Original Expansion Plans Discussion

[Vulturious]

12 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I thought the SAS Bronx extension was going to run parallel to the  along existing railroad right-of-way up to Hunts Point Avenue where it would then capture the Westchester Ave El for the rest of the way to Pelham Bay Park. I can’t see how B-Division sized SAS trains would have been able to run on the same tracks as the , and they would have had to, since the subway part of the  in The Bronx only has three tracks.

I think they planned on completely replacing the  after Hunts Point Av which isn't all the necessary. Although, the plan did have either Lexington Av service or SAS service on the new Webster Av line, Pelham was probably going to either be converted entirely for B-division or it wouldn't have gone through and just left the  as is with SAS service on the new line instead.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

2 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I think they planned on completely replacing the  after Hunts Point Av which isn't all the necessary. Although, the plan did have either Lexington Av service or SAS service on the new Webster Av line, Pelham was probably going to either be converted entirely for B-division or it wouldn't have gone through and just left the  as is with SAS service on the new line instead.

The 1968 plan called for SAS trains to Pelham and Dyre. Trains would have run on separate tracks along what is now Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor. One branch would replace the  between Hunts Point and Pelham Bay while the other would have continued up the Corridor up to about East 177th Street and would have replaced the  between East 180th and Dyre. Only the elevated  line station platforms would have been converted for B-Division, because the  would have terminated at Hunts Point (although the subway tunnels there are also built to accept B-Division trains). 

Edited February 12, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Vulturious]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The 1968 plan called for SAS trains to Pelham and Dyre. Trains would have run on separate tracks along what is now Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor. One branch would replace the  between Hunts Point and Pelham Bay while the other would have continued up the Corridor up to about East 177th Street and would have replaced the  between East 180th and Dyre. Only the elevated  line station platforms would have been converted for B-Division, because the  would have terminated at Hunts Point (although the subway tunnels there are also built to accept B-Division trains). 

Did not know that last bit, you learn something everyday. I did know about the extension to Dyre Av as well which would've resulted the  terminating at Nereid or if Gun Hill Road along WPR had new switches were added. I don't think I'm against the idea of a B division line replacing the  along Dyre Av as its forced to be a shuttle during late nights anyways and the  doesn't even have express service along WPR anyways which is pretty strange and could've solved maybe some congestion issue, that is just my opinion. Although, where would the  be based out of since it is pretty much forced to terminate at Hunts Point Av? Would it still be based out of Westchester and have track connections there so it can deadhead over there? It's kind of why I said either a complete conversion of the whole line or leaving it alone.

[Lawrence St]

1 hour ago, Vulturious said:

Did not know that last bit, you learn something everyday. I did know about the extension to Dyre Av as well which would've resulted the  terminating at Nereid or if Gun Hill Road along WPR had new switches were added. I don't think I'm against the idea of a B division line replacing the  along Dyre Av as its forced to be a shuttle during late nights anyways and the  doesn't even have express service along WPR anyways which is pretty strange and could've solved maybe some congestion issue, that is just my opinion. Although, where would the  be based out of since it is pretty much forced to terminate at Hunts Point Av? Would it still be based out of Westchester and have track connections there so it can deadhead over there? It's kind of why I said either a complete conversion of the whole line or leaving it alone.

Nope, in this plan, the AND were suppose to end at Bronx Park Terminal, which was never suppose to be demolished.

[Vulturious]

9 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Nope, in this plan, the AND were suppose to end at Bronx Park Terminal, which was never suppose to be demolished.

Wait so some other service was going to run along WPR to Wakefield as well? Why would they cut back the , there wasn't even anything that showed that the  would be cut back with an SAS service replacing it. I only saw Dyre Av and Pelham line, very interesting.

[Lawrence St]

3 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Wait so some other service was going to run along WPR to Wakefield as well? Why would they cut back the , there wasn't even anything that showed that the  would be cut back with an SAS service replacing it. I only saw Dyre Av and Pelham line, very interesting.

