Original Expansion Plans Discussion

[LGA Link N Train]

2 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

But in seriousness.

The 1968 project was depressing. 

Back then Phase I of the SAS would be from the Bronx all the way to 34th St in Manhattan

There would be an LIE Subway

E train to Hollis

J train to Rosedale.

If we have gotten the QBL Bypass, that line could've been alleviated. Because after the Lex Ave I think the QBL is definitely the next on the list for overcrowding

Its sad how the 1968 Program for Action didn't happened as envisoned, given how intriuging it was.

Under an ideal world, $4.5 Billion should've accounted for all 4 Phases of the current SAS with a 4 track section between at least 72nd Street and 42nd Street Stations. Not to mention a Bronx extension. But things changed between 1968 and 2021. 

An LIE Subway would be pretty nice not gonna lie. I think that this proposal shows how we really need to rethink our road networks.

It would've actually have been the other way around. to Lareulton (with a new layup Yard where Railroad Park now sits) and the  to Hollis. 

The QBL bypass is a proposal that would be nice. It'd be easier in the to create some rapid transit hybrid service with inner LIRR services. THough interestingly enough, this proposal was brought up briefly in the Sunnyside Yards Redevelopment Plan. https://api.sunnysideyard.nyc/sites/default/files/2020-03/200302_SSY_MPH_Executive Summary_0.pdf. Although with certain rules put forth by the FRA, I don't think this proposal would look the same as originally concevied. 

 

[Trainmaster5]

15 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

This thread is for OFFICAL PROPOSALS that were made by either the city, state, or ONLY! No fantasy proposals!

So let me start off the discussion with the original extension to Bedford Park Blvd. Unlike the current today, 148th St and Lenox Yard would have not been built, instead the would've turned onto 155th St into a weird 1 side platform and 1 island platform with 3 tracks 155th St station, then turned right via the old 9th Av ROW, skipping Jerome Av (which would've remained abandoned) to Anderson Av, then onto the Jerome Line to Bedford Park Blvd. What I find really intriguing about this proposal is the fact that they thought Bedford Park Blvd was a good terminal for the (dont know how they would have turned the around there without delaying the ) and the fact that only Anderson Av was to be rebuilt. 155th St also looks like it would have been built as 4 tracks instead of 3, which is weird. What are your thoughts?

I'm going to be very careful about this proposal because it doesn't make sense to me.  How could Lenox yard not be built when it was the only yard for the original IRT ? Check back on the opening dates and when the northern Broadway stations opened in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx. Wasn't there a slogan about X amount of minutes from City Hall to 145th Street when the original subway opened  ? Just curious.  Carry on. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

16 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

This thread is for OFFICAL PROPOSALS that were made by either the city, state, or ONLY! No fantasy proposals!

So let me start off the discussion with the original extension to Bedford Park Blvd. Unlike the current today, 148th St and Lenox Yard would have not been built, instead the would've turned onto 155th St into a weird 1 side platform and 1 island platform with 3 tracks 155th St station, then turned right via the old 9th Av ROW, skipping Jerome Av (which would've remained abandoned) to Anderson Av, then onto the Jerome Line to Bedford Park Blvd. What I find really intriguing about this proposal is the fact that they thought Bedford Park Blvd was a good terminal for the (dont know how they would have turned the around there without delaying the ) and the fact that only Anderson Av was to be rebuilt. 155th St also looks like it would have been built as 4 tracks instead of 3, which is weird. What are your thoughts?

Believe it or not, this is the first time I’ve heard of a proposal to extend the  to Bedford Park Blvd via the  line. I’ve seen others propose extending the  to other parts of The Bronx, including via the old Putnam Division r-o-w or via the  line to Parkchester. I particularly liked that idea back when I was younger (jr high school age, now 30 years ago) and even took a red marker over an old Geographia map to show it (I lost that map a long time ago). But today, the only Bronx  extension I would favor would be one on its own tracks. Otherwise you have to cut  or  service to make room for the . Those two lines are busy enough as it is. Neither one can afford a cut in service that will be felt further down the line. 

On 1/17/2021 at 2:46 PM, bobtehpanda said:

Indeed, the issue is that money doesn't grow on trees, the MTA doesn't have money, the City doesn't have money, the State doesn't have money, but PANYNJ is more or less free to sock it to the toll-payers, and as the manager of the airports is free to charge a ticket surcharge but for airport purposes only.

If we can get mad over MTA funding ski resorts upstate because that's unrelated to the funding charter, then this is the flip side of that coin. If we can rightfully say that the feds were right to demand payment back for ARC instead of letting New Jersey spread the money around, this is the flip side of that coin.

It is also worth noting that the current AirTrain JFK is not the original plan for that project. The original plan was for it to go past Jamaica, to LGA, and then I think end where the Roosevelt Tram terminal is. That also failed because no one could find the money.

I’m starting to think it mostly is the lack of money on the part of the City and State for why no one’s pushing for a direct subway to the airport, as opposed to the FAA being directly opposed to it. Still, it irks me that Chicago, DC, Cleveland, St. Louis, Baltimore, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Miami, Denver, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco and Minneapolis were all able to get direct subway, regional rail or light rail connections to their airports (or at least one of them). 

