|
|
| Re: Myrtle Avenue El (907650) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 9 |
||
|
| (908353) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 13:30:35 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri Mar 5 09:54:48 2010. One must remember that the Fulton St. el stations on the J were basically the same as the ones on Myrtle Ave, the only difference being longer platforms (which is why the canopies at these stations are so short). Shaving 6 inches off each platform on the Myrtle had to have been quite doable. |
|
|
| (908355) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 13:38:21 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 13:30:35 2010. I totally agree. The J's station's pre-1980's were a step back in time to the old Myrtle El station look. The canopies are so small