Yes, it was one of the SAS lines. West Farms Square was suppose to have an curved upper level added to it, which would have been a direct transfer between the and .

[Lawrence St]

21 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Yes, it was one of the SAS lines. West Farms Square was suppose to have an curved upper level added to it, which would have been a direct transfer between the and .

In addition to this, a lot of the east-side Bronx El's were suppose to be converted to B Division operations. Pelham, Dyre and WPR were all suppose to serve branches of the Second Av Subway.

At Bronx Park Terminal, the  was suppose to open it's doors at the middle platform and the  at the side platforms. Not sure how that would've worked. Then again we do have a mess of a terminal called Flatbush Av so I wouldn't be surprised...

But with all of these ideas, why is there no plan to reuse the 3rd Av elevated for some type of service? They could have sent the  to 3rd Av instead of Jerome Av. And speaking of which, vanshnookenraggen's map shows the 3rd Av Line as a replacement to the original, with a two track elevated structure. What was the point of demolishing the structure, only to rebuild it again, with less capacity at that?

[bobtehpanda]

42 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

But with all of these ideas, why is there no plan to reuse the 3rd Av elevated for some type of service? They could have sent the  to 3rd Av instead of Jerome Av. And speaking of which, vanshnookenraggen's map shows the 3rd Av Line as a replacement to the original, with a two track elevated structure. What was the point of demolishing the structure, only to rebuild it again, with less capacity at that?

3rd Av El is simply a much older el not built to Dual Contracts standards and can't handle the weight of normal subway cars. There is no way that any plan would have involved keeping the structure intact, and since it needed rebuilding may as well build it in a place to reduce impacts on neighborhoods.

I also don't know where less capacity comes from. 3 tracks has the same capacity as 2, for the most part, since what goes in must come out and the extra third track has no place to go out.

[Lawrence St]

1 minute ago, bobtehpanda said:

3rd Av El is simply a much older el not built to Dual Contracts standards and can't handle the weight of normal subway cars. There is no way that any plan would have involved keeping the structure intact, and since it needed rebuilding may as well build it in a place to reduce impacts on neighborhoods.

I also don't know where less capacity comes from. 3 tracks has the same capacity as 2, for the most part, since what goes in must come out and the extra third track has no place to go out.

Can you explain the dual contracts to me? I'm lost. According to what I understand, every el that was built was not built to dual contracts, but was then rebuilt according to the dual contracts.

And in terms of capacity, that third track allows for flexibility for operations.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Yes, it was one of the SAS lines. West Farms Square was suppose to have an curved upper level added to it, which would have been a direct transfer between the and .

I think you may be talking about an earlier plan, possibly one put forth by the old Board of Transportation as part of the IND Second System. The 1968 MTA Plan for Action called for the Pelham and Dyre lines to be converted to B-Division operations and operate via the SAS. Here’s a link -

https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/The_New_York_Transit_Authority_in_the_1970s

Unless the plans were changed at some point between 1968 and 1975 when SAS construction grinded to a halt due to the City’s fiscal crisis, the ‘68 plan called for Dyre and Pelham to be the SAS’s Bronx branches. It was a far cry from earlier expansion plans. Just as the current SAS plan is a far cry from what was proposed in ‘68.

Edited February 12, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue
Posted wrong link

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Can you explain the dual contracts to me? I'm lost. According to what I understand, every el that was built was not built to dual contracts, but was then rebuilt according to the dual contracts.

And in terms of capacity, that third track allows for flexibility for operations.

(So it appears that I'm mistaken on the Third Ave El and the Dual Contracts, but I can go ahead, because for the most part what the state of the Third Av El is in 1970 is what really matters.)