[bobtehpanda]

28 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Believe it or not, this is the first time I’ve heard of a proposal to extend the  to Bedford Park Blvd via the  line. I’ve seen others propose extending the  to other parts of The Bronx, including via the old Putnam Division r-o-w or via the  line to Parkchester. I particularly liked that idea back when I was younger (jr high school age, now 30 years ago) and even took a red marker over an old Geographia map to show it (I lost that map a long time ago). But today, the only Bronx  extension I would favor would be one on its own tracks. Otherwise you have to cut  or  service to make room for the . Those two lines are busy enough as it is. Neither one can afford a cut in service that will be felt further down the line. 

I’m starting to think it mostly is the lack of money on the part of the City and State for why no one’s pushing for a direct subway to the airport, as opposed to the FAA being directly opposed to it. Still, it irks me that Chicago, DC, Cleveland, St. Louis, Baltimore, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Miami, Denver, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco and Minneapolis were all able to get direct subway, regional rail or light rail connections to their airports (or at least one of them). 

Would you have to cut service? Only half the service on the Lex express goes to Jerome. You might need to reconfigure terminals, but it's not like SAS-63rd St where the tracks are at capacity.

At least for JFK you can blame that on Robert Moses, because Chicago built their O'Hare branch in the middle of a highway, and we could've done that since the Van Wyck was built around the same time, but Robert Moses was a dick.

 

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I'm going to be very careful about this proposal because it doesn't make sense to me.  How could Lenox yard not be built when it was the only yard for the original IRT ? Check back on the opening dates and when the northern Broadway stations opened in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx. Wasn't there a slogan about X amount of minutes from City Hall to 145th Street when the original subway opened  ? Just curious.  Carry on. 

At least what I can find, the quote is generally attributed as "City Hall to Harlem in 15 minutes." 

[Trainmaster5]

2 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

At least what I can find, the quote is generally attributed as "City Hall to Harlem in 15 minutes." 

That's it. And the only train yard at that time was located in Harlem in Lenox Yard .  That was my point. Carry on.

[Lawrence St]

28 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

At least what I can find, the quote is generally attributed as "City Hall to Harlem in 15 minutes." 

 

21 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

That's it. And the only train yard at that time was located in Harlem in Lenox Yard .  That was my point. Carry on.

Then perhaps the plans changed at the last minute, since according to the Unbuilt Ideas Map, it shows the tracks going over the Lenox Yard track leads.

[Trainmaster5]

8 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

 

Then perhaps the plans changed at the last minute, since according to the Unbuilt Ideas Map, it shows the tracks going over the Lenox Yard track leads.

Where can one find this Unbuilt Ideas Map ? I've read things like the Routes Not Taken and the like but most are round up of  different thoughts official and unofficial. Just curious. Remember that back in the day any neighborhood association or real estate speculators could come up with an idea. 

[JeremiahC99]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Believe it or not, this is the first time I’ve heard of a proposal to extend the  to Bedford Park Blvd via the  line. I’ve seen others propose extending the  to other parts of The Bronx, including via the old Putnam Division r-o-w or via the  line to Parkchester. I particularly liked that idea back when I was younger (jr high school age, now 30 years ago) and even took a red marker over an old Geographia map to show it (I lost that map a long time ago). But today, the only Bronx  extension I would favor would be one on its own tracks. Otherwise you have to cut  or  service to make room for the . Those two lines are busy enough as it is. Neither one can afford a cut in service that will be felt further down the line. 

The  to Bedford Park Blvd was actually first bought up by Vanshnookenraggen 5 years ago. His plan had a new set of tracks ramp down from the current ones at 138th Street and Lenox Avenue. From there,  and  trains would then stop at a new lower level of 145th Street that would be large enough to berth a full length train. From there, the tracks would then swing east under the Harlem River to the Bronx at 150th Street. At that point, the tracks split, with the  joining the existing alignment at 149th Street-Grand Concourse, while the  would go under Franz Steigel Park and join the existing  route and run to Bedford Park Blvd. The junction with the  would be rebuilt so that the  joins the  between Grand Concourse and 3rd Avenue to provide a faster service for  and  train riders. The resulting map would look like this:

However, while it does have advantages like a longer 145th Street stop and greater service flexibility, it does bring up issues of interlining and loss of subway coverage. Therefore, as you said, any extension of the  should be built using exclusive tracks. My suggestion of a 4-track University Avenue subway replacement of the 3-track Jerome Avenue Elevated comes to mind.

[LGA Link N Train]

2 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Where can one find this Unbuilt Ideas Map ? I've read things like the Routes Not Taken and the like but most are round up of  different thoughts official and unofficial. Just curious. Remember that back in the day any neighborhood association or real estate speculators could come up with an idea. 

https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2021/01/ind-second-system-track-map/

This is the map that @Lawrence St is referring to. The Train proposal that they’re referencing here is listed at the “9th Avenue EL Replacement” 

[bobtehpanda]

29 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Where can one find this Unbuilt Ideas Map ? I've read things like the Routes Not Taken and the like but most are round up of  different thoughts official and unofficial. Just curious. Remember that back in the day any neighborhood association or real estate speculators could come up with an idea. 

In the '40s, the Board of Transportation proposed extending the Lenox Avenue Line northwards to use the Ninth Av El's bridge and connection to the Jerome Avenue Line, so part of the same program of works that produced the Culver Ramp.

