|
|
| Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal (1548073) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (1548435) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat May 23 22:33:10 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat May 23 22:29:00 2020. A Binghamliner! |
|
|
| (1548452) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Sun May 24 07:33:08 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat May 23 22:29:00 2020. Is that a Mack on top?Yes, a C-49 cardboard item the transit museum was giving away. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1548493) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun May 24 14:57:24 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by Bill Newkirk on Sun May 24 07:33:08 2020. I'm surprised that's a giveaway. That's a historical bus model. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1548566) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Dj Hammers on Mon May 25 10:20:27 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by Union Tpke on Thu May 21 10:18:12 2020. November 1960 ERA Bulletin |
|
|
| (1548572) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon May 25 11:05:48 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by Dj Hammers on Mon May 25 10:20:27 2020. On the R27-30 North Sign, no 111th Street. |
|
|
| (1548578) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Union Tpke on Mon May 25 11:17:24 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by Dj Hammers on Mon May 25 10:20:27 2020. Thanks! |
|
|
| (1548580) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Mon May 25 11:48:54 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by Union Tpke on Thu May 21 10:18:12 2020. Union: Check your e-mail. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (1548601) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon May 25 16:13:21 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by Dj Hammers on Mon May 25 10:20:27 2020. Amazing the first train arrives on Nov. 2 and was in service on the 15th. I'm sure qualification for the new SMEE equipment was done with the R16, especially if most personnel stayed in the south for work assignments, but the difference was the use of buttons for door operation vs. the handles and the first time use of circuit breakers. |
|
|
| (1548621) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon May 25 17:24:54 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon May 25 16:13:21 2020. Most likely C/Rs were trained for button operation on IRT R-26s which were already on the property. |
|
|
| (1548623) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon May 25 17:30:44 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by Dj Hammers on Mon May 25 10:20:27 2020. That bulletin article contains something interesting concerning a proposed station at Grand St. It is noted that the station was planned to be a 2 level station with outside platforms on both levels the way the current IND Nostrand Av station is built. While many sources claim that the Nostrand Av station was intended to be a lcl station and modified during construction, the existence of the plans for the Grand/Centre station seems to indicate that the Nostrand station might have been designed that way from the very beginning due to its possible location as a transfer point for the proposed Bedford Ave subway. |
|
|
| (1548632) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon May 25 18:10:40 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by randyo on Mon May 25 17:30:44 2020. A local-over-express 'standard" setup would have allowed the same transfer opportunities to Bedford Ave, as the current Nostrand/Fulton one. Besides, the plans that I have seen have the proposed Bedford Ave line curving east to Franklin, via Macon St, before its stop at Fulton/Franklin. Presumably, it would have continued to Prospect park from there. |
|
|
| (1548646) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Mon May 25 18:48:33 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by Elkeeper on Mon May 25 18:10:40 2020. "the plans that I have seen have the proposed Bedford Ave line curving east to Franklin, via Macon St, before its stop at Fulton/Franklin."?Franklin is west of Bedford. Macon does not exist between Bedford and Franklin. |
|
|
| (1548652) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon May 25 20:12:26 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by VictorM on Mon May 25 18:48:33 2020. I meant Hancock, instead. Sorry! |
|
|
| (1548676) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Tue May 26 05:32:59 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon May 25 16:13:21 2020. re: the first time use of circuit breakers.circuit breakers instead of fuses? A simple explanation between circuit breaker use vs. earlier fuses on rolling stock will suffice - I find technical stuff to be very interesting, even though I do not have a technical background. If these were the first cars to have circuit breakers (instead of fuses) could these MU with the earlier R-10s and R-16s? |
|
|
| (1548727) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue May 26 15:07:33 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by Express Rider on Tue May 26 05:32:59 2020. They not only could MU with them, they often did. It makes no difference whether a circuit is completed using a fuse in the line or a circuit breaker. Fuses and circuit breakers serve the same function, namely to open a circuit in the event of an electrical overload. If a fuse blows, however, the blown fuse will have to be removed and replaced with a new one which may not be able to be done right away and the train would have to proceed to a location where a car inspector could replace it. If a circuit breaker trips, the crew member in the cab where it is located can reset it immediately and barring a second failure proceed down the road. |
|
|
| (1548732) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Tue May 26 15:44:01 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by randyo on Tue May 26 15:07:33 2020. re:- If a fuse blows, however, the blown fuse will have to be removed - If a circuit breaker trips, the crew member in the cab where it is located can reset it immediately and barring a second failure proceed down the road. So, it's the same principle then as with fuses & circuit breakers in someone's house. I thought that maybe the electrical system's entire design would be different enough in an earlier car that had fuses, as opposed to one built later with circuit breakers so that they could not operate together. - Thanks for clarifying. |
|
|
| (1548786) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue May 26 21:09:37 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by randyo on Tue May 26 15:07:33 2020. IINM all SMEEs had the same electric portion pinouts, not to mention compatible braking and propulsion systems, so everything from the R-10s to the R-42s could and did operate together. Trainline circuits for door controls and like were the same as well. Now, dynamic braking was another story.... |
|
|
| (1548823) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed May 27 01:08:36 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue May 26 21:09:37 2020. Dynamic braking should have been the same as well since when the IRT Car Equipment Dept decided they wanted cars assigned by electrical manufacturer rather than car type, trains on any of the lines could have a mix of anything from R-12s to mainline R-36s in the same train. |
|
|
| (1548836) | |
Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed May 27 06:37:11 2020, in response to Re: When BOWERY Was Considered a Terminal, posted by Express Rider on Tue May 26 05:32:59 2020. I find technical stuff to be very interesting,..You asked for it. :=) There's something called the "black box principle" in electrical engineering. It essentially states that what's inside a "black box" is defined solely by the electrical characteristics of wires (or terminals) on the box's surface. If two black boxes have the same terminal characteristics, they are interchangeable. Nobody cares what's on the inside. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
