archer Avenue, with some E trains starting at 179th Street. F trains could run express all of the way from 179th Street to the junction near 36th Street and then use the 63rd Street tunnel. The 71st-Forest Hills station could be used to provide supplemental rush hour trains (for both local and express tracks), or to take some trains out of service. Of course I know that many might oppose such an operation, but it could be done. The 179th Street terminal is capable of such a feat. Mike |
|
|
| (729669) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 4 16:44:07 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:47:24 2009. From a previous message: "That was a trend all over the country to be spending on highways and bridges instead of transit."While I agree with all that has been said about Robert Moses in this message stream, I want to add a few other points. The highways and bridge projects should not just be seen in isolation, there were real estate, home building, construction and other interests involved in the push for such projects -- which added to the chorus. Public transit in many cities was often a private operation going to where many people lived, while many people wanted a different kind of lifestyle. The American Dream as many understood it to be was not a walk-up tenement apartment with a dilapidated noisy el-train running outside one's window. My point is that the money that was provided for the building of highways, bridges and other projects was not always some kind of conspiracy plotted and planted by those evil people. That is not to say that in light of 40-60 years of hind-sight that several aspects what was done in the past should-could-would have been different. Mike |
|
|
| (729675) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 4 17:08:10 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 4 16:44:07 2009. Back in the 1930s, before we were living in the post-WWII car based "American Dream," the RPA - which was created by the real estate industry - was asking Moses to add the capability for future rail transit to his projects. This would have either meant building wider highways, or allowing a bridge like the Whitestone to have rail added later. He had information, from highly qualified people, that indicated that a multi-mode approach was better. He chose to ignore that information. This was before "the times" were defined by what everyone would build 20 years later. Moses defined "the times," from a planning perspective, and he chose to define it without rail. |
|
|
| (729681) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 17:23:53 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 4 05:46:18 2009. If I recall, Parsons had a US&S machine not a GRS. 179 has a GRS push button. Unlike the private comanies who generally purchased from only one manufacurer (US&S in the case of the IRT), the city felt it was necessary to split signal contracts between the two major signal manufacturers of the day. That made for some rather unique patterns in equipping the IND with switch and signal equipment. The original IND for example had US&S equipment from 207 St to 125 St (actually the split was between 125 and 59 but I don't recall exactly where). From that point south to Chambers St, GRS supplied the signal equipment. From Chambers south to Church Av, the signal equipment was again US&S and the entire Fulton St Line was GRS equipped. In the 1950s when the NYCTA equipped the former BMT Fulton St El and the Rockaway Line in preparation for IND takeover, the signal contract was split between GRS to Lefferts and Howard Bch and US&S from that point south the the Rockaways. The pattern was generally that the B of T and TA alternated contracts between US&S and GRS. The BMT used predominantly GRS equipment but there were certain selected towers that had US&S signal equipment and there were even some oddball plants by Hall Switch and Signal and Federal Rwy Signal. Although all GRS switch machines and stop arm motors are all electric, US&S makes both electro pneumatic and all electric equipment and until recently all the US&S equipment on the NYCTS was electro pneumatic. The newer US&S installations are all electric since it is cheaper to do away with the air compressors and piping required by an EP system. After the TA started upgrading the signal equipment in the 1950s, it generally kept the new IRT installationa as US&S and the BMT instalations as GRS. However, in keeping with the B of T and later NYCTA's policy of awarding alternate companies the signal contracts, it was inevitable that the IRT would get GRS equipment and the BMT would get US&S equipment. The first of these variations came with the upper Bway IRT from N/O 103 St to V/C getting GRS equipmen and the Nassau St Line of the BMT getting US&S equipment. There are even some locations where the interlocking machines are of one manufacture and the switches and signal of another. One such location is Nostrand Jct on the IRT where the signals and stop arms are GRS and the switch machines are US&S electro pneumatic (probably the last EP machines on the property). Lately there are some new companies in the industry such as Safetran which have been receiving some TA contracts but I don't know exactly what formula is used for determining which company gets which contract. It may now be open to competitive bidding but I'm not sure. |