This plan was scuttled, partially because the el line could not handle the weight of subway cars, the 9th Av El was a drawbridge over the Harlem River, and more. This is the Wikipedia citation; while the report isn't online, it is apparently available through the NYPL.

Edited January 20, 2021 by bobtehpanda

[Trainmaster5]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

In the '40s, the Board of Transportation proposed extending the Lenox Avenue Line northwards to use the Ninth Av El's bridge and connection to the Jerome Avenue Line, so part of the same program of works that produced the Culver Ramp.

This plan was scuttled, partially because the el line could not handle the weight of subway cars, the 9th Av El was a drawbridge over the Harlem River, and more. This is the Wikipedia citation; while the report isn't online, it is apparently available through the NYPL.

This is what I'm trying to find out. I've never read this report but I've read similar proposals over the years. The Culver ramp up to Ditmas and the IND takeover were written proposals that were delayed because of wartime funding issues, similar to the delay to the IND Fulton St line from Rockaway to Euclid Avenues. I've always been a voracious reader and spent many a day with my head in a book at the Grand Army Plaza library. All sources of info interest me.  Nice to realize that there's somewhat of a compilation of these various ideas.Thanks for the heads up.

[Lawrence St]

7 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2021/01/ind-second-system-track-map/

This is the map that @Lawrence St is referring to. The Train proposal that they’re referencing here is listed at the “9th Avenue EL Replacement” 

Thank you. Another thing to note, 155th St was to be reused for this new service, however the southbound local track wouldve been abandoned.

 

7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

In the '40s, the Board of Transportation proposed extending the Lenox Avenue Line northwards to use the Ninth Av El's bridge and connection to the Jerome Avenue Line, so part of the same program of works that produced the Culver Ramp.

This plan was scuttled, partially because the el line could not handle the weight of subway cars, the 9th Av El was a drawbridge over the Harlem River, and more. This is the Wikipedia citation; while the report isn't online, it is apparently available through the NYPL.

It wasn't that, for some reason the Jerome Av tunnel was built so small that it couldn't fit any of the then-modern IRT subway cars which is what caused the plan to fail in the first place. 

And how come the city was selective on what elevateds they wanted to upgrade to handle the weight of the new cars? They could have at least rebuilt 155th St.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

In the '40s, the Board of Transportation proposed extending the Lenox Avenue Line northwards to use the Ninth Av El's bridge and connection to the Jerome Avenue Line, so part of the same program of works that produced the Culver Ramp.

This plan was scuttled, partially because the el line could not handle the weight of subway cars, the 9th Av El was a drawbridge over the Harlem River, and more. This is the Wikipedia citation; while the report isn't online, it is apparently available through the NYPL.

 

12 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

The  to Bedford Park Blvd was actually first bought up by Vanshnookenraggen 5 years ago. His plan had a new set of tracks ramp down from the current ones at 138th Street and Lenox Avenue. From there,  and  trains would then stop at a new lower level of 145th Street that would be large enough to berth a full length train. From there, the tracks would then swing east under the Harlem River to the Bronx at 150th Street. At that point, the tracks split, with the  joining the existing alignment at 149th Street-Grand Concourse, while the  would go under Franz Steigel Park and join the existing  route and run to Bedford Park Blvd. The junction with the  would be rebuilt so that the  joins the  between Grand Concourse and 3rd Avenue to provide a faster service for  and  train riders. The resulting map would look like this:

(Map)

However, while it does have advantages like a longer 145th Street stop and greater service flexibility, it does bring up issues of interlining and loss of subway coverage. Therefore, as you said, any extension of the  should be built using exclusive tracks. My suggestion of a 4-track University Avenue subway replacement of the 3-track Jerome Avenue Elevated comes to mind.

Thank you both for these posts, which have helped to clue me in on what they were proposing. I will say that Van’s proposal isn’t a bad one because the  and  would continue to make the same stops as now and the  would join the  between 149th and 161st, which is better than having the  join the  just south of 167th, like in the Board’s proposal. Essentially, the junction being built west of 149th-Grand Concourse makes the IRT express routes like PATH on steroids. You would, however need a better way to short-turn trains on Jerome. Bedford Park is a good place to terminate the , but it would have to be rebuilt. One way could be to rebuild the southbound platform into an island platform. That really shouldn’t be a problem because there’s nothing but train yards on the west side of the Bedford Park station. Then  trains can terminate on the center track without interfering with  service. Though terminating on one track during rush hours does limit the amount of trains you can run. 

But my preference does remain for the  to not piggyback onto an existing subway line and go somewhere in The Bronx that an existing line doesn’t go. Ogden Ave/University Ave/Fordham Road would be a good place. And it looks like it’s a near straight shot north from Lenox Avenue in Manhattan to Ogden Avenue in The Bronx, so the  would still be able to serve 145th St. 

Edited January 20, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[bobtehpanda]

7 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Thank you. Another thing to note, 155th St was to be reused for this new service, however the southbound local track wouldve been abandoned.

 

It wasn't that, for some reason the Jerome Av tunnel was built so small that it couldn't fit any of the then-modern IRT subway cars which is what caused the plan to fail in the first place. 

And how come the city was selective on what elevateds they wanted to upgrade to handle the weight of the new cars? They could have at least rebuilt 155th St.

