|
|
| To el or not to el, that is the question! (75547) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (75547) | |
To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by rashidas on Mon Apr 18 23:29:33 2005 To elevate heavy rail or not to elevate heavy rail, that is the question! In Queens at least the last new elevated subway was the Astoria line opened during WWI. As far as I know, modern concrete based elevated rail lines like the Airtrain are much cheaper and faster to build than comparable subway lines. Singapore completed a large, complex system in 4 years. So would Queens residents be more likely to tolerate an el from the 63rd St. tunnel along the service road of the LIE rather than along the ROW of the LIRR or even, God Forbid, along Queens Blvd? Would Queens residents prefer building 2 more tracks under the Queens Blvd. service road? What would the NIMBY's do? How much cheaper are concrete els to build compared to digging tunnels? |
|
|
| (75577) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by UWS Greg on Tue Apr 19 01:48:02 2005, in response to To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by rashidas on Mon Apr 18 23:29:33 2005. Excellent point! Building el lines would be a WHOLE lot cheaper and faster than underground lines with the extremely expensive cost or relocating all those utilities, the massive am't of digging, noise, disruption of tunnel construction, etc.With "traditional" el lines like the Astoria, McDonald, etc., the problem is the finished product, i.e., horrible noise and (to some people) the ugliness of the structure. You're quite right-- el construction has come a long way since WW1. The AirTrain cars are very quiet; Miami's overhead trains are quite bearable noise-wise; the el portions of the rubber-tired #6 in Paris, running on a structure which has esthetically pleasing qualities, is nice; even the viaduct portion of the Flushing 7 is quiet compared to the deafening noise further out. That said, el construction would still be a hard-sell, I'm afraid, to the NIMBYs-- unless someone really good at salesmanship can quickly and easily point out the long-term financial gains of a new line into their nabe, can produce architectual drawings showing it won't be an esthetic nightmare and, most important, will operate fairly quietly. |
|
|
| (75625) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by Mark Michalovic on Tue Apr 19 08:41:57 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by UWS Greg on Tue Apr 19 01:48:02 2005. I agree, new concrete els are a lot more attractive than the old steel ones. The new Market-Frankford line elevated structure in West Philly is going to be a concrete strucutre, and should look pretty nice if it ever gets finished. The els in Atlanta look nice, too.As for NIMBY opposition, I like the trick Chicago used. Instead of running the L lines over streets, they ran them in alleys behind buildings in lots of places. This kept sunlight on the streets. Mark |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (75626) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by Mark Michalovic on Tue Apr 19 08:43:19 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by Mark Michalovic on Tue Apr 19 08:41:57 2005. That said, the best looking els anywhere are the fin-de-siecle wrought iron (at least they look like wrought iron) structures of the Paris Metro! Parisians can make anything look good!Mark |
|
|
| (75635) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by Fulton Frank on Tue Apr 19 09:01:03 2005, in response to To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by rashidas on Mon Apr 18 23:29:33 2005. I agree with everything said, but one historical point: the last el built in queens must have been the eastern extension of the Fulton el which is shown to end at City Line (today's Grant Ave) in the BMT 1913 map. In the twentys it was extended along Liberty Ave in Queens to Lefferts Ave. This last section, of course , is the present day IND A/C service. |
|
|
| (75640) | |
nimby |
|
|
Posted by dayveo on Tue Apr 19 09:17:25 2005, in response to To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by rashidas on Mon Apr 18 23:29:33 2005. i'm sure there are plenty of people who would oppose building new lines of any sort. but then again, there are lots of people who are sick of having to take the unreliable queens buses to their train and would welcome new lines.if it were put to vote, i'm not sure who would win. However i think most of queens would be better served with construction of light rail, rather than with the addition of heavy rail. |
|
|
