|
|
| Question About The (8) Third Avenue El (898334) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (898334) | |
Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Union Turnpike on Thu Feb 11 21:11:02 2010 At The JoeKorner, there is a historic I.R.T. A Division car assignment sheet from October 15, 1969 that shows the (8) Third Avenue ran five car trains and that eleven trains were needed for both the A.M. and the P.M. service.Two questions: Were these eleven trains rush hours or entire morning and afternoon service? The sheet doesn't show car assignments by line, so is it reasonable to assume the eighty Low V's listed as being in service were the fifty 1939-1940 World's Fair Lo V's and thirty Low V trailers that were operating on the (8) Third Avenue El in the 1960's? P.S. There is also a historic B.M.T.-IND. B Division car assignment sheet from the same date (October 15, 1969). |
|
|
| (898337) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by andy on Thu Feb 11 21:30:33 2010, in response to Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Union Turnpike on Thu Feb 11 21:11:02 2010. Most likely, the rush hour headway was six minutes. I informally calculated that a train operating between 149 and Gun Hill required 24 minutes for the entire trip (15 stations including both terminals). That would mean with a six minute terminal dwell that one consist needed exactly one hour to complete a round trip, including the dwell at the original terminal waiting for the next trip. With a six minute headway ten consists (one hour trip divided by six minute headway) would be required; eleventh one was probably a protect train. I imagine that the off peak midday, evening and Sat/Sun headway was ten minutes, requiring six trains. The unneeded ones were probably laid up on the leads north of Gun Hill Road.Eighty cars divided into five car consists equals 16 consists, providing more than enough rolling stock for the eleven required rush hour trains. |
|
|
| (898348) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Thu Feb 11 21:56:12 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by andy on Thu Feb 11 21:30:33 2010. Thing is, most of the pics I've seen of the (8) have shown 4-car consists. 
|
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (898351) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Feb 11 22:02:13 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Thu Feb 11 21:56:12 2010. I don't remember ever seeing anything but R-12/14s on the (8) as a kid. Great pics, though! |
|
|
| (898354) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 11 22:10:33 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Thu Feb 11 21:56:12 2010. When the R12's took over for the Low-V's in 1969, train lengths were reduced from 5 to 4 cars because of weight issues and the soundness of the antiquated structure. I also believe they were modified to prevent them from exceeding a set top speed. |
|
|
| (898357) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Union Turnpike on Thu Feb 11 22:20:10 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Feb 11 22:02:13 2010. Thank you for the responses. The October 15, 1969 car assignment sheets at the JoeKorner look like images/scans of TA sheets from that date.Direct Links: http://www.thejoekorner.com/carassignments/irt-1969-10.html http://www.thejoekorner.com/carassignments/bmt-ind-1969-10.html The sheets show that the (3) was nine cars and the (KK) and (M) were six cars while the (CC) was both eight and ten cars and the (LL) was seven and six cars in 1969. |
|
|
| (898368) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Freddy the Foamer on Thu Feb 11 22:46:01 2010, in response to Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Union Turnpike on Thu Feb 11 21:11:02 2010. I rode the Third Avenue El in the Bronx around the Mid to late 1960's to 1972. I remember the Lo-V's and 39 WF's running in mixed consists which may have been the last Lo-V's in regular service. The lo'v's were from the Queens service which were the first Lo-v's that the IRT had. They had four motors because of the grades in the Steinway Tunnel and the WF's could run with them.They all had the same distinct IRT sound. The R-12/14's that ran were eventually painted MTA Gray with the ble and remained pretty much graffiti free until they were returned to to mainline service as I remember,but I could be wrong. It was a long time ago. |
|
|
| (898408) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Fri Feb 12 00:36:19 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 11 22:10:33 2010. They also had the dynamic brakes cut out to avoid overstressing the el structure while stopping. |
|
|
| (898415) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Fri Feb 12 00:47:43 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Freddy the Foamer on Thu Feb 11 22:46:01 2010. They had four motors because of the grades inthe Steinway Tunnel I don't think any Lo-V cars had 4 motors except for some that were modified for work service. |
|
|
| (898443) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri Feb 12 06:01:54 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Jeff H. on Fri Feb 12 00:47:43 2010. Jeff, Ed Davis says the same thing in "They Moved The Millions" - when the Lo-V's were converted to work service some received 4 motors. Ed also says it was primarily Low-V trailers than worked the 3rd Ave. Line. |
