|
|
| Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El (898334) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (906011) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Feb 28 11:01:09 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 12 14:28:05 2010. The R-42s that operated on the Larry back then were 6 cars for obvious reasons. It's possible that intially 6-car R-7/9 consists were run as well; the first such train I saw over there was on January 5, 1969 (running in the opposite direction, of course). I didn't start paying attention to train lengths until the fall of 1969, when I noticed that a seventh car had been added. |
|
|
| (906052) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 28 12:58:16 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by fisk ave jim on Fri Feb 12 22:12:36 2010. The old Fulton St. segment of the J line shakes quite a lot. |
|
|
| (906114) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Feb 28 15:51:24 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Mellow One on Sun Feb 28 07:28:29 2010. Thanks, Mellow! |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (906128) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 28 16:18:54 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Feb 28 11:01:09 2010. I worked the 14 St Line quite frequently as a V/R M/M through the summer and into the fall of 1969 and all the trains on the line were 6 cars whether they were R-9s or R-42s. By the way the initial A/C trains on the line were R-40Ms not R-42s since the Eastern Division R-42 were not ready for service at the time the 14 St Line passengers were promised A/C trains. By the late summer of 1969, the 3 trains of R-40Ms were replaced by the properly assigned R-42s. During June/July of 1969 there were trains of R-9s, steels and R-40Ms all operating on the 14 St Line. By the time I became a T/D in 1970, the norm for service on the 14 St Line was 7 car R-9s and the 6 car trains of R-42s. |
|
|
| (906220) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Mellow One on Sun Feb 28 21:03:49 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Dave on Sun Feb 28 15:51:24 2010. Any time, I do not think there is a track map that illustrates the history of the 3rd Ave El in the Bronx after 1954/55. I will attempt to work one up with some help from some friends. I was in the US Navy from 1962 to 1966 and I was relocated to Atlanta by my employer in 1968. So, I have a few blank areas in my memory of the line. |
|
|
| (906239) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Sun Feb 28 21:27:13 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Mellow One on Sun Feb 28 07:28:29 2010. Remarkable that new signals were installed and the line didn't even last another 20 years... |
|
|
| (906388) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by mike cruz on Mon Mar 1 08:36:50 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by randyo on Sat Feb 13 16:11:58 2010. they were, they actually went as far as jamaica ave 7 crescent st. |
|
|
| (906389) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by mike cruz on Mon Mar 1 08:40:27 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 28 12:58:16 2010. not too bad but if a train stops at rockaway bl. on the A you can feel it at 80 st. sometimes. |
|
|
| (906446) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Mar 1 12:29:53 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by MainR3664 on Sun Feb 28 21:27:13 2010. They may not really be "new" in the traditional sense. I have seen documentation that seems to indicate that the local tracks of the els didn't have any signals at all except at interlockings and the signals installed on the Bronx portion may have been the only signals that the el ever received. |
|
|
| (906447) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Mar 1 12:31:01 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by mike cruz on Mon Mar 1 08:36:50 2010. That would make sense since the portion of the el along Crescent St was part of that same original structure. |
|
|
| (906590) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 1 18:36:14 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by randyo on Mon Mar 1 12:29:53 2010. The elevated lines were semaphore signals and mostly interlockingsignals. I have seen "curve signals" protecting some dangerous things such as a local station on a blind curve. In the 1910s the PSC made the IRT install signals but only on the express tracks. But the extension portion of the 3 Ave el route in the Bronx that was built under the Dual Contracts...didn't that have color-light signal on all tracks? |
|
|
| (906673) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon Mar 1 22:44:31 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Mellow One on Sun Feb 28 10:29:54 2010. While we are on the subject of the Bronx 3Ave el, why did they eliminate the center express track on 149 Street? I know the work was done after the Bergen cutoff was closed, but the el still ran to Manhattan. Why bottleneck an express station from 3 tracks to two? |
|
|
| (906728) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Mar 2 01:29:07 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Elkeeper on Mon Mar 1 22:44:31 2010. They only eliminated the express track at 149 St after the el was completely shut down S/O that point which would be late 1955. |
|
|
| (906841) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Michael Wares on Tue Mar 2 09:36:03 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by randyo on Tue Mar 2 01:29:07 2010. I seem to recall reading somewhere (probably the ERA NY Division _Bulletin_ that they actually took the express track at 149th out of service early, so it could be converted to an island platform serving the local tracks. |
|
|