For the most part, after unification they didn't upgrade els.

Pretty much every el still in use was either built, or rehabbed to strengthen els, during the era of the Dual Contracts. NYCTA and MTA really did not do a lot in this regard.

[Lawrence St]

@Union Tpke Can you find any documentation on the Jerome Av tunnels and why they couldn't be modified to support the new IRT cars?

[GojiMet86]

9 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

@Union Tpke Can you find any documentation on the Jerome Av tunnels and why they couldn't be modified to support the new IRT cars?

 

These are some good posts on SubChat by Joe F:

http://www.subchat.com/readflat.asp?Id=1394198

Quote

 

Posted by JOE @ NYCMTS - NYCTMG on Mon May 2 10:10:07 2016, in response to Re: Question for Joe F. -Woodlawn - PG shuttle 3rd rail shoe, posted by Edwards! on Mon May 2 08:10:39 2016.

Hello Edwards

The Polo Grounds "W. 162nd Street Tunnel" (actually 2 tunnels in parallel) were planned ONLY for use by Manhattan Elevated Lines Trains via the ancient 9th Avenue E mainline feeder -- which had even more stringent structural weight restrictions on some of its lower portions below W. 60th street (the original terminal of the 9th Ave El in 1878) -- than did the 2 east side EL's. Thus, the tunnel clearances were for IRT Elevated cars with their close to trucks drop sled 3rd rail shoes. Costs for a wider set of twin tunnels, excavation for same, and additional materials for wider construction, would add up even in 1917 dollars. For no obvious (in 1917) operational reason.

When this El extension line construction was done in 1917-18, there was never a thought of running steel subway car trains thru the tunnel to operate on the 9th Avenue EL -- because of their weight excesses (compared to wood EL Cars) empty and more so loaded. There was never an envision of a "Polo Grounds" shuttle ending at W.155th St Station and using steel cars from there to the Jerome El and back --- back in those construction days of 1917.

Thus the "unique" issue of how to run steel subway cars on the Polo Shuttle. Easiest way was to cut back the subway paddle shoes (don't have to remove them from the trucks to do that) - rather than remove them and replace them with surplus (from scrapped El cars) EL Type "drop sled shoes"

Note: The W. 155th Street Station Complex El structure was built structurally heavier back when the 9th Ave. EL reached that point in (IIRC 1879) because the NY & Putnam Railroad Steam engine hauled rapid transit commuter trains terminated there with their terminal Station consisting of its own two tracks and single island platform, by sharing the easterly half of very wide entire Elevated structure.

The IRT 9th Avenue EL used the western half of the structure, until around 1917, wen the IRT purchased (or I think "leased for 999 years") the Putnam RR Bridge and took over the Putnam Railroad's easterly side of the W. 155th St Station EL Structure. The IRT built a brand new High Level single island platform in place to match its earlier similar island platform the IRT used on the west side of the structure as its original "terminal" . This new platform to become the NORTHBOUND 9th Ave El Express and Local trains station stop. And the earlier identical IRT island platform and its 2 tracks on the west portion of the structure, became the SOUTHBOUND 9th Ave EL Local and Express trains new station stop

Most persons used the IND subway along and via other Grand Concourse Bronx IND subway stations and at the last, the E. 161st St. IND subway station before the Harlem River, to get to the area of and around the Manhattan W.155th Street Terminal EL Station and to the Polo Grounds and the later new housing projects built on the by 1949 demolished W. 159th St "semi abandoned" EL yards in 1950-51.

After 1950 fewer and fewer people used the Shuttle -- and the Putnam NYCRR trains provided AM and PM rush hour commuter trains terminating at Sedgwick Avenue joint Station, for railroad passengers either going west to Manhattan via the EL shuttle to catch the IND Subway south thru Manhattan from the free Transfer from the EL's W. 155th St Station --- or take the shuttle eastward to catch the IRT Woodlawn EL subway trains at E. 167th Street "transfer" station, for a ride south to Manhattan or north towards Woodlawn Terminal.

Other than POLO Grounds events (some being Jehova Witness Mega Meets) and Sports (Ball) games, which generated shuttle ride crowds on those days -- the shuttle just barely earned its keep by 1953 thru 1958

I remember seeing lines of people going from the Bronx side to the Polo Grounds, avoiding the shuttle train fare at Sedgwick Ave Station, and WALKING ACROSS THE FREE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS on the north side of the Shuttle Line El structure and across its bridge north-side pedestrian walkway from Sedgwick Ave., Bronx, to the Manhattan side !!! And returning the same way after the game ended !! I even have a photo of it !

Regards - Joe F

 

Quote

 

Posted by JOE @ NYCMTS - NYCTMG on Tue May 3 16:19:07 2016, in response to Re: Question for Joe F. -Woodlawn - PG shuttle 3rd rail shoe, posted by GojiMet86 on Tue May 3 11:18:56 2016.

Hello GOJIMET86

Yes, I well remember back then the "loosely proposed" plan by those various individuals who wanted to SAVE the shuttle line -- to connect it to the IRT Lenox Line at the area where the IRT Lenox repair shops were along the river.