| (75644) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Apr 19 09:25:46 2005, in response to To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by rashidas on Mon Apr 18 23:29:33 2005. the last new elevated subway was the Astoria line opened during WWI.The last new elevated structure in Queens was the stretch between the Archer Avenue subway and the Jamaica Ave El near 121st St. It was built in the 1980's. It is extremely noisy, noisier than the old WWI Jamaica Ave El, as anybody who has stood under it can testify. AirTrain claims to be very quiet. One reason is the elimination of propulsion noise due to the use of linear induction motors. That has no technology transfer to NYCT operations. A second reason is the use of baffles on the sides of the structure. This deflects the noise upward rather than permitting the sound to travel horizontally or downward. That works for observers at ground level but what about people living adjacent to the structure at the 4th or 5th floor levels? A third reason are the rubber pads between the top of the pillars and the beam structure supporting the tracks. This reduces the transmission of vibration to the ground. This reduction is due to the spring-like properties of the rubber. Rubber loses this property, when it is repeatedly subjected to cold temperatures. My own observations, made with my trained ears, indicates that AirTrain's noise level is a couple of db's higher after one year of operation. |
|
|
| (75645) | |
Re: nimby |
|
|
Posted by Mark Michalovic on Tue Apr 19 09:27:18 2005, in response to nimby, posted by dayveo on Tue Apr 19 09:17:25 2005. However i think most of queens would be better served with construction of light rail, rather than with the addition of heavy rail.That's an interesting point. As I'm sure everyone is sick of hearing me say, I think a potential role for light rail in New York City is crosstown service in the outer boroughs where passenger loads aren't big enough for new subway lines. What routes did you have in mind? Mark |
|
|
| (75648) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by Mark Michalovic on Tue Apr 19 09:28:56 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Apr 19 09:25:46 2005. I didn't realize that rotary electric motors contirbuted much noise to the sound of a train. I always figured the noise came from slat-spotting on the wheels or joints in the tracks.Mark |
|
|
| (75650) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Apr 19 09:32:35 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Apr 19 09:25:46 2005. "Archer Av: It is extremely noisy, noisier than the old WWI Jamaica Ave El, as anybody who has stood under it can testify."False. It is closer to the ground, because the train uses it to dive toward a tunnel. When you bring a train closer to earth, you can hear it better. I know, because I've been there. "My own observations, made with my trained ears, indicates that AirTrain's noise level is a couple of db's higher after one year of operation. " When you take measurements with a meter, you'll have real data to tell us. |
|
|
| (75654) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 19 09:45:31 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by Mark Michalovic on Tue Apr 19 08:41:57 2005. As for NIMBY opposition, I like the trick Chicago used. Instead of running the L lines over streets, they ran them in alleys behind buildings in lots of places. This kept sunlight on the streets.Yes, that's the best way to do it, without "ruining" a street. In New York they didn't make much use of building els that way unfortunately. The only el that was built like that for any reasonable distance was the M line el between Seneca Ave station and Metropolitan, although of course that was built over an old surface ROW. I think the Culver was built that was for about two stations to (the part that was abandoned). |
|
|
| (75657) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 19 09:47:54 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Apr 19 09:25:46 2005. The last new elevated structure in Queens was the stretch between the Archer Avenue subway and the Jamaica Ave El near 121st St. It was built in the 1980's.While that's tecnically correct, however that was only a small section connecting the Jamaica El to the Archer subway. That is not really a new el on a "new line", which would in fact be the Liberty El, which was the last "real" el line built. |
|
|
| (75661) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 19 09:49:39 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Apr 19 09:32:35 2005. False. It is closer to the ground, because the train uses it to dive toward a tunnel. When you bring a train closer to earth, you can hear it better. I know, because I've been there.And it's really unfair to use the small section of el between Jamaica Ave and where it dives to the ground as "modern el construction", as it's not even really an el, but more of a incline ramp connecting the Jamaica el to the Archer subway. |
|
|
| (75664) | |
Re: nimby |
|
|
Posted by vengence on Tue Apr 19 10:05:41 2005, in response to Re: nimby, posted by Mark Michalovic on Tue Apr 19 09:27:18 2005. Northern Blvd.....Queens Blvd.....Merrick....Astoria Blvd[for LGA]..Van Wyck[northern section]...21ST.... Thats just a few off hand for Queens... For Brooklyn....Utica ave..Flatbush ave...Nostrand..Myrtle... Kings hwy....Verrazano Bridge/Ft Hamilton Pky/Prospect Expressway/Battery tunnel... Staten Island...Richmond Ave..Victory Bvd...Hylan Blvd...Richmond Terrace...... Bronx..Tremont Ave....3rd Ave...Laffayette ave...Boston road... Manhattan....West Side Hwy....10th ave...Ave C....34TH STREET... |