| (906935) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Mar 2 12:34:27 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Michael Wares on Tue Mar 2 09:36:03 2010. That would probably be the case, but even so, it wouldn't have been as early as the Bergen Av Cutoff being taken O/S which was circa 1946. |
|
|
| (908206) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Thu Mar 4 23:52:02 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by randyo on Tue Mar 2 01:29:07 2010. I finally found the answer! It was Sept 24th, 1954. It's in Stan Fischler's Uptown/Downtown on pages 259-260 (Chronology of the Elevatedes). Thought it was done earlier than that |
|
|
| (908264) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Mellow One on Fri Mar 5 08:17:41 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by randyo on Tue Mar 2 12:34:27 2010. The last 3rd Ave El Freeman St Express ran in 1948. The Bergen Cut-off structure and the original 150th St connector remained as non-revenue tracks until 1950-52 when both were removed which coincided with the contractions of the rest of the El, the line South of Chatham Sq was the first to go, the 99th St Yard, the 179th St Yard, Botanical Garden Terminal, City Hall Spur and the Bronx Park Terminal on the White Plains Road Line. |
|
|
| (908265) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 08:22:40 2010, in response to Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Union Turnpike on Thu Feb 11 21:11:02 2010. Id the 3rd Ave el was an old "lightweight" line, how come they could operate the "heavy" R12's on that line? Sometimes I think this "lightweight el line" stuff was just a way to abandon lines. |
|
|
| (908303) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Mellow One on Fri Mar 5 10:15:58 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 08:22:40 2010. You are probably right about the way to abandon El lines.If you back to the beginning of this thread, you will see the link to the rebuilding of the Bronx 3rd Ave El. It was rebuilt as was the Brooklyn Broadway El. It is strange that the Myrtle El did not get the same rebuilding. However, that is another story or thread. The 3rd Ave El in the Bronx could have been tied back into the IRT Subway System if a connection had been built on St Ann Ave from 161st St to Westchester Ave or a ramp down to the Pelham Bay line at 138th St from the El PROW there. The Webster Ave part of the El was built in 1918 and it was a heavy duty structure. At a minimum, it should have been retained so that a new heavy weight structure could have been built all the way down to Webster to 161st St to tie into the subway at Westchester Ave. Another plan of mine was to put an El structure over the NY Central Harlem Div / Metro North tracks all the way down to 149th St where the El could tie into the IRT Jerome and the Seventh Ave lines there. Going back 55 years, the lower part of the El and the bridge to Manhattan could have been retained to have El ramp down from the bridge at 129th St to the Fabled Second Ave Subway which was supposed to go to Fantasyland. |
|
|
| (908305) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri Mar 5 10:18:03 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 08:22:40 2010. Well, they did cut the train lengths when they moved to R12s, so it isn't totally implausible. |
|
|
| (908318) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 5 10:51:06 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 08:22:40 2010. I agree that claiming a line is somehow "obsolete" or "underutilized" is usually part of a plan to set the line up for abandonment.In many cases, the MTA or its predecessors did all they could to MAKE the service unpopular, then justify abandonment. During some of those eras, times were tough as they are now, and I'm sure MTA (or TA or BOT) didn't really want to cut service for th sake of doing so, but feet they had no choice, but still couldn't politically get away with immediate abandonment, so they'd set a line up to fail over a period of 10-15 years. |
|
|
| (908343) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 13:16:25 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 5 10:51:06 2010. In many cases, the MTA or its predecessors did all they could to MAKE the service unpopular, then justify abandonment.......but feet they had no choice, but still couldn't politically get away with immediate abandonment, so they'd set a line up to fail over a period of 10-15 years.Sort of like the way the MTA has handled the LIRR Greenport line. |
|
|
| (908344) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 13:18:25 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Mellow One on Fri Mar 5 10:15:58 2010. And a good like to connect it to would perhaps have been somehow with the 3 line, as it doesn't really go anywhere anyway. I would have rather seen the small Lenox stub abandoned, than the entire 3rd Ave el. |
|
|
| (908349) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 13:25:48 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Mellow One on Fri Mar 5 10:15:58 2010. The Webster Ave portion had an unusual structure:  |
|
|
| (908354) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 13:35:46 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 13:25:48 2010. Oh wow, that is pretty cool. It looks like they made a whole viaduct like structure with roadbed on that el! Certainly looks strong enough....especially with arches. |
|
|
| (908359) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 5 13:50:07 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 13:16:25 2010. Yes, I agree. |
|
|
