|
|
| Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el (119999) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 8 of 8 |
||
|
| (124227) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Aug 7 17:04:02 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by Broadway Junction on Sun Aug 7 15:51:46 2005. Yup, it should be upstairs!.....and don't forget the gap it should have with the platform if it happened to be on this platform downstairs. |
|
|
| (124228) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Aug 7 17:11:39 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 7 13:58:14 2005. If the MTA wanted to keep the Myrtle, converting the stations to B division specs (shaving each platform edge 6 inches) would have been easy.You are actually absolutely correct. I forgot that in actuality, the J's section from Alabama to Crescent was "upgraded" to handle the wider cars too, as originally those were also "el only" stations. The 3rd Ave. el could have kept using IRT equipment had they invested the money into fixing it up and shoring up the oldest sections. You are also correct. In fact, didn't the R12's and R14's actually run regularly on the 3rd Ave el anyway?   Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but it appears that they wanted to close it and get rid of it before anyone knew what hit them. There was a lot that could have been done to save it. Unfortunately, the Myrt and the Third may still be here today had they survived just 10 years longer. Very sad. Ultimitely, since you mentioned IRT equipment, ideally, my plan had always been for them to connect the 3rd Ave el to the Lexington Ave local, and have the 6 run there, and turn the Pelham line over the the 2nd Ave Subway. The Pelham El and subway was built to dual contract standards, so thus it could handle BMT/IND sized equipment. |
|
|
| (124233) | |
Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by Karl M, Ex New Yorker on Sun Aug 7 17:34:17 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by Newkirk Images on Sun Aug 7 16:50:33 2005. You know...when my friends and I would ride the gate cars for fun one time we found some of those metal station signs were laying on some of the seats, so we put them back in their proper racks....who would've known.....Karl |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (124235) | |
Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by Karl B on Sun Aug 7 17:40:48 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by Newkirk Images on Sun Aug 7 16:50:33 2005. When I rode the "Last Lex" in 1950 there was no vandalism either. The only things taken were the steel route and destination signs. Riders even took the wood destination signs that hung on the gates at the front and rear of the train.By the time we got back to Eastern Parkway there was not one sign left on the six car train. Unfortunately, I did not get any of the signs. |
|
|
| (124239) | |
Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by Karl B on Sun Aug 7 17:45:30 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by Karl M, Ex New Yorker on Sun Aug 7 17:34:17 2005. I'll bet you wish now that you would have taken some of them.When you find them on eBay they always seem to go very high in the bidding. |
|
|
| (124253) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by Jan K. Lorenzen on Sun Aug 7 18:53:49 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Aug 7 17:04:02 2005. Its on its way down to Coney Island Yard.Ok, to get Jay St./Boro Hall from Jay St./Bridge, what moves would have been needed? Wouldn't the R39 have needed to be in a three car train? I would STILL be riding it if it was still around. Moved from NJ to Pratt 26 years ago this week. I know someone out there has a copy of the R39 proposal spec. C'mon, scan it and post it somewhere so we can dream of what might of have been. |
|
|
| (124254) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 7 19:19:13 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Aug 7 17:11:39 2005. The el in the Bronx was never intended to use those heavy subway cars (outside the section above Fordham Road). Notice they only used 4 car trains at the end, and even these had to be modified somewhat to reduce their top speed. |
|
|
| (124255) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 7 19:22:21 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by Jan K. Lorenzen on Sun Aug 7 18:53:49 2005. Wouldn't the R39 have needed to be in a three car train? From what I could gather from the few pics I've seen, the lower Myrtle's stations were long enough to handle 5 el cars, or slightly less than 5 contemporary IRT cars. |
|
|
| (124256) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 7 19:24:36 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave, posted by egis semaly on Sun Aug 7 15:43:43 2005. Right. Worst food ever. |
|
|
| (124257) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M] |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 7 19:26:08 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Aug 6 20:25:22 2005. Dunno, I just read it in Mark Fienman's "The Subway In The 1980's". |