However, the main problem, besides the cost of cutting out about 6 inches of tunnel walls ( 2 tunnels, 4 walls) from surface level to about 4 feet high (the height needed for 3rd rail future maintenance and repair work access-clearances) to make them wider for subway 3rd rail -- was the ancient Putnam RR bridge - which dated from about 1879. It was (IIRC) 'leased" to the IRT from the Putnam (branch of NYCRR) and was in dire need of overhaul by 1958. It was a steam operated bridge if I recall...one of, if not THE last surviving Harlem River ones. Perhaps needing eventual total replacement in a few years. Additionally, the added costs of having 3 daily shifts of BRIDGE TENDER operator employees to open and close the bridge the occasional times when needed.

AND - lastly, the fast aging 1878 built ancient all lattice girder constructed EL Structure at W. 155th Street was another consideration - already 80 years old in 1958 and minimally maintained thru the previous many decades.

For the little projected passenger gain -- and the new construction costs for the connective new structure from Lenox Avenue to the W. 155th Street Shuttle EL Station, and W. 162nd Street tunnel wall modifications...the plan was quickly discarded.

regards - Joe F

 

 

 

http://www.subchat.com/readflat.asp?Id=778727

Quote

 

Posted by Joe @ NYCMTS - NYCTMG on Fri May 1 14:33:36 2009, in response to Re: Covered/uncovered third rail, posted by gbs on Fri May 1 12:21:33 2009.

Hello Kevin

Please DO try better to give factually CORRECT information.

"ELevated" style 3rd rail - developed by Frank Sprague in 1897-8 and first implemented on the Chicago CRT EL's , and later IRT and BRT original EL systems between then and 1900-1, was HIGHER ('NOT' LOWER as you incorrecty stated) than the later 1903-4 first IRT Subway route COVERED Subway style and further and lower positioned Third Rail, which was copied from an Interurban Line 3rd rail installation.

BRT and IRT "Elevated Style" 3rd Rail shoes - called DROP SLED shoes, were a slightly different sled design than that as used on the CHICAGO systm whose photo you used. But the working characteristics were the same.

Subway style PADDLE 3rd rail shoes originally designed for the IRT and BMT were fabricated with two "contact" pad plates on the subway used "paddle" style shoe, with the shoe paddle angled upward near its tip where the "subway position" 3rd rail contact pad was located. The EL style 3rd rail contact pad was located a bit further back (about 4 inches) - and the INSULATED wood beam for these "dual contact pad" subway paddle shoes was positioned HIGHER on the truck sideframes' twin "end-of-beam" mounting brackets to allow the inward contact pad to ride flat on the closer and higher EL style 3rd rail.

These dual-contact-pad design 3rd rail subway paddle shoes lasted to at least the early 1960's - and were gradually replaced on the, all, IRT SUBWAY cars built prior to 1956, that had them - after 1963-4 with "subway only" style paddle contact shoes with only an outer tip contact pad and a less angled shoe end "tip"

The insulated wooden beams were repositioned lower on the twin mounting brackets so as to also lower the newer design subway paddle shoes closer to the subway style lower position covered 3rd rail. This simplified shoe type changeover gradually became the norm on the BMT by and thru the mid to late 1960's

The IRT Manhattan "Elevated Division" lines used a wooden safety backboard along the outer catwalk facing side of their uncovered Elevated style 3rd rail. This "safety" board, attached to the rail itsel by insulated blocks, brackets and bolts, faced the adjacent catwalk to protect track & railway workers and was about 1 inch HIGHER than the 3rd rail head. THIS unique safety device, was found ONLY on the four Manhattan EL's and also on ...

(a) the entire Bronx IRT 3rd Avenue EL segment, Harlem River up to Gun Hill Road and the north beyond located to connection ramps ONLY up to the switches connecting them to the IRT White Plains Rd Line above it. However, about mid-late 1957 (and used up thru April 1973 end of service) that by then "Shuttle" line was re-fitted with only subway style covered 3rd rail and operated by steel subway car trains from mid-late Dec. 1956.

(b) the IRT 9th Avenue EL Mainline Bronx portion only up to tops of the two ramps switch tracks connecting it to the mainline Woodlawn Jerome IRT EL

(c) the IRT 2nd Avenue EL over the Queensboro Bridge to and including ONLY the Queensbound up-ramp and entry-exit tracks for the "EL" trains to and prior to entering Queens Plaza (IRT south portion) Complex Station. From Queens Plaza out to Flushing and Astoria (until Oct. 1949) trackage was all DUAL 3rd rails

(d) The 1916 erected IRT Bronx Bergen Cutoff connection route AND the original 1901 erected IRT E. 150th Street first connection route from the
Bronx 3rd Avenue EL up to starting just beyond the switch tracks jointly connecting the 3rd Ave EL Mainline Route connections trackages with the mainline trackages of the IRT White Plains Rd. Line at Brook and Westchester Avenues

Regarding a,b,c,d, at the point where BOTH IRT wooden EL and IRT steel subway trains shared the same trackage, there was DUAL 3rd rail, EL style located on one side of each track, and subway styled located on the opposite side. Subway cars made contact with BOTH rails when running; EL cars contacted ONLY their 3rd rail type.

However, regarding a,b,c,d above - it must be noted that the EL STYLE 3rd rail DID NOT have its back side safety protector wood plank, because, being 1 inch approx. higher than the EL Style 3rd rail contact head, the wood safety backboard would make contact with and foul the dual-contact-pad steel subway car "subway 3rd rail style" paddle shoes.