| (908361) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 5 13:54:01 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by randyo on Mon Mar 1 12:29:53 2010. I think you're right in that the line may have previously been largely unsignalled, except for the express tracks.I've seen a pic of the Gun Hill Road segment that had semaphores in 1957- after the Manhattan portion was already gone. So, sometime after 1957, the TA installed and/or upgraded signals on the 3 Ave line...then scrapped the whole thing a relatively short time later. I've heard it said that it was MTA that decided to sacrifice the 3 Ave and Myrtle Lines, not the TA, which was planning to order R39 cars and everything, prior to the MTA's takeover. Also, the Dual Contract portion was painted in 1970. |
|
|
| (908364) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Mellow One on Fri Mar 5 13:55:36 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 13:35:46 2010. That's the sight (and sounds) that I woke up up every day of my life back when. |
|
|
| (908366) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Mellow One on Fri Mar 5 13:59:11 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 13:18:25 2010. There was a plan to connect the Lenox Ave line (from the yard) with 9th Ave El at 155th St. |
|
|
| (908375) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Michael Wares on Fri Mar 5 14:05:25 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 13:25:48 2010. Most of the Webster Ave extension was conventional construction. The arches were just where it crossed over Mosholu Parkway. |
|
|
| (908385) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 14:30:14 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Mellow One on Fri Mar 5 13:55:36 2010. Cool!!By the way, why did they leave that last section up? When did they take that last piece down? |
|
|
| (908392) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 14:47:56 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 14:30:14 2010. The northern segment went quickly, but the section betweein 166th St and 149th St. lasted well into 1976. |
|
|
| (908394) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Mar 5 14:51:37 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Mellow One on Fri Mar 5 13:59:11 2010. Correct. The problem was that the tunnel between Sedgwick Av and Anderson/Jerome was built to clear elevated type third rail shoes and would have had to be extensively rebuilt to clear subway shoes so the plan went nowhere. |
|
|
| (908395) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Fri Mar 5 14:53:22 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 14:47:56 2010. The reason that I heard and recalled that the last section of the Third Avenue El stayed up for another 3-4 years was because there were still active feeder cables from the old 161st Street substation that fed power into the IRT subway at 149th Street. When the new St. Ann's Avenue/Westchester Avenue substation was built and installed for power onto the West Farms section of that route, then the plans went ahead to demolish the remaining elevated section along Third Avenue, being completed around 1977.-William A. Padron ["149th Street"] |
|
|
| (908400) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 15:08:14 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by William A. Padron on Fri Mar 5 14:53:22 2010. Yes. For much the same reason the J structure between Queens Blvd and Sutphin Blvd survived the late 70's demolition. It was even put to use to store off peak trains. |
|
|
| (908442) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Fri Mar 5 17:40:44 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 5 13:54:01 2010. How many cars were to be ordered for the R-39? Were these to be IRT sized R-38s? |
|
|
| (908447) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 17:59:01 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Fri Mar 5 17:40:44 2010. Either IRT sized R36's or R38's. I never knew if the committed to stainless steel or not. |
|
|
| (908460) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Fri Mar 5 18:45:49 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by William A. Padron on Fri Mar 5 14:53:22 2010. You're right Bill. I remember serving jury duty at the old courthouse at 161 Street and Third Avenue about 1974 and the el structure was still standing but it ended at about 161 Street. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (908466) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Fri Mar 5 19:19:16 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Michael Wares on Tue Mar 2 09:36:03 2010. I seem to recall reading somewhere (probably the ERA NY Division _Bulletin_ that they actually took the express track at 149th out of service early, so it could be converted to an island platform serving the local tracks.The center track at 149 Street-3 Avenue was taken out of service on September 24, 1954. This was prior to the cessation of service south of that point. Thru-Express had to switch to the local track north of 149 Street and then use the ramp south of 143 Street to access the upper level. I was fortunate enough to have first hand knowledge of this. It was just after Hurricane Hazel hit New York in October 1954 and we were going out to LaGuardia Airport to meet my uncle who was flying in. While we were waiting for the train at 149 Street workman were in the process of boarding over the center track in preparation for converting 149 Street to a terminal. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (908540) | |
Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Mar 6 00:03:21 2010, in response to Re: Question About The (8) Third Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 15:08:14 2010. I always thought that it was ridiculous that Queens Blvd was made the terminal instead of Sutphin. It cut off the LIRR from the Jamaica line for more than a decade. Sutphin would have made so much more sense as a terminal than in the middle of no where at Queens Blvd, or worse 121st St... |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