|
|
| (124262) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M] |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 7 19:30:12 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Aug 7 16:48:40 2005. The J never had correct signage for most of the 1980's. When the J was cut back to Queens Blvd, signage on the R16/27/30/32 only existed for 168th St. About a year before it was cut back to 121st, signage for Queens Blvd was installed (except for the R16, which showed 111th St). About 6 months before Archer Ave. opened, signage for 121st St appeared. However, the R42's on the J usually had the right signage. Never could figure that out. |
|
|
| (124263) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Sun Aug 7 19:34:18 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 7 19:19:13 2005. The whole Bronx section of the Third Ave el was indeed rebuilt to handle heavy subway cars. The section of el from 149th St to north of Tremont Ave was totally rebuilt in 1913-1915. The section of el from north of Tremont Ave to Fordham Rd. was original (circa 1901-1902), but reinforced during the 1910's when a third track was added. The problem was the years of neglect not its construction. |
|
|
| (124265) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 7 19:37:06 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Sun Aug 7 19:34:18 2005. OK. The next question is: why? Were there ever plans to connect it to a subway line? |
|
|
| (124266) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sun Aug 7 19:38:09 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 7 19:37:06 2005. Probably so that one fleet of cars could be used both on the Subway and the Els. |
|
|
| (124278) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by Karl B on Sun Aug 7 20:22:05 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 7 19:22:21 2005. The stations below Grand could handle six car gate trains. That's what they ran on the Fulton-Lex during rush hours until the end in 1950.I would suspect that the stations between Grand and Broadway could handle six cars too. |
|
|
| (124280) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M] |
|
|
Posted by Karl B on Sun Aug 7 20:31:19 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 7 19:30:12 2005. 111 th St has been on rollsigns since the beginning.111 th St was even on the rollsigns of the Standards. 111 th St was also the rush hour destination of the Lexington Ave line as well. It is interesting to note that the Standards never had a destination sign for 168 th St. They simply said Jamaica. |
|
|
| (124281) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M] |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Aug 7 20:34:41 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Aug 7 08:53:41 2005. The big headaches I remember with the 16's was the electric portions being a bit funky - sometimes the doors wouldn't work, lights and heat were random but they usually RAN ... the 27/30's though were the REAL slackers of the fleet. Once they got the R42 door engines into those big slanty things though, if the pins under the coupler were willing, the doors were too. :) |
|
|
| (124343) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Sun Aug 7 22:04:08 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 7 19:37:06 2005. They probably were going to rebuild the whole 3rd Ave el but didn't have the money to do so. |
|
|
| (124369) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M] |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Sun Aug 7 23:44:29 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Aug 7 06:20:19 2005. 'for some insane reason'YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| (124376) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M] |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Mon Aug 8 00:00:55 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by monorail on Sun Aug 7 23:44:29 2005. I don't suffer from insanityI'm enjoying every minute of it! |
|
|
| (124440) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M] |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Aug 8 08:33:43 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Aug 7 08:53:41 2005. I still remember when the R-16s had their original vertical door pockets, olive drab exterior and BMT number curtains. Not to mention wondering out loud, "What's a 15?" as that train pulled into Marcy Ave. on that long ago Saturday afternoon in 1967. Don't answer the question - I know it was a Jamaica local. |
|
|
| (124441) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M] |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Aug 8 08:36:03 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by Newkirk Images on Sun Aug 7 16:59:31 2005. Close enough for jazz.There is a photo of an R-10 consist on the Canarsie with both curtains cranked all the way to the end. No signs up front, just as it used to be with the BMT standards. |
|
|