|
|
| (75666) | |
Re: nimby |
|
|
Posted by Mark Michalovic on Tue Apr 19 10:13:30 2005, in response to Re: nimby, posted by vengence on Tue Apr 19 10:05:41 2005. Sounds like you've got a pretty elaborate system worked out. Ever think of making a map? |
|
|
| (75676) | |
Re: nimby |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Tue Apr 19 10:34:04 2005, in response to Re: nimby, posted by vengence on Tue Apr 19 10:05:41 2005. There's potential for rail service needed along Lafayette Ave, when the 6 line is a few blocks to the north? |
|
|
| (75679) | |
Re: nimby |
|
|
Posted by dayveo on Tue Apr 19 10:48:55 2005, in response to Re: nimby, posted by vengence on Tue Apr 19 10:05:41 2005. i'd have to agree with Northern Blvd and Astoria Blvd. |
|
|
| (75690) | |
Re: nimby |
|
|
Posted by vengence on Tue Apr 19 11:05:54 2005, in response to Re: nimby, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Tue Apr 19 10:34:04 2005. You call that a "few blocks"? |
|
|
| (76187) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 20 11:50:23 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 19 09:47:54 2005. That is not really a new el on a "new line", which would in fact be the Liberty El, which was the last "real" el line built. Huh? The Liberty Ave. el opened in 1915, nearly three years before the Jamaica Ave. el, and 5 before the Livonia Ave. el. I believe the newest el structure (aside from the ramp the J uses east of 121st St) is the Flushing line between 111th St and the Main St. portal. It dates to the 1920's. |
|
|
| (76200) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 20 12:33:56 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 20 11:50:23 2005. Oh, I was just taking someone's word for the fact that Liberty was the most recent. Someone mentioned that here. |
|
|
| (76226) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 20 13:22:51 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 20 12:33:56 2005. AFAIK, the Liberty Ave el from City Line to Lefferts Ave. opened in 1915 (or 1916). The Jamaica Ave. el opened in various stages in 1918. The Livonia Ave el opened to Pennsylvania Ave in 1920, to New Lots in 1922. The Flushing line east of 103rd St opened in various stages between 1925 and 1928. |
|
|
| (76253) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 20 14:14:48 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 20 13:22:51 2005. Okay, I had to pull out my timeline map I got from the TM in 1991Here's the history of the els: Jamaica/Broadway El: -Essex to Marcy - Sept 16, 1909 -Marcy to Myrtle - Jan 17, 1916 (replacement of older el) -(Myrtle to Central) - July 29, 1914 (replacement of older el) -(Central to Wyckoff) - July 1, 1918 (replacement of older el) -(Wykcoff to Fresh Pond) - Feb 22, 1915 -Myrtle to Alabama Ave - Dec 21, 1916 -Alabama to Cypress Hills - 1893 -Cypress Hills to 111th St - May 28, 1917 -111th St to 168th ST - July 3, 1918 Livonia El: -Utica to Junius - Nov 20, 1920 -Junius to Pennsylvania - Dec 24, 1920 -Pennsylvania to New Lots - Oct 16, 1922 Culver El: Ditmas to Kings Highway - March 16, 1919 Kings Hwy to Ave X - May 10, 1919 Ave X to Stillwell - May 1, 1920 West End El: -36th St to 18 Ave - June 24, 1916 -18 Ave to 25 Ave - June 29, 1916 -25 Ave to Stillwell - July 21, 1917 Brighton: -Church to Sheepshead - 1907 -Sheepshead to Ocean Pkway - April 22, 1917 -Ocean to West 8th - May 30, 1917 -W 8th to Stillwell - May 29, 1919 Flushing: -Queensboro Plaza to 103rd St - April 21, 1917 -103-111th - Oct 13, 1925 -111th to Main - May 14, 1927 Astoria: -Queensboro Plaza to Ditmars - Feb 1, 1917 Pelham: -Hunts Point to 177th St - May 30, 1920 -177th to Westchester Square - Oct 24, 1920 -Westchester Sq to Pelham - Dec 20, 1920 White Plains: - 135th to Jackson - July 10, 1905 -Jackson to 180th - Nov 26, 1904 (don't ask me how that was a few months later than the former) -180th to 219th - March 3, 1917 -219 to 238 - March 31, 1917 238 to 241 - Dec 13, 1920 Jerome: - 149th to Kingsbridge - June 2, 1917 - Kingsbridge to Woodlawn - Aprl 15, 1918 IRT Broadway: -157th to 215 - March 12, 1906 -215 to 225 - Jan 14, 1907 -225 to 242 - Aug 1, 1908 And finally, what should have been the answer.....drum roll please..... Liberty El: -Unfortunately the TM only gives the connection date for the Lefferts el!!!! Euclid to Lefferts - April 29, 1956 - the day it was connected to the IND. Well so much for that.....Someone has to find out the accurate dates for Liberty. My opinion is that it's close. It is built in the same style (more or less) as the Livonia, Broadway-Brooklyn, Myrtle from Central to Wyckoff, and Jamaica Els. The canopies are all similar on these 4 els. My opinion is that the "winner" of the newest el is either Livonia or Liberty. Jamaica, Broadway, Myrtle, and the Livonia El are all built with the exact same canopy construction (completely flat tops with a beam on the edge of the roof)....and so is the Liberty El, with one exception....that it has columns on the platform. Since the Livonia El is built after the Jamaica, Broadway, and Myrtle (Central to Wyckoff) els, I believe Livonia is the "bridge" style between those els and the way they built Liberty, which is unique to the system. |
