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.
Sign in to follow this  
Lawrence St

The (7); BMT or IRT?

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, P3F said:

But hey, what if I suggest turning the (G) at 18th Av... As you observed, there's clearly a fetish for using those poor unused switches south of Ditmas! RR503 has spoken; there can't be any other reason for it!

My point is, please stay on point. It's fine to call people out when they do something wrong, but there's no reason to extend the argument to questionable lengths.

Look, I’ll be honest with you, I wrote that post before I had my coffee so I’m sorry if grumpy, unenergized me has secondhand triggered you. It happens. 

That said, I don’t think I’m off the mark at all. There’s definitely an attraction towards creating complex service patterns to use unused switches/connections for no good reason. If the poster had provided some sort of reasoning behind his proposal, I wouldn’t be saying this so quickly — I much prefer to argue with the argument, not a caricature of one — but without anything of the sort provided, the proposal reeks of a want to see trippy uses of the switches at Queensboro Plaza — the type of impulse I reserve the right to criticize. 

Edited by RR503

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, P3F said:

Ok then, some switches get used. Yay?

When people complain about others who want to use unused tracks, it's usually something significant... Like an entire express track...

But hey, what if I suggest turning the (G) at 18th Av... As you observed, there's clearly a fetish for using those poor unused switches south of Ditmas! RR503 has spoken; there can't be any other reason for it!

My point is, please stay on point. It's fine to call people out when they do something wrong, but there's no reason to extend the argument to questionable lengths.

I mean, is it not silly? There are so many problems with the proposal, first and foremost being Division incompatibility. Once you fix that, all of a sudden you have way too many surplus IRT cars and not enough B-Division cars. (7) line capacity is now limited to 60th St and DeKalb's capacity and reliability. And even if you manage to do a clean switch (all BMT to Flushing, no 60th-QBL service, Astoria to HY) you are now left with a short stubby line with no yard access running completely different cars from the services it's connected to.

Turning the (G) at 18th Av is a short extension that doesn't hurt customers or get in the way of other services that don't already interact with the (G), unlike nearly every other *use tracks* argument that's been put out there.

Edited by bobtehpanda
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I mean, is it not silly? There are so many problems with the proposal, first and foremost being Division incompatibility. Once you fix that, all of a sudden you have way too many surplus IRT cars and not enough B-Division cars. (7) line capacity is now limited to 60th St and DeKalb's capacity and reliability. And even if you manage to do a clean switch (all BMT to Flushing, no 60th-QBL service, Astoria to HY) you are now left with a short stubby line with no yard access running completely different cars from the services it's connected to.

Turning the (G) at 18th Av is a short extension that doesn't hurt customers or get in the way of other services that don't already interact with the (G), unlike nearly every other *use tracks* argument that's been put out there.

Nobody was saying it's not a silly idea. Yes, the original proposal was ridiculous, and the (G) to 18th Av isn't a bad idea. But that wasn't the point of the discussion you're responding to.

Edited by P3F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The MTA said:

I haven't really been following this, do I hear now the (7) is not part of the B division?

It's not part of the B division. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Well, do the B divison platforms along Astoria have a gap between an R188 car?

All IRT cars will have a gap at B division platforms. All IRT equipment is narrower than B division equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

All IRT cars will have a gap at B division platforms. All IRT equipment is narrower than B division equipment.

With the way my foot got caught between the platform and the train at Bk Bridge this AM, IRT equipment has wide gaps at IRT platforms.

(Probably would've helped if the impatient lady with the bad wig didn't push me  when I was moving to let her out.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2018 at 6:02 PM, kosciusko said:

IIRC it's technically possible for (7)s to run down Bway and turn at Whitehall or Canal, but I doubt that it would ever happen because the platforms are not built to IRT spec.

Yeah there's a switch near QBP where the 7 line and the Broadway line intersect, but - this will never be used for revenue service. It's very useful for car deliveries and work trains though. 