| (124442) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M] |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Aug 8 08:37:36 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by Karl B on Sun Aug 7 20:31:19 2005. Nor did they have Rockaway Parkway signs - just Canarsie. |
|
|
| (124446) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M] |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Aug 8 08:51:28 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by vengence on Sat Aug 6 09:15:21 2005. Here was the JJ/QJ breakdown from late November 1967 to July 1, 1968:QJ: 168th St. and Brighton Beach, 6:00 AM - 8:00 PM Mon-Fri. Express along Broadway-Brooklyn during rush hours, peak direction. Skip-stop along Jamaica Ave. AM rush hours Manhattan-bound. JJ: 168th St. and Canal St. AM rush hours, skip-stop along Jamaica Ave. Canal St. and Crescent St. OR Atlantic Ave. OR Rockaway Parkway PM rush hours, all stops. 168th St. and Broad St. all other times, all stops. |
|
|
| (124453) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M] |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Aug 8 09:05:26 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by monorail on Sun Aug 7 00:48:16 2005. Many people in that part of the city didn't even know there were numbers associated with any of those routes until the R-16s came along. Even so, as has been pointed out many times, people referred to trains by their route: Jamaica, Canarsie, etc. |
|
|
| (124454) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M] |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Aug 8 09:08:07 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by Eric B on Sun Aug 7 10:04:17 2005. Even the "Know Trains at a Glance" signs at Southern Division stations didn't do all that great of a job, it seems. I'll bet that, "What's a Q?" "What's an N?" "What's a T?" were commonly heard questions throughout the 60s. Old habits die hard. |
|
|
| (124455) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M] |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Aug 8 09:10:26 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Aug 6 18:00:44 2005. I'll bet it was like, "I think I can, I think I can (cough), I think I can (gasp), I dunno if I can make it, I'm not gonna make it, ARRGGGHHHH!!!" OK, everybody out and push! |
|
|
| (124457) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M] |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Aug 8 09:11:48 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Aug 7 06:10:30 2005. The only 60-footers with levers aka faucet handles for door controls. |
|
|
| (124458) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M] |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Aug 8 09:12:32 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Aug 6 17:55:08 2005. Did you ever have 6321 in any of your consists? That car had lemon written all over it. |
|
|
| (124459) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M] |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Aug 8 09:17:44 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by vengence on Sat Aug 6 00:31:19 2005. 32 R-16s were loaned to Jamaica Yard in August of 1966 when R-1/9s began dropping like flies and delivery of R-38s was slowed by a strike at St. Louis Car Company. Those R-16s were put in service on the GG and the 20 R-38s on the property were pressed into service on the E and F (one 10-car set on each line). Then a group of condemned BMT standards were pulled off the scrapline and returned to revenue service with the S for Scrap painted over. |
|
|
| (124584) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 17:53:03 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by Rail Blue on Sun Aug 7 19:38:09 2005. But lower 2nd and 3rd Aves never were rebuilt to handle heavy subway cars. All of the other el rebuilds (Broadway, Fulton St, etc) were done with definitive plans to connect them into the subway system. |
|
|
| (124585) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 17:54:22 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Sun Aug 7 22:04:08 2005. I always thought the Bronx portion of the el was rebuilt to handle three tracks (it originally was 2), but not for eventual use by steel subway cars. |
|
|
| (124587) | |
Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M] |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 17:59:17 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Aug 8 08:37:36 2005. The MTA now likes to name it's terminals after the neighborhoods now. So what was old is new again. BTW, anyone know why every single terminal in the system (at least on maps) has the neighborhoods listed first before the street name (like "Ozone Park - Lefferts BLvd) but NOT New Lots Ave? Shouldn't it be "East New York - New Lots Ave"? |
|
|