|
|
| (898456) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Feb 12 07:52:02 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Jeff H. on Fri Feb 12 00:47:43 2010. The Steinways were geared lower for greater pulling power. IIRC standard Lo-Vs could negotiate the Steinway tubes as long as there were no trailers in the consist. |
|
|
| (898457) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Feb 12 07:53:32 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Union Turnpike on Thu Feb 11 22:20:10 2010. I remember 7-car Larry trains of R-7/9s in 1969-70. |
|
|
| (898468) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Fri Feb 12 08:16:29 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Freddy the Foamer on Thu Feb 11 22:46:01 2010. I remember the Lo-V's and 39 WF's running in mixed consists which may have been the last Lo-V's in regular service.You're correct, the Lo-V's were retired from mainline service in 1964 but finally turned their last revenue wheels on the Bronx 3rd Ave "L" in 1969. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (898482) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by 156n3rd on Fri Feb 12 08:36:22 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by andy on Thu Feb 11 21:30:33 2010. I just recamm riding that el from the mid 50's intil the late 60's. That was my home line. We were all proud to have it, as it was the last survivor of the era. |
|
|
| (898535) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Mellow One on Fri Feb 12 10:50:49 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Thu Feb 11 21:56:12 2010. This one is buried in the NYCSubway Low-V Album
|
|
|
| (898679) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 12 14:28:05 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Feb 12 07:53:32 2010. I was a M/M on the LL Line in 1969 (as Vacation Relief) and all the trains I operated were 6 cars. When I became a T/D in 1970, the car consist had been increased to 7 cars. |
|
|
| (898741) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 12 16:44:58 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Newkirk Images on Fri Feb 12 08:16:29 2010. I had just moved to 204th, and a couple of days after doing so, those awful R12's appeared and the LoV's went away. :( |
|
|
| (898786) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by 156n3rd on Fri Feb 12 18:32:18 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Jeff H. on Fri Feb 12 00:47:43 2010. Doesn't matter how many they had, they had a lovely, eerie groan. |
|
|
| (898810) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by fisk ave jim on Fri Feb 12 19:15:21 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by VictorM on Fri Feb 12 00:36:19 2010. Really?? I thought that the structure north of 149 st was built to dual contract specs that could handle the heavier cars without any restrictions. Never too late to learn I guess... |
|
|
| (898814) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 12 19:21:37 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by fisk ave jim on Fri Feb 12 19:15:21 2010. Only north from Fordham road along Webster up to Gunhill ... south of there, it was a bit rickety. |
|
|
| (898822) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Fri Feb 12 19:35:00 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 12 16:44:58 2010. had just moved to 204th, and a couple of days after doing so, those awful R12's appeared and the LoV's went away. :(R-12's = Anorexic R-10's ! Bill Newklirk |
|
|
| (898826) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by fisk ave jim on Fri Feb 12 19:39:17 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 12 19:21:37 2010. Any more rickety than the J from Broadway Junction to Elderts Lane?? I was in that neighborhood reciently & that structure screems 19th century... |
|
|
| (898832) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Mellow One on Fri Feb 12 19:48:27 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 12 19:21:37 2010. See the image and read the description. |
|
|
| (898841) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 12 20:16:30 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Newkirk Images on Fri Feb 12 19:35:00 2010. The ones on the 3rd ran OK despite the parallel being cut out, but it just wasn't the same. And given how quickly they went to tear it down, would have been nice if the LoV's had just stayed to the end ... |
|
|
| (898845) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 12 20:21:28 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Mellow One on Fri Feb 12 19:48:27 2010. Interesting! Still felt quite shaky ... so if that's the case, why was the teeyay so worried about dynamics and that third notch? Hmmm. :) |
|
|
| (898847) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 12 20:23:11 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by fisk ave jim on Fri Feb 12 19:39:17 2010. Based on what Mellow tossed in there, apparently it was in better shape than we've been told. I recall sitting on stopped trains though and the el felt like it was going to come down as another train passed south of Fordham. Whereas north of there, it felt as solid as the Broadway or White Plains ... |