The BRT and later BMT (as well as Chicago CRT and later CTA) opted to NOT ever utilize the IRT style-design wooden back safety board, and its trackage with both wood EL cars and Steel subway cars in joint-service operated trains, used ONLY the "Elevated" Style 3rd rail, FULLY unprotected, located along ONLY ONE side of each track. This arrangement lasted on Jamaica EL Portions and some yards, and the Myrtle EL's until thru to late 1960's until the end of wooden EL cars (Myrtle El, 1969)

By the very early 1970's all traces of BMT uncovered EL Style and positioned 3rd rail were completely gone. By early 1960's all EL style & position 3rd rail was gone on the IRT system

Regards - Joe F

 

Quote

 

Posted by Joe @ NYCMTS - NYCTMG on Fri May 1 15:22:29 2009, in response to Re: Covered/uncovered third rail, posted by gbs on Fri May 1 14:03:41 2009.

Hello Gps

The Flushing and Astoria IRT owned EL's used DUAL 3rd rail on all tracks. On one side of each track was a Subway covered style lower 3rd Rail, the Elevated uncovewred style higher 3rd Rail was on the other.

The BMT Wooden EL Gate car trains used as "BMT EL Shuttles" to and from Flushing and Astoria terminals, were fitted with SUBWAY PADDLE 3rd rail shoes when they were placed on those routes about 1920 by the BMT.

The BMT 1938-39 created former Gate car MUDC conversion Q-Type modernized trainsets also were fitted with Subway type 3rd rail paddle shoes to operate.

The IRT 2nd Avenue EL wooden Gate car and MUDC Converted Trains still retained their original EL STYLE Drop Sled contact shoes which could ONLY be used on the higher and closer positioned, uncovered "EL" style 3rd rail.

The IRT Steinway class, and BMT Standard (*) steel subway cars had subway style paddle shoes

While the 2nd Avenue El trains operating to Flushing and Astoria made contact with ONLY the EL style 3rd rail, the BMT Shuttle Wood EL Gate cars and Q Types, BMT Standards and IRT Steinways, contacted the "joint" 3rd rails located on BOTH sides of the tracks they ran on.

BMT and IRT wooden EL cars, and IRT steel Steinway cars were approx. NINE feet wide; BMT Standards were TEN feet wide.

(*) BMT Standards used only isolated dedicated trackage for them to use as turnbacks to and from upper and lower levels of BMT Standard ONLY dedicated station platform sides to and from Manhattan on the BMT "north half" portion station platforms of the Queens Plaza Junction Complex.

Even though 2nd Avenue IRT EL service from Manhattan (via Queensboro Bridge) ended in June 1942, EL style 3rd rail still remained surviving intact thru Dec. 1949 only, on the Astoria EL (when it became modified in mid-late Oct.1949 for BMT steel subway trains operations only) and was then removed --- and thru 1955-6 on the post Oct. 1949 IRT trains operation ONLY operations Flushing Line - so as for use by various IRT Work trains still using long out of revenue service IRT Elevated Motor cars still having Drop Sled EL style shoes.

With the close the the Manhattan 3rd Avenue EL by 5-12-1955, and mid Dec. 1956 end of revenue service on Bronx only 3rd Ave. EL remnant - and anywhere for ALL few remaining IRT wooden EL cars, and the then wholesale immediate scrapping of ALL remaining same, the EL style 3rd rail was removed from the Flushing line gradually, and work train "work motors" then comprised solely surplus pre-war steel IRT subway motor cars (ie: Low-V's).

The Astoria Line after Jan. 1950 could and did use surplus 10' wide steel subway car (or BMT Electric locos) work motors for work trains on that back then and as now, BMT Division only line.

Regards - Joe F

 

Quote

 

Posted by Joe @ NYCMTS - NYCTMG on Fri May 1 17:12:22 2009, in response to Re: Covered/uncovered third rail, posted by randyo on Fri May 1 15:09:32 2009.

Hello Randy (O)

Yes, we both participated in that long ago thread.
3rd rails thread...heh

Being the IRT "West Farms Line" Westchester Avenue EL from Brook Ave thru to Bronx Park EAST Terminal Station was planned to be pre-opened and temporarily served first and SOLELY by IRT Manhattan 3rd and 2nd Ave Elevated Trains via the original and then only-existing "E.150th street-Third Avenue" 2 track conection EL branch from the 3rd Ave EL Mainline just north of E. 149th street station - the West Farms line was initially fitted solely with EL style 3rd Rail.....but with NO wooden back safety board on the West Farms Line EL's Elevated style uncovered 3rd rail. This situation was to remain the status quo, and the only utilized form of 3rd rail on that route, and thru its later connection to the E. 180th street "new" terminal and shops opened circa (IIRC) 1918-20. (Thus having NO "Dual" 3rd rail)

However, when the White Plains Road extension was built to E. 241st street in 1918-20, it WAS fitted from E. 180th street northward with DUAL 3rd rails on each track. WHY "dual" on that newer portion, I dont understand - except perhaps as City financed, possibly the provision (subway type 3rd rails also) was required in and of advance-plans to possibly run steel subway cars only some day and eliminate the "wooden el trains"...along with removal then also of their old style "unsafe" anmd duplicate 3rd rail !