This 1939 Planned System Map might help the confusion of what division the line is in. Or maybe it makes it worse...: 

1939_IND_Second_System.jpg

At this time, the 7 line - AND the Astoria line were shared services of the IRT and BMT. Also LOL Look at all that infrastructure that never happened 

The Astoria line platforms were built to IRT specs until 1949 when the BMT got the Astoria line, and the IRT got the flushing line. 

So, from an equipment and qualification standpoint, the Flushing line is A-Division, since the tunnels and platforms are built to that plate. (e.g. car clearance). 

But, it uses the B1 Radio frequency and it's supervised by the B1 desk at RCC. And why shouldn't it be? All the other A-Division lines intersect, but the 7 only intersects - barely - with the BMT. From an operational perspective, it makes perfect sense, right down to only needing to broadcast on 1 road frequency above ground in queens. Well - northern queens at least. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (7) is B Division for MANAGEMENT ONLY!

 A Division Overall!

But we do Keep our radio on B Division Frequency!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2018 at 5:17 PM, itmaybeokay said:

Yeah there's a switch near QBP where the 7 line and the Broadway line intersect, but - this will never be used for revenue service. It's very useful for car deliveries and work trains though. 

This 1939 Planned System Map might help the confusion of what division the line is in. Or maybe it makes it worse...: 

1939_IND_Second_System.jpg

At this time, the 7 line - AND the Astoria line were shared services of the IRT and BMT. Also LOL Look at all that infrastructure that never happened 

The Astoria line platforms were built to IRT specs until 1949 when the BMT got the Astoria line, and the IRT got the flushing line. 

So, from an equipment and qualification standpoint, the Flushing line is A-Division, since the tunnels and platforms are built to that plate. (e.g. car clearance). 

But, it uses the B1 Radio frequency and it's supervised by the B1 desk at RCC. And why shouldn't it be? All the other A-Division lines intersect, but the 7 only intersects - barely - with the BMT. From an operational perspective, it makes perfect sense, right down to only needing to broadcast on 1 road frequency above ground in queens. Well - northern queens at least. 

Actually, all Dual System portions of the subway are of BMT spec. The platforms had to be shaven back for the Astoria Line. If not for the original subway portions, the IRT could run B Division stock if the platform edges were shaved back. 

BMT elevated cars were of similar dimension to the IRT cars, so that's how Joint service was run. Passengers had to change at Queensboro Plaza. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LTA1992 said:

Actually, all Dual System portions of the subway are of BMT spec. The platforms had to be shaven back for the Astoria Line. If not for the original subway portions, the IRT could run B Division stock if the platform edges were shaved back. 

BMT elevated cars were of similar dimension to the IRT cars, so that's how Joint service was run. Passengers had to change at Queensboro Plaza. 

This.  And yes, in terms of radio frequency it's part of the B division.  Also, its signals are separate from the mainline IRT since there's no true connection to the mainline.  That, and the line being planned for CBTC anyway, explain why it only recently got countdown clocks.  I'm not sure about the rumors about it being part of the most recent B division pick though.  Also, the elevated cars you're referring to IINM were specifically built for Astoria/Flushing operation; this became obsolete around 1950 when joint operation ceased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bosco said:

This.  And yes, in terms of radio frequency it's part of the B division.  Also, its signals are separate from the mainline IRT since there's no true connection to the mainline.  That, and the line being planned for CBTC anyway, explain why it only recently got countdown clocks.  I'm not sure about the rumors about it being part of the most recent B division pick though.  Also, the elevated cars you're referring to IINM were specifically built for Astoria/Flushing operation; this became obsolete around 1950 when joint operation ceased.

While that may he true, BMT trains were not always 10 feet wide. They were originally 9 feet wide and around 50 feet long. It wasn't until Centre Street subway as well as the Dual System that facilitated the change to 10 feet. 