|
|
| (898906) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Fri Feb 12 21:57:07 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by VictorM on Fri Feb 12 00:36:19 2010. Weren't the R-30s that were assigned to the Culver Shuttle in its final days similarly modified? |
|
|
| (898923) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by fisk ave jim on Fri Feb 12 22:12:36 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 12 20:21:28 2010. If we were to sub-thread this topic to,say, the shakiest (sp) El structure out there, I vote for the #7-45th rd, Court House Square sta. When the train comes into a stop, espically goin to Manhattan, you shake like i'ts a 4-5 on the rictor scale.Any other shakey sta's out there I've might have mised?? |
|
|
| (898949) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Feb 12 22:31:31 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Fri Feb 12 21:57:07 2010. IIRC they were modified to run in series, but not multiple. |
|
|
| (899240) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 13 16:11:58 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by fisk ave jim on Fri Feb 12 19:39:17 2010. The portion of the J Line between Alabama and Cypress Hills is actually original structure but some time in the mid 1980s I believe, the structure was rehabbed and the pillars were replaced. |
|
|
| (899248) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 13 16:20:43 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Mellow One on Fri Feb 12 19:48:27 2010. That particular site has a number of errors in it. It seems that whoever is describing the photos doesn't know the difference between Lo-Vs and R-12s. Some of his historical facts are a bit off as well. |
|
|
| (899251) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 13 16:24:16 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Feb 12 22:31:31 2010. I worked the Culver shuttle with both R-27/30s and R-16s as a M/M in 1969 and they ran in multiple just fine. The entire Culver Line el was built to dual contract standards including the portion S/O Ave X which was built from portions of the original ENY Yd which was appropriately reenforced to accommodate steel cars so there would have been no reason to modify any equipment running on it. |
|
|
| (899257) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 13 16:28:17 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Newkirk Images on Fri Feb 12 08:16:29 2010. The Lo-Vs that ran on the 3 Av El were STEINWAYS, a specific type of Lo-V which could not run with any of the other standard Lo-Vs except for the trailers. That was the only instance of trailers being in Steinway consists since on the Flushing and Astoria Lines as well as the IRT mainline where they ran later, only solid trains of motor cars were used. |
|
|
| (899265) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by 5119 on Sat Feb 13 16:38:31 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 12 14:28:05 2010. Some of the motor cars on the 3rd Avenue EL consisted of the last order of standard bodied IRT cars: the steinways fromthe 5628-5625 group ordered in 1925 from ACF. |
|
|
| (899359) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Feb 13 21:26:09 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by randyo on Sat Feb 13 16:28:17 2010. Thanks for the info Randy.Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (899370) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Feb 13 21:41:11 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by randyo on Sat Feb 13 16:24:16 2010. The entire Culver Line el was built to dual contract standards including the portion S/O Ave X which was built from portions of the original ENY Yd which was appropriately reenforced to accommodate steel cars so there would have been no reason to modify any equipment running on it.I've heard over the years that the lattice style girders were salvaged from the scrapped Fulton St. "el". Also with the construction of the elevated Belt Parkway, believed to be at the time of the Fulton St. "el" demo, that's where the lattice steelwork came from. Another urban myth was the use of the lighter weight girder as opposed to the solid heavier girders was the sandy soil underneath the pillars. Can you shed some light on these rumors ? I've never gotten to the bottom of this. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (899474) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 14 05:39:01 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Feb 13 21:41:11 2010. According to the now out of print "New Subways for New York," which was a reprint of a NYS PSC report from I believe 1913, the el structure S/O Ave X was to have been built from sections of the former ENY Yd even though some sources claim it was from the Fulton St El. In any event, it was built to withstand the weight of the BMT steels of the day. That still had no bearing on the Culver shuttle portion of the structure which was built to dual contract standards from the beginning. |
|
|