The original IRT was built in 1904. Around the time they finished the IRT, the IRT also essentially bought out the old els, which gave them a monopoly on rapid transit in Manhattan and the Bronx. The problem the city then faced was that the IRT was perfectly happy to make a profit on packed subways and not doing anything, so the BRT/BMT was brought in to make two companies compete with each other.

A lot of lines were newly built as part of the Dual Contracts to the general specification of the BMT, part of today's B-Division. Hence the SAS "recapture" plan was to convert the WPR and Pelham to B Division, which wasn't that hard because they were newly built as part of the Dual Contracts. (A similar recapture was performed on the Astoria Line, which mostly involved shaving back the platforms.)

The Third Av El predates the subway, and doesn't seem like it was extensively rebuilt as part of its Dual Contracts work to add a third track. So by 1970 the MTA was already considering buying a special fleet for both it and the Myrtle Av El, because they couldn't run with standard weight subway cars.

---

Is reliability good? Yes. Is it worth more than a 1.5x premium to build for new lines when we have so much of the city still not covered by subway? No.

[bulk88]

On 2/12/2021 at 12:45 AM, Vulturious said:

Although, where would the  be based out of since it is pretty much forced to terminate at Hunts Point Av? Would it still be based out of Westchester and have track connections there so it can deadhead over there? It's kind of why I said either a complete conversion of the whole line or leaving it alone.

Division A trains would have gone to a division B yard (Westchester) and have trip cocks on both sides. It was written in the SAS EIS.

[Vulturious]

21 minutes ago, bulk88 said:

Division A trains would have gone to a division B yard (Westchester) and have trip cocks on both sides. It was written in the SAS EIS.

So something similar to what the  does with storing their trains at Concourse Yard, but only difference is that the  and  would share the same yard. I'd assume the  would still be based out of Coney Island and have Westchester as storage or minor maintenance.

[Lawrence St]

Bringing this topic back for this question:

I heard from a retired T/O that Canal St was originally built with inner terminal tracks as an alternative to SAS had funding ran out before it could be completed to Hanover Sq.

While this somewhat may not be true, Nassau is built in a completely weird way from Essex St all the way to Broad St, so his story does have some merit to it.

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Bringing this topic back for this question:

I heard from a retired T/O that Canal St was originally built with inner terminal tracks as an alternative to SAS had funding ran out before it could be completed to Hanover Sq.

While this somewhat may not be true, Nassau is built in a completely weird way from Essex St all the way to Broad St, so his story does have some merit to it.

This is 100% definitely not true.

The reason it is built like that is very simple; when the Nassau St line was built, most BMT service was designed to use Nassau St. Nassau St had four tracks from the Willy B to Canal St and two joining from the Manhattan Bridge. The inner tracks were simply for terminating some trains early.

[Trainmaster5]

19 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is 100% definitely not true.

The reason it is built like that is very simple; when the Nassau St line was built, most BMT service was designed to use Nassau St. Nassau St had four tracks from the Willy B to Canal St and two joining from the Manhattan Bridge. The inner tracks were simply for terminating some trains early.

You are correct. Broadway ( Brooklyn )  locals from Canarsie (rush),Crescent,  Atlantic or Eastern Parkway terminated at Canal. Myrtle terminated at Chambers along with some BMT South service using the Manhattan Bridge and the Jamaica line terminated at Broad. This was the basic rush hour service from 1957-60 that I'm familiar with. People would wait for those Canarsie/Broadway trains from Rockaway Parkway to Sutter to avoid that long transfer at Broadway Junction back then.

[R10 2952]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the northbound inner stub track at Canal  was still in use at some point in the '90s.  I remember getting on/off one or two revenue service  trains sitting on the terminal track around that time, before the eastern platform was closed.  Can't remember when the rails were pulled up on the western (southbound) inner stub track, though.

Edited June 26, 2021 by R10 2952

[Eric B]

Yes, it was reconfigured to the present in the 90's

Also, while this wasn't built for SAS; there were often ideas of using it as a cheaper alternative to the new line continuing below Delancey.