|
|
| (76255) | |
Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 20 14:15:21 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 20 13:22:51 2005. Okay, I had to pull out my timeline map I got from the TM in 1991Here's the history of the els: Jamaica/Broadway El: -Essex to Marcy - Sept 16, 1909 -Marcy to Myrtle - Jan 17, 1916 (replacement of older el) -(Myrtle to Central) - July 29, 1914 (replacement of older el) -(Central to Wyckoff) - July 1, 1918 (replacement of older el) -(Wykcoff to Fresh Pond) - Feb 22, 1915 -Myrtle to Alabama Ave - Dec 21, 1916 -Alabama to Cypress Hills - 1893 -Cypress Hills to 111th St - May 28, 1917 -111th St to 168th ST - July 3, 1918 Livonia El: -Utica to Junius - Nov 20, 1920 -Junius to Pennsylvania - Dec 24, 1920 -Pennsylvania to New Lots - Oct 16, 1922 Culver El: Ditmas to Kings Highway - March 16, 1919 Kings Hwy to Ave X - May 10, 1919 Ave X to Stillwell - May 1, 1920 West End El: -36th St to 18 Ave - June 24, 1916 -18 Ave to 25 Ave - June 29, 1916 -25 Ave to Stillwell - July 21, 1917 Brighton: -Church to Sheepshead - 1907 -Sheepshead to Ocean Pkway - April 22, 1917 -Ocean to West 8th - May 30, 1917 -W 8th to Stillwell - May 29, 1919 Flushing: -Queensboro Plaza to 103rd St - April 21, 1917 -103-111th - Oct 13, 1925 -111th to Main - May 14, 1927 Astoria: -Queensboro Plaza to Ditmars - Feb 1, 1917 Pelham: -Hunts Point to 177th St - May 30, 1920 -177th to Westchester Square - Oct 24, 1920 -Westchester Sq to Pelham - Dec 20, 1920 White Plains: - 135th to Jackson - July 10, 1905 -Jackson to 180th - Nov 26, 1904 (don't ask me how that was a few months later than the former) -180th to 219th - March 3, 1917 -219 to 238 - March 31, 1917 238 to 241 - Dec 13, 1920 Jerome: - 149th to Kingsbridge - June 2, 1917 - Kingsbridge to Woodlawn - Aprl 15, 1918 IRT Broadway: -157th to 215 - March 12, 1906 -215 to 225 - Jan 14, 1907 -225 to 242 - Aug 1, 1908 And finally, what should have been the answer.....drum roll please..... Liberty El: -Unfortunately the TM only gives the connection date for the Lefferts el!!!! Euclid to Lefferts - April 29, 1956 - the day it was connected to the IND. Well so much for that.....Someone has to find out the accurate dates for Liberty. My opinion is that it's close. It is built in the same style (more or less) as the Livonia, Broadway-Brooklyn, Myrtle from Central to Wyckoff, and Jamaica Els. The canopies are all similar on these 4 els. My opinion is that the "winner" of the newest el is either Livonia or Liberty. Jamaica, Broadway, Myrtle, and the Livonia El are all built with the exact same canopy construction (completely flat tops with a beam on the edge of the roof)....and so is the Liberty El, with one exception....that it has columns on the platform. Since the Livonia El is built after the Jamaica, Broadway, and Myrtle (Central to Wyckoff) els, I believe Livonia is the "bridge" style between those els and the way they built Liberty, which is unique to the system. |
|
|
| (76259) | |
Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 20 14:21:00 2005, in response to Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 20 14:15:21 2005. This timeline is identical to the one I was using, which was in Fischler's Uptown/Downtown book published in 1976. As for the Liberty Ave. el, I recall the 1915 date from another book, "The History of Ozone Park and Woodhaven", which had an entire section dedicated to rail service in this area. |
|
|
| (76266) | |
Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 20 14:32:05 2005, in response to Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 20 14:21:00 2005. I very well may be 1915. All I know is that it's built almost identical to the Bway, Jamaica, and Livonia els, aside from the columns on the platform. That could be the style "prior" to Broadway and jamaica or after Livonia, either way though, the basic structure is quite similar.BTW, the rebuilt portion of the Fulton EL was also identical to the way Broadway, Jamaica, and Livonia was built, except there too there were no columns on the platform. I don't know if the Fulton St El was rebuilt before the Liberty extention was built. |
|
|
| (76268) | |
Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 20 14:39:11 2005, in response to Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 20 14:32:05 2005. It is 1915. On page 75 of Vincent Seyfried's book, "The History Of Woodhaven & Ozone Park", the opening date for the whole section is given as September 25th, 1915. It also has the opening date of the section of the Jamaica Ave. el from 111th St. west as May 28th, 1917. Other sources indicate March 1918. I'm not sure which is correct, although this book provides specific ridership data from each Woodhaven station in 1917, so i'm inclined to believe this book. |