| (899475) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 14 05:40:25 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by 5119 on Sat Feb 13 16:38:31 2010. Correct, although the standard bodied Steinways were not as common as the WFs. |
|
|
| (899763) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Feb 14 21:27:55 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by randyo on Sat Feb 13 16:24:16 2010. Maybe the modification took place later. |
|
|
| (905758) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Sat Feb 27 00:14:18 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 11 22:10:33 2010. The R12s weighted less than the Low-Vs (except the trailers) the train's weight was not an issue, it was the constant starting and stopping of the trains that caused the problems. The El structure from Fordham Rd to 149 st was in poor shape by 1970. With the exception of section between 180th St to Fordham Rd the was rebuilt in 1915 to handle steel subway trains. The section between 180th St and Fordham Rd which dated to 1901 was not rebuilt but it was reinforced when they added a 3rd track.The reason why the trains were cut from 5 cars to 4 cars was because the ridership on the line declined by 1970. The 45 GE R12s were assigned to the 3rd ave El were taken out of service in 1973 when the line closed and many were put into work service one of which 5760 is now preserved in the Transit Museum. There also were 4 GE R14s assigned to the line in the early 1970s, when the 3rd Ave El closed in 1973, they were put back on Mainline IRT. |
|
|
| (905855) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 27 15:06:15 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 12 19:21:37 2010. I always wondered if the lower level of Gun Hill Road could have been able to handle 10 car trains (A or B division), had they connected it to a subway, south of 204 or 210 Sts? |
|
|
| (905857) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Feb 27 15:12:23 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 27 15:06:15 2010. As I recall, the platform could do 6, maybe 8 cars tops. But they could have knocked down some stuff to the north and probably could have modified it to handle it. |
|
|
| (905858) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 27 15:17:53 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Feb 14 21:27:55 2010. What modification? I worked the Culver shuttle as a M/M on both R-27/30s and R-16s and they operated normally. |
|
|
| (905863) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Sat Feb 27 15:51:48 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 27 15:06:15 2010. I always wondered if the lower level of Gun Hill Road could have been able to handle 10 car trains (A or B division), had they connected it to a subway, south of 204 or 210 Sts?The lower level platform at Gun Hill Road could hold a six car standard Steinway train. After el service ceased they used the lower level for mid-day layups of ten car No 2 and 5 trains. They could fit a ten car train in there but the north four cars extended beyond the platform onto the ramp. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (905864) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Sat Feb 27 15:56:12 2010, in response to Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Union Turnpike on Thu Feb 11 21:11:02 2010. Prior to the introduction of the R-12's the 3rd Avenue El in The Bronx did run with eleven five car trains during the morning and evening rush. Below is a post a made a few weeks ago which may answer some of your questions.Steinway Cars on the Third Avenue El The IRT Steinway Car was a low-voltage car designed to operate in the Queensboro Subway Lines under the East River. They were equipped with special gearing to enable them to maintain speed on the steep gradients of the Steinway Tunnels under the East River. All Steinways were motor cars and until 1960 trailers were never included in Steinway consists. The original group of Steinways included twelve cars numbered 4025 to 4036. They were built in 1915 by the Pressed Steel Car Company. They were nicknamed "The Boilers." They were placed in service in the Steinway Tunnels on June 22, 1915. The Steinway Tunnels were extended to Queensboro Plaza in 1916 a connected to the Astoria and Corona Lines . (When the Corona Line was extended to Main Street in 1928 it became known as the Flushing Line.) An order for was placed for 71 more cars. These were built by the Pullman Company and were numbered 4700 through 4770. The next group of Steinways were built in 1925 by the American Car and Foundry Company and were numbered 5628 to 5652. They were part of the "150 Lot' purchase. As rider-ship on the IRT Queens Lines continued to grown the IRT decided to convert 30 trailer cars to Steinway motor cars and this was done at 129 Street Shops of the Manhattan Railway. Eight Flivver trailers (4215-4222) and twenty two Lo-V trailers (4555-4576) were so converted. All of the above groups were later referred to as "standard" Steinways as the followed the standard IRT car design and to differentiate them from the next and last group of cars. The World's Fair of 1938 was a major event in New York City and promised to be a