When the Bergen Cutoff was service abandoned (IIRC late 1946 or was it 1947) for revenue service and removed about 1948-9 - the original earlier connection at E. 150th St. & 3rd Ave., which ceased revenue passenger service around 1918-19, was kept operationally alive for the occasional work train and non revenue transfer move needs and as for emergency Bergen bypass usage. It was a 2 block long still remaining connection - but was likewise removed in 1950-1, and therefore there was no more need for EL ONLY style 3rd rail below Bronx Park East and E.180th street Stations. Therfore, it was removed replaced solely by subway style covered 3rd rail by circa 1950-1 at least.

Third Avenue EL Mainline trains that could have used the intact E.150th St & 3rd Ave. "original" connector between years 1946 and 1950 for non revenue shop or layup yard bound, or work train moves, to the E. 180th Street Yards, shops, or E. 239th St Yards, shops, via West Farms /White Plains Rd Line - now had to use the 3rd Ave EL Bronx mainline north up thru to Gun Hill Rd Joint Station connection to White Plains Rd. Line. elevated and its E. 180th St. or E. 239th St. shops, yards.

As the new INTERBPOROUGH Company had "leased" the Manhattan Railway Co. Elevated Lines "for 999 years" in (IIRC) 1901-2, with the idea of unifying its first (and later) subway line route(s) with joint operation on some of the Elevated ONLY Bronx routes - a dual "contact pad" paddle shoe was developed for the first initial subway cars (the wooden Composites and steel Gibbs) - and long carried on thereafter to later IRT fleets.

One NOTE: Steel IRT subway cars COULD NOT electrically operate under their own power on ANY of the 4 old Manhattan El routes - even unloaded 'light" in non revenue moves - SOLELY because of the, that, high wooden back safety board used on the Manhattan EL lines on their El style 3rd rails.
It would foul (*) the subway car paddle shoes !

In fact, IRT steel subway cars towed empty along the Manhattan Els (to and from shops, yards, ie: those EL Shops and yards at E. 99th, E. 129th or E.155th streets) - and towed to Manhattan's 2nd Avenue EL over the Queensboro Bridge from the IRT operated Flushing and Astoria line Els (up to June 1942 closing of 2nd Avenue EL connection to Queens!) had to have their subway paddle shoes removed (*) from the insulated shoe beams !!!

But of course Randy, you and I long well knew about all this anyway !

Regards - Joe F

 

Quote

 

Posted by Joe @ NYCMTS - NYCTMG on Sat May 2 03:34:53 2009, in response to Re: Covered/uncovered third rail, posted by randyo on Fri May 1 15:19:13 2009.

Hello Randy O

Yes, very good explanation re: subway paddle shoe clearances on some Brooklyn older ELs'.

On the IRT, that and another few reasons were why the Manhattan Elevated Division wooden rolling stock always retained the earlier design Drop Sled "EL" style third rail shoes and their 3rd rail position..as follows:

(a) -- For the very thrifty and expense-conscious IRT, it would have been deemed extensively much too costly to replace ALL (4 per EL motor car, EL trailer cars had no shoes) Drop Sled shoes on many thousands of Elevated Cars, both in brand new paddle shoes material, and labor/time, combined costs;

(b) -- Additional time and labor/ material costs to reposition and apply cover boards over ALL the original EL style 3rd rails and as such outfit each of a few hundred collective accumulative miles of
"Manhattan EL Division" route trackage as such.

(c) -- Per a and b, perhaps because the Manhattan El Division, thanks to the anti streetcar and EL legislation and attitudes of some then "very short insight" people of the likes of Mayor Laguardia and his minion followers...it was deemed a wasted cost investment, as was thought likewise of installing complete blocks and signaling on all route trackage of the FOUR Manhattan ELs' -- which was never done EXCEPT only at ALL track interlockings, and also full installation of blocks and signals done on ALL trackage of their two more heavily, stronger built Bronx route EL mainline extensions.

(d) -- As the Manhattan EL Division elevated structures were too lightly built - mainly 1880's era built lattice construction columns and girders - to handle revenue loaded steel subway trains, the DROP SLED shoes and their EL style 3rd rail with THE HIGHER WOOD PLANK BACK SAFETY BOARD, and rail position, guaranteed that even accidentally, as follows:

-- Steel subway trains would not be able to draw power to operate on "Manhnattan EL Division" only assigned trackages, as their "paddle" type subway shoes would foul and ride up ONTO the "higher than 3rd rail head" safety backboard and up off of the power rail head. Thats WHY the high wooden safety backboard was missing on "EL" style 3rd rails on the IRT Bronx and Queens EL operated routes fitted with DUAL type 3rd rails !

-- "Wooden" car constructed trains were banned from mainline subway tunnel revenue operation by earlier (IIRC in 1912-13) PSC legislation, and thus would not "accidentally" be able to draw power from an unreachable, further away and lower positioned, and covered, subway style 3rd rail on trackage with such. Also, the approx. ONE FOOT + higher EL Car roofs would not clear most IRT Subway tunnels.