|
|
| (76271) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Apr 20 14:42:48 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by Mark Michalovic on Tue Apr 19 08:41:57 2005. It also makes it easier to make the L stations ADA-compliant. They just have to build elevators from the street-level station houses up to the platforms. With most of our elevated stations, a set of elevators have to be built from the street up to the mezzanine-level station houses and then another set from the station house up to the platforms.Chicago's "alley L's" remind me more of the Brighton Line than of our "traditional" els in New York or Philly's Market-Frankford el. |
|
|
| (76279) | |
Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 20 15:07:40 2005, in response to Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 20 14:39:11 2005. Yeah, May 28th, 1917 is what the TM map says too for Cypress Hills to 111th St.As for the Fulton, I found a photo of the Sumner Ave station when it was being rebuilt to dual contracts standards in 1915. It is identical in construction to the Broadway El/Jamaica EL construction. It doesn't have columns like the Liberty El, but that doesn't mean anything really I guess. Vincent Seyfried is usually pretty accurate, so I will accept the Liberty El as 1915. So is the Livonia El between Pennsylvania Ave and New Lots the winner? |
|
|
| (76289) | |
Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 20 15:29:18 2005, in response to Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 20 15:07:40 2005. No, the elevated structure east of Willets Pt. is the winner. I was suprised to see so much dual contracts construction during the mid-late 1920's. |
|
|
| (76336) | |
Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 20 16:48:20 2005, in response to Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 20 15:29:18 2005. True, in actual terms. I didn't say that section, because I was thinking of it not as a "line" but as an incline into the Main St station, but of course it is long enough of an elevated section to count I guess. |
|
|
| (76338) | |
Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 20 16:51:49 2005, in response to Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 20 16:48:20 2005. Actually, looking over the list again, Flushing gets it either way rather than Livonia because 103 to 111th opened in 1925, 3 years after the Pennsylvania to New Lots section of Livonia. |
|
|
| (76349) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by R42 4787 on Wed Apr 20 17:00:32 2005, in response to To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by rashidas on Mon Apr 18 23:29:33 2005. My choice would be a classic-style concrete viaduct similar to the (7) on Queens Blvd between 46 St/Bliss and 33 St/Rawson. |
|
|
| (76384) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Apr 20 18:17:43 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 20 14:14:48 2005. Livonia El needs a paintjob seriously. |
|
|
| (76386) | |
Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Apr 20 18:24:18 2005, in response to Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 20 15:07:40 2005. The Webster Ave connection to the 3rd Ave el opened in 1917.The part of the 9th Ave el north of 155th St. Polo Grounds opened in 1918 (it was partly elevated and part underground. The Gowanus El section of the Culver/Crosstown subway line opened in 1933 and the Culver connection north of Ditmas Ave was built in the late 1930s and opened in 1954. |
|
|
| (76387) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Apr 20 18:27:36 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 20 14:14:48 2005. White Plains:- 135th to Jackson - July 10, 1905 -Jackson to 180th - Nov 26, 1904 (don't ask me how that was a few months later than the former) The West Farms El started service as a branch of the 2nd/3rd ave els. -180th to 219th - March 3, 1917 Should read E 177 to 219 |
|
|
| (76389) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by R42 4787 on Wed Apr 20 18:34:54 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 20 14:14:48 2005. Flushing:-Queensboro Plaza to 103rd St - April 21, 1917 -103-111th - Oct 13, 1925 -111th to Main - May 14, 1927 QBP-Hunterspoint Av opened 1916. The section between Flushing and Willets Point/Shea Stadium dates from 1928. The original 1928 Willets Point station was replaced form the 1939/40 World's Fair. |
|
|
| (76400) | |
Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by vengence on Wed Apr 20 19:10:15 2005, in response to Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Apr 20 18:24:18 2005. Don't you mean 1941 for the Culver connection? |
|
|
| (76416) | |
Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Apr 20 19:34:58 2005, in response to Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by vengence on Wed Apr 20 19:10:15 2005. Oh, I thought it was built in the 1930's. |
