Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

TrainRider Railfan

Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

Social Info

1 Follower

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    IND Culver Line, Brooklyn NY

Recent Profile Visitors

659 profile views
  1. And they tore down some of the last Fulton El remnants and built a new bridge over Fulton? I’m not saying to keep unnecessary tracks and platforms but tearing things down but they intentionally destroyed history when it really wasn’t necessary.
  2. Thanks for this! Will include this possible source in the video!
  3. Thanks! I didn’t know about that connection at the time but that makes sense! Pretty crazy to think just how complex that transfer would be. I’ll put this in the script and if I find any proof later I’ll include that. Appreciate the help.
  4. Remember, this is before the Chrystie Street Connection in the late 60s and before the first 2 IND-BMT connections in 1954, so as far as I know there was no connection between the BMT and IND at the time.
  5. Yes, that allows to go from the Flushing Line to the BMT, but from the BMT, how could you get back onto the main IRT?
  6. I remember going through Cranberry in an R32. They had great RFWs. I wish they were still around. Oh well, they were getting pretty old.
  7. In 1942, the track connection between the IRT Queens system and the main subway system closed. But then in 1950, all Steinway Lo-Vs were transferred onto the main subway. If there was no longer a connection between the 2 systems, how did the cars move from one to the other? Was it via the BMT? But did the BMT connect to the main portion of the IRT at the time? Maybe it was via the BMT and the railroad network? Did the main IRT have a connection to the railroad network at the time? I need this information for a history video I'm making. Thanks, TrainRider Railfan
  8. I was there. I was also too far to tell which subtype but the trains were definitely 10 cars long so 5 or 10 car sets.
  9. Fort Ham on Sea Beach would’ve been helpful for me 7 months ago haha Next year I go somewhere else
  10. I mean, they weren’t single units for that long, and after that there would be no reason to use the half cab. Even while they were single units, trains would always be arranged to have a full cab at either end, so maybe the half cab was there in case the car was in a yard alone with no other cars and needed to be moved in both directions. Don’t know why that would happen though. Since they were single units they were probably required to have cabs on both ends.
  11. Wow, we’re getting really close! I see you also have the G as your profile picture.
  12. Thanks! Lots of super helpful info, although I’m almost completely sure that what I saw was based off of the R68s and came after, but now I’m starting to think I mixed up 2 different pieces of information. What you’re saying makes a lot of sense. That’s interesting about the collapsible full cab!
  13. Thanks!! So basically they were identical to the 142As, the MTA just wanted more of them and decided to give them a different designation?
  14. What kind of failure would kill the whole BMT Culver? Did a whole system fail or just one signal?
  15. I've seen them running 60 footers before. They used 160s (too far to tell which kind from the sound), not sure if they were 4-car, 5-car, 8-car, or 10-car sets though.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.