An example of such were the C-Types. Originally gate cars that were 9 feet wide, when they were modified (originally planned to be articulated) into three car units with MUDC, they extended the edges of the car to cover the new gap created when the system was modified for wider 10-foot cars. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, LTA1992 said:

While that may he true, BMT trains were not always 10 feet wide. They were originally 9 feet wide and around 50 feet long. It wasn't until Centre Street subway as well as the Dual System that facilitated the change to 10 feet. 

An example of such were the C-Types. Originally gate cars that were 9 feet wide, when they were modified (originally planned to be articulated) into three car units with MUDC, they extended the edges of the car to cover the new gap created when the system was modified for wider 10-foot cars. 

If that's the case, how did the subway lines and elevated lines run together?  The Centre Street subway is one of the oldest along with the Jamaica El to which it connects.  Were the platforms shaved back, or were fleets dedicated to certain lines to ensure proper clearance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 9:20 PM, LTA1992 said:

Actually, all Dual System portions of the subway are of BMT spec. The platforms had to be shaven back for the Astoria Line. If not for the original subway portions, the IRT could run B Division stock if the platform edges were shaved back. 

BMT elevated cars were of similar dimension to the IRT cars, so that's how Joint service was run. Passengers had to change at Queensboro Plaza. 

Actually, that's a bit of a misconception. While part of the dual contracts, the IRT H-system was not technically built to BMT specs. With the way the new tunnels would connect to the original subway, there would never be any way for wider BMT trains to ever run on these tracks. Therefore, while not as tight as the original subway, the IRT extensions were only slightly wider than the rest of the subway and not fully wide enough to handle BMT cars.

On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 10:29 PM, Bosco said:

If that's the case, how did the subway lines and elevated lines run together?  The Centre Street subway is one of the oldest along with the Jamaica El to which it connects.  Were the platforms shaved back, or were fleets dedicated to certain lines to ensure proper clearance?

The subway and elevated divisions used separate fleets of cars for the various BMT services. There was obviously some overlap of car types between the divisions, especially along Jamaica and Myrtle Ave where the lines intersected with the Lexington Ave and lower Myrtle Ave lines, which necessitated varied fleets on certain lines. Also remember that safety standards back in the early 20th century were not what they are today as there were no ADA laws to adhere to back then. A foot-wide gap between the train and platform while unacceptable today, was likely quite normal for these lines back in the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the first R142 testing on the (7) scrape against the walls in the Steinway tunnel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 4:40 PM, Lawrence St said:

So there has been a lot of confusion regarding wether or not The (7) is an IRT or BMT line. Just this past pick, the (7) was recategorized as a B divison line. What do you guys think?

Wrong. The 7 is an A Division line as far as the line itself and Crews. It was the Manangment and Supervision on the (7) that were shifted over to B Div. So the simple way to put it is the (7)  line is now run by B Division Managers and Supervisors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Didn't the first R142 testing on the (7) scrape against the walls in the Steinway tunnel?

Yes on the R142A. There were slight clearance issues that cause some of the exterior guard lights to be knocked clean off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 3:06 PM, RailRunRob said:

Was'nt the Astoria and Flushing lines built to serve both IRT and BMT service? As far as operations and what we think did they recategorize it or not? That's your answer if anything.

Yes they were built for both I.R.T. and B.M.T.. At one time Queensboro was a larger station. I would say the (7) is an I.R.T. line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 7:06 PM, N6 Limited said:

How did the BMT and IRT collect fares at joint operation stations?

at first, the platforms were physically separated in half, with each company having their own fare control. This worked until the IRT decided it wanted to run longer trains, so the companies simply agreed to split the collected fares

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Kamen Rider said:

at first, the platforms were physically separated in half, with each company having their own fare control. This worked until the IRT decided it wanted to run longer trains, so the companies simply agreed to split the collected fares

That's interesting, before they decided to split the collected fares, did one company get more ridership/revenue than others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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