|
|
| (729684) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jan 4 17:25:28 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 4 16:26:52 2009. Perhaps in future if the Archer Av line is extended, a new proper terminal can be designed. |
|
|
| (729686) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 17:27:19 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:26:04 2009. As I mentioned in one of my other post, I felt that was probably the situation. Do you also know why th interlocking machine at ENY is a conventional lever machine whereas the machines at Euclid and Pitkin Yd which opened soon after ENY are push button? |
|
|
| (729689) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Sun Jan 4 17:31:15 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 17:23:53 2009. If anyone is interested they can look at the 1924 BMT Towermen's Instruction book on my site - pages 53-56 contain the location of the BMT interlockings by manufacturer. |
|
|
| (729699) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 17:45:44 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by olivermuc on Sun Jan 4 12:34:19 2009. Some of that route information is inaccurate. After the C express was discontinued in 1948, rush hour E trains were extended to Bway/ENY. Also, D trains ran to Hudson Terminal, F trains ran to Church Avenue and CCs ran to Bway/Laff. One of the service guides (I believe there is one in one of the Museum R-9s) shows the HH Fulton St Lcl as running between Court St and Bway/Eny even though the service only actually ran between Court and Hoyt Sts and was discontinued before the IND was extended to ENY. Also, during non rush hours the F ran to 169 St and only terminated at Parsons during the rush hour when the service frequency was to much for 169 to handle. |
|
|
| (729706) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sun Jan 4 17:55:14 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 4 08:47:24 2009. If I have the timeline correct, while Moses was building roads in New York, President Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower was very pro automobile and wanted the interstate highway system conpleted and expanded. So you had a one-two punch: Federal and State. |
|
|
| (729712) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 4 18:04:25 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sun Jan 4 17:55:14 2009. Moses started planning the Southern State Parkway, in an official capacity, in 1924. The first part of it opened in 1927. Eisenhower assumed the presidency in 1953. |
|
|
| (729715) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sun Jan 4 18:06:19 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 4 18:04:25 2009. OK, I stand coorected but Ike was very pro automobile and road too. |
|
|
| (729717) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Jan 4 18:07:34 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jan 4 12:25:12 2009. Imagine if instead of fighting WWII, the Germans had invested in huge expansions of the S-Bahn and U-Bahn and other infrastructure projects.Like that crazy Nazi plan to move Munich Hbf to where the south ring line diverges, and turn the main line into a monumental road? |
|
|
| (729740) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Jan 4 18:30:42 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jan 4 06:06:31 2009. Interestingly, the LIRR proposed building a two-track line which would have stopped in Levittown, but it never happened. Now Levittown is almost totally car-dependent, LI Bus lines on Wantagh Avenue and Hempstead Turnpike notwithstanding...Moses was ALSO the reason Staten Island still has no rail connection with the other boroughs. The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge was supposed to carry cars on the upper deck, and TRAINS on the lower. Moses put the kibosh on that one, as well as a proposed extension of the IRT down Nostrand Avenue in the fifties... |
|
|
| (729741) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Jan 4 18:32:02 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 4 12:55:13 2009. Double Continental. |
|
|
| (729751) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 4 18:41:55 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by BMTLines on Sun Jan 4 17:31:15 2009. I think I have a copy of that book and it contains quite a few more variations than I described in my post. |
|
|
| (729757) | |
Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late? |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Jan 4 19:02:44 2009, in response to Re: Why was 179th St/Jamaica 13 years late?, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 4 12:52:55 2009. Using the ruler in Google Earth, 179th St to 184th St is 0.36 miles. 179th St to 188th St is 0.60 miles. 188th looks like the winner.Hmmm... dont give me ideas... Sutphin Blvd 0.39 Parsons Blvd 0.55 169th St 0.48 179th St 0.60 188th St 0.48 197th St 0.37 Francis Lewis Blvd 0.53 214th St 0.45 Springfield Blvd 0.55 Winchester Blvd 0.74 Commonwealth Blvd 0.44 Little Neck Pkwy 0.72 Langdale St 0.46 Lakeville Rd 0.56 New Hyde Park Rd 0.69 Marcus Av 0.81 Herricks Rd 0.71 Wilis Av 0.32 Sagamore Av (East Williston LIRR) Mean 0.55, Median 0.54. :-) |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||
