|
|
| Re: PROFF Re: 76st what happened? (1032318) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: PROFF Re: 76st what happened? |
|
|
Posted by Randyo on Mon Jan 31 14:20:48 2011, in response to Re: PROFF Re: 76st what happened?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jan 31 05:11:58 2011. 72 St had not only one but two local towers one for each level. Each machine had sufficient spaces so that appropriate levers could be installed on either machine to enable one tower to control both levels at some future time. As for the iND having a lot of local towers, that was only because it was the state of the art at the time and was no different from the private companies. In fact, the IRT probably had more local towers than either the BMT or the IND and was more likely to have portable towers since more IRT lines than IND lines terminated at places that didn't have interlockings after they were extended beyond those points. I can't off the top of my head think of any place on the IND where there were any "portable" towers since the IND always terminated at places that had their own towers. Even when the Fulton St Line terminated at Rockaway Av, the switches that were installed there were controlled by Utica tower. It may also be possible that although it was planned for 76 St to have its own tower, had the line out Pitkin been completed to a further point, the B of T or T A might have added that interlocking either to Euclid or Pitkin's board when it came time for the actual installation. |
|
|
|