significant revenue generator for the IRT and the Flushing Line in particular. There would be a need for increased train service and accordingly an order was placed with the Saint Louis Car Company for fifty motor cars built to a new design. These cars were numbered 5653 to 5702 and were became known as the "World's Fair Steinway Motors" or more simply "The World's Fair Cars." Although the car body was very different from the earlier cars, they were electrically and mechanically Steinways and the could and did operate with the earlier Steinways when necessary. With the arrival of new cars in the late 1940's and early 1950's the Steinways were transferred back to the main IRT lines and used in different services. On December 15, 1956 the first train of standard Steinway cars was placed in service on the Third Avenue El in The Bronx. The consist was 4757,5642,4700,4716,5638, and 4768. They ran in six cars trains. In the period between December 1960 and January 1961, a Lo-V trailer replaced a motor car, although train lengths remained the same. The declining number of motor cars was given as the reason. In January 1962 a second motor car was cut from the consist thereby reducing train length to five cars. On February 4, 1962 the World's Fair - Steinway Motors began to appear on the el and soon all fifty were transferred to the El. The usual consist was four World's Fair - Steinway motors and one Lo-V trailer or a mixture of World's Fair and standard Steinway motors, again with a Lo-V trailer. The trailer was almost always in the center of the consist. In 1963 two of the World's Fair cars, 5660 and 5689 were placed in work service as motors for the R-31 Vacuum Cleaner. The availability of the standard Steinway motors continued to decline and in the spring of 1968 the five museum IRT Lo-V motors were placed in service on the El. At first there were kept in separate trains but later they ran in mixed consists with the other types. . The last train of old cars ran made one trip during the morning rush of November 3, 1969. The consist was 5641,5670,5353,5636 and 5676 (north to south). Larry, RedbirdR33 Addendum 1: The following standard Steinway motors were in use on the Third Avenue El until November 1969; 5628,5631,5633,5636,5638,5641,5647,5649,5650, and 5651. Addendum 2: How did 4719 become a Lo-V? Looking at the above you will note that the rosters numbers for the 1916 Steinways are given as 4700-4770. Later roster show these numbers as 4700-4718 and 4720-4771. The explanation I have heard is this. When the Second Avenue El ceased operation across the Queensborough Bridge in June 1942 the IRT Queens Line lost the direct connection to the main IRT system. It was still possible to transfer cars between the main IRT and the Queens Line utilizing the railroads and car -floats. This however was a time consuming and costly process. After the connection was broken it was found that motor car 4719 was on the main land and rather then ship her back to Queens it was decided to convert her to a regular Lo-V. To take her place car 4771 a Lo-V motor which was in Queens was converted to a Steinway motor. If anyone has more details on this I would like to hear from them. Credits must be given to Mr Bill Zucker, Mr Berard Linder, Mr Gene Sansone, the late Mr Arthur Lonto, Mr H Pinsker and Mr Joe Cunningham for the books and articles that they wrote and which I researched. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (905865) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Sat Feb 27 15:56:59 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Mellow One on Fri Feb 12 10:50:49 2010. Nicely done Mellow One: Thank you for posting that.Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (905962) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Feb 28 07:15:34 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Mellow One on Fri Feb 12 10:50:49 2010. What's up with the X-es in the side of the signal housings? |
|
|
| (905965) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Mellow One on Sun Feb 28 07:28:29 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Dave on Sun Feb 28 07:15:34 2010. Those relay boxes and signals (Xed) are to be removed from the former express track. The entire line will be have new signals installed about a year or so later. |
|
|
| (906006) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Sun Feb 28 10:15:28 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Mellow One on Sun Feb 28 07:28:29 2010. The express track was retained from Gun Hill Road to just south of 204 Street if I remember correctly. It was used for laying up of trains.Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (906008) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Mellow One on Sun Feb 28 10:29:54 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Sun Feb 28 10:15:28 2010. Yes, that is correct, to Mosholu Pkwy.There was also a portion south of 151st St and the express track and platform and x-overs were used at Tremont Road when the signaling project was performed to relay trains south from there. In time, however, the remnants of the express track and the x-overs at Tremont were removed. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