| (124656) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Mon Aug 8 20:23:58 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 17:54:22 2005. It was rebuilt with the anticipation of running steel subway cars. They had no problems when the Q types, Composites, and Low-Vs ran the line. The problem when the R12/14s ran the line was their superior acceleration and braking rates which at first took its toll on the aging structure. It was not the weight of the cars. They ran 4 car trains because of the drop in ridership not because of the weight of the train. The R12/14s had to have their dynamic braking disconnected and were governed to ease the sway on the el structure. |
|
|
| (124659) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 20:32:38 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Mon Aug 8 20:23:58 2005. I know that. What confuses me is the reason for the rebuild, when the el was never connected to any subway line. |
|
|
| (124664) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 8 21:15:01 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 17:54:22 2005. I always thought the Bronx portion of the el was rebuilt to handle three tracks (it originally was 2), but not for eventual use by steel subway cars.Perhaps there was a plan to connect it to the planned but never built 2nd Ave subway? |
|
|
| (124665) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 8 21:18:14 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 17:53:03 2005. When was it rebuilt? Under dual contracts? |
|
|
| (124667) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 21:24:33 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 8 21:15:01 2005. Not according to anything I've seen. |
|
|
| (124669) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 21:30:00 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 8 21:18:14 2005. Dunno, but look what I found with Google trying to find out: http://www.myrecollection.com/christianog/bronx3el.html |
|
|
| (124670) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 8 21:32:01 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 21:30:00 2005. Wow, thanks for the link! Nice site! |
|
|
| (124671) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 8 21:55:04 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 8 21:32:01 2005. I liked the section where he highlighted opposition to the demolition of the 2nd and 9th Ave. els. Not everyone wanted them torn down. |
|
|
| (124686) | |
Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Mon Aug 8 22:35:04 2005, in response to Re: R39's and Myrtle El Speculations Re: Metropolitan/Myrtle el, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Aug 7 17:04:02 2005. Also, the windows whould be longer, with 3 sections of the openable parts (like the 36's). A regular double window would be next to the sign box. |
|
|
| (124717) | |
Re: to Steve8AVEExp |
|
|
Posted by rushhoursardine on Tue Aug 9 00:28:04 2005, in response to Re: Metropolitan Ave[R32 On the M], posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Aug 8 08:51:28 2005. Steve: I've had some conversations on this board about the old JJ route, which I believe (without being certain) was the old #14 BMT Broadway (Brooklyn) local. The south terminal was always Canal Street, but the north terminal in PM rush seems like it was a zoo. Not only did it have the 3 terminals you mention, but there was also an occasional train going to 111 Street/Jamaica Avenue. I believe there was a center layup track between 112 and 116 Streets above Jamaica Avenue which accomodated turning around the trains.As long as we're discussing the 1967 post-Chrystie Street trains, the old RJ run from 168 Street/Jamaica to 95 Street/4 Avenue had to be one of the longest BMT runs ever created (much like the old QJ to Coney Island). No wonder it was soon replaced by the RR "bankers" special from Bay Ridge to Chambers Street only. |
|
|
| (124772) | |
Re: to Steve8AVEExp |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Aug 9 09:01:44 2005, in response to Re: to Steve8AVEExp, posted by rushhoursardine on Tue Aug 9 00:28:04 2005. The JJ had a dual personality right after the first phase of Chrystie St. During rush hours, it was the old 14 while during non-rush hours, it was the old 15. I distinctly remember riding on a JJ on a Sunday in March of 1968 from Elderts Lane to 168th St. and back, and its terminals were signed 168th Street and Broad Street.The RJ was a rush hour-only service which I am told operated in both directions. The peak direction designation was clearly blurred with such a route, since it went through Manhattan without terminating there. |
|
|
| (124790) | |
Re: to Steve8AVEExp |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 9 09:53:19 2005, in response to Re: to Steve8AVEExp, posted by rushhoursardine on Tue Aug 9 00:28:04 2005. Not only did it have the 3 terminals you mention, but there was also an occasional train going to 111 Street/Jamaica Avenue. I believe there was a center layup track between 112 and 116 Streets above Jamaica Avenue which accomodated turning around the trains.111th Street was definitely a terminal. It was actually the terminal for the Lexington AVe el when it still ran. Lexington Ave el trains ran between 111th St and Park Row, and later Downtown Brooklyn. Once the Lex el was torn down, 111th ST was still able to be used as a terminal. |
|
|
|
Page 8 of 8 |
||