[R10 2952]

7 hours ago, Eric B said:

Yes, it was reconfigured to the present in the 90's

Also, while this wasn't built for SAS; there were often ideas of using it as a cheaper alternative to the new line continuing below Delancey.

Would have been interesting if they did.  Canal  has always been a giant mindwarp to me; they closed the exits on the east side of Centre Street a year or two before I started using the station in the late '90s, and trying to get through all the crowds bottlenecked at that single entrance on the west side of Centre during rush hours was a nightmare.  The strangest thing is despite all the resources online, I've never been able to find any trace of where the eastern street entrances were.

[Lawrence St]

On 6/29/2021 at 8:27 PM, R10 2952 said:

Would have been interesting if they did.  Canal  has always been a giant mindwarp to me; they closed the exits on the east side of Centre Street a year or two before I started using the station in the late '90s, and trying to get through all the crowds bottlenecked at that single entrance on the west side of Centre during rush hours was a nightmare.  The strangest thing is despite all the resources online, I've never been able to find any trace of where the eastern street entrances were.

Canal St had eastern exits?

[R10 2952]

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Canal St had eastern exits?

Yes, the 4-track station at Canal Street  had two exits to the street from the eastern platform.  The eastern platform closed in 2004, but its exits to the east side of Centre Street closed earlier than that- sometime in the mid '90s.  Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot of information or pictures online that show it.  Even a search of the City's archival tax photos from the 1980s yields nothing.  Only thing I know for sure is that those entrances were in buildings on both eastern corners, not standalone.  Beyond that, the information trail simply vanishes.

 

[Eric B]

It wasn't in the building (that's the still open one on the west side); it was where the newstand is on the southest corner, and you can see the newer sidewalk cement under it.

Inside, it has orange tiles and a low ceiling where the token booth was.

[R10 2952]

On 7/12/2021 at 5:11 PM, Eric B said:

It wasn't in the building (that's the still open one on the west side); it was where the newstand is on the southest corner, and you can see the newer sidewalk cement under it.

Inside, it has orange tiles and a low ceiling where the token booth was.

Thanks for clarifying, I appreciate it.  Had just been closed by the time I started using the station, and there don't seem to be a lot of good street-level phots from the intersection back then online.  What I was surprised about was those big open-air parking lots on the east side of Centre Street near Walker back in the tax photos from the '80s.  Always forget how gritty and run-down Lower Manhattan used to be LOL.

Edited July 17, 2021 by R10 2952

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

This is an enhanced cab view of a Southbound  train at Chambers Street.

If one looks carefully to the upper left above the 2 center tracks that dive down, they can see a "loft". Is this loft the supposed never finished Brooklyn Bridge Ramp that would've connected the Nassau St Line to Brooklyn Bridge? This appears on Vanshnookenraggen's official track map, but I've never seen any official proof (photos, videos, ect) beyond credible here say.

For those who don't know, the plan for BMT Chambers St when construction started was to have the western 2 tracks turn east onto the Brooklyn Bridge, while the eastern 2 tracks would continue South to Broad St. However, they quickly realized the curvature required to ramp onto the Brooklyn Bridge was too much, and abandoned that idea, however remnants showing the original intentions can be seen at Chambers St such as how the Westernmost platform begins to ramp up on the Southern end, or why the ceilings are so high. Many say this ramp was constructed and then sealed off once it determined it wouldn't actually be used, so I'd be curious if this loft somehow connects to or is the ramp itself.

Any additional information on this BMT Brooklyn Bridge ramp would be interesting; Vanshnookenraggen seems certain enough it exists to put it on his track map, but it's just weird there seem to be no official photos, videos, or documents (as far as I can find).

[Lawrence St]

Atlantic Ave

Did the former northbound platform have its own separate entrance/exit over Snediker Avenue? I was told there were some plans to keep the former northbound platform in tact for some rush hour  or  trains.