|
|
| (76439) | |
Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by vengence on Wed Apr 20 20:19:05 2005, in response to Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Apr 20 19:34:58 2005. The Smith street subway was opened in 33...The Culver connection was built in 41 but not COMPLETED untill 54. |
|
|
| (76599) | |
Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 21 07:48:34 2005, in response to Re: Age of the Els Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by vengence on Wed Apr 20 20:19:05 2005. The reason it took so long to open was because of WWII. All construction stopped during the war years, and they couldn't get metal for the tracks and signalling systems.This is also true for the Broadway-East New Your (Broadway Junction) to Euclid section of the Fulton St subway. It wass all done waiting to be used, except they couldn't lay track or install the signalling system. |
|
|
| (76603) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 21 07:54:37 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by R42 4787 on Wed Apr 20 18:34:54 2005. The section between Flushing and Willets Point/Shea Stadium dates from 1928.The Transit museum map gives a date of May 14, 1927 for the Willets point and Main St section of the line. The original 1928 Willets Point station was replaced form the 1939/40 World's Fair. True, but the structure at Willets Point is original. They reconfigured the station for the 1939 Worlds Fair. The map doesn't get as technical as the age of some rehabbed/reconfigured stations, only when stretches of track opened on lines. |
|
|
| (76608) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by 7 to Main St on Thu Apr 21 08:01:25 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 21 07:54:37 2005. What TM Map? Is it a map with all lines opened and closed? |
|
|
| (76615) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 21 08:16:53 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by 7 to Main St on Thu Apr 21 08:01:25 2005. Yes. Well, when all the current ones opened (or at least before 1990). Only a few abandoned els/lines are on it. |
|
|
| (76634) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 21 08:57:24 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Apr 20 14:14:48 2005. (don't ask me how that was a few months later than the former) The el from Jackson to Bronx Park (not E180th) was open before the subway connection as an extension of the 3rd Ave. el (via the Bergen cutoff). |
|
|
| (76635) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 21 08:59:44 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 21 07:54:37 2005. I have a booklet "Subway To The World's Fair" depicting the reconstruction of Willets Pt. It was a major construction job which altered the entire structure here. Most of the current structure is NOT original. |
|
|
| (76662) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 21 09:48:15 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 21 08:59:44 2005. Well, I am going by the Transit Museum map. The line actually opened the date given, like I said, they don't give dates for major reconstuctions on particular stations.And and just to correct an error, they did say that the Main Street station itself opened on Jan 2, 1928, so "7 Train" is technically correct too. |
|
|
| (76668) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 21 09:59:28 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 21 08:57:24 2005. Maybe you can answer this than too.I didn't post the dates for non-els. But anyway, (and I don't have the map in front of me here at work), it says the Queens Blvd opened up in 1936 from Roosevelt to Kew Gardens, but Jamaica Yard opened up in 1933? What gives with that? |
|
|
| (76675) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 21 10:19:32 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 21 09:48:15 2005. The original station opened in 1922. If you saw a photo of it, it wouldn't be recognizable. The 1938 rebuild was almost total. About the only original structure left are some of the steel girders holding the structure up above Roosevelt Ave. |
|
|
| (76676) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 21 10:21:16 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 21 09:59:28 2005. Good question. Perhaps there was some sort of track connection to the yard from the Roosevelt Ave terminus as construction was ongoing. |
|
|
| (76685) | |
Re: To el or not to el, that is the question! |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Apr 21 10:29:50 2005, in response to Re: To el or not to el, that is the question!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 19 09:45:31 2005. What about the L line from Broadway Junction to New Lots Avenue? It's on a steel el structure over there, but there doesn't appear to be any street traffic under it.I wonder why New York didn't make extensive use Chicago-style "alley L's". |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