In one text-documented instance, this in fact prevented a Manhattan bound 2nd Ave EL wooden "EL" train from accidentally operating down to and into the IRT E. 149t St. West Farms Line subway tunnel, Bronx, when it was improperly towerman-switched to the right onto the westward descending subway-tunnel bound mainline local track, instead of the the left onto the westward upward-rising ramp S/B local "EL Division" mainline track having ONLY EL style 3rd rail - of the Bergen Cutoff EL branch back in the late 1920's ! The entire wooden EL train cleared the switch and immediately LOST all power, and was immediately stopped by the errant motorman, when ALL of its drop sled shoes dropped into mid air due to not ALSO having an EL style 3rd rail on the subway tunnel approach downramp trackage ! A following EL train was coupled to the rear car of the "dead" train and pulled it back, upward and eastward, to the DUAL 3rd rail trackage EAST of the switch. Both "EL" trains were then sent, properly re-routed, on their way to the upper level ramp of the BERGEN Cutoff Line, towards the 3rd Avenue EL mainline.

-- Thats WHY the BMT Elevated system NEVER used the safety wooden high backboard on their EL style 3rd rails on ANY of their EL lines, and mainly so NOT on EL lines of which both steel subway trains and wooden EL trains ran in joint-route operations...using their single one and only "EL" style 3rd rail at trackside for use by BOTH train types to collect power !

Regards - Joe F

 

 

[Lawrence St]

Interesting, so three of the main issues were the tunnels, third rail and and the Harlem drawbridge.

Weren't the Steinway tunnels built to the same specifications as the Jerome Av tunnels? They couldn't do those same modifications?

It says here that the projected ridership didn't warrant it, but connecting it to the Lenox Av line would have actually saved the shuttle and increased ridership on both branches.

The Harlem River drawbridge seems to be the biggest factor though.

[Deucey]

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

The Harlem River drawbridge seems to be the biggest factor though.

That bothers me on levels since  and  both have to cross drawbridges.

Seems less an operational concern and more an excuse found to not create the connection. It'd make more sense if it incorporated the reality of NYC wanting to remove the bridge.

[R10 2952]

Pretty much;  from its inception (1953) onward simply looked for the path of least resistance when it came to dealing with the vast majority of the older remaining els and standalone shuttles- abandonment.

The Jamaica Avenue Line was a notable exception in that the Archer Avenue replacement was a complete boondoggle, as it probably would have been cheaper to keep the line to 168th-Jamaica and forgo the Southeast Queens stubway to nowhere.  From what I remember of the archives, the TA actually wanted to keep the Jamaica el, but Lindsay and some local councilmembers were adamant in pushing for it's demolition, so down it went.

Edited January 21, 2021 by R10 2952

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

That bothers me on levels since  and  both have to cross drawbridges.

Seems less an operational concern and more an excuse found to not create the connection. It'd make more sense if it incorporated the reality of NYC wanting to remove the bridge.

I mean, the bridge was old and it wasn't strong enough. It's not like you can just bolt on additional steel and call it a day.

Coupled with the relatively poor condition IRT and BMT owned infrastructure would've been in due to deferred maintenance from intense IND competition literally designed to bankrupt the two companies, they probably would've needed a whole new bridge. Definitely wasn't budget for that, particularly with bigger fish to fry like Chrystie St and Culver Ramp.

[Deucey]

2 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I mean, the bridge was old and it wasn't strong enough. It's not like you can just bolt on additional steel and call it a day.

Coupled with the relatively poor condition IRT and BMT owned infrastructure would've been in due to deferred maintenance from intense IND competition literally designed to bankrupt the two companies, they probably would've needed a whole new bridge. Definitely wasn't budget for that, particularly with bigger fish to fry like Chrystie St and Culver Ramp.

But that bridge wasn't determined to be structurally deficient until the late 70s and torn down in the 90s, so it could've been retrofitted or replaced if the will was there.

That's the thing about any public works - money's always found when the pols and elites want something.

[bobtehpanda]

47 minutes ago, Deucey said:

But that bridge wasn't determined to be structurally deficient until the late 70s and torn down in the 90s, so it could've been retrofitted or replaced if the will was there.

That's the thing about any public works - money's always found when the pols and elites want something.

It doesn't have to be deficient, to be incapable of running subway trains in general. It wasn't originally engineered with that weight in mind in the first place, the same reason why you can't put a rail line on the Throgs Neck, Whitestone, or Verrazano, and the same reason we have the 60th St tunnel and not a Queensboro Bridge crossing.

Remember that if the Third and Myrtle demolitions had not gone through, they would've ordered a bespoke el fleet for those lines, the R39, that was significantly lighter.

Edited January 22, 2021 by bobtehpanda

[RapidoNewLook]

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

It doesn't have to be deficient, to be incapable of running subway trains in general. It wasn't originally engineered with that weight in mind in the first place, the same reason why you can't put a rail line on the Throgs Neck, Whitestone, or Verrazano, and the same reason we have the 60th St tunnel and not a Queensboro Bridge crossing.

Remember that if the Third and Myrtle demolitions had not gone through, they would've ordered a bespoke el fleet for those lines, the R39, that was significantly lighter.

The R39? Can you elaborate on that?

[Vulturious]

6 minutes ago, RapidoNewLook said:

The R39? Can you elaborate on that?

The R39 was a proposed train that was meant for the 3rd Av EL or Myrtle Av EL. I'm not sure on what it was supposed to be running as, by that I mean either A or B division. Regardless, because of those lines being demolished, so was the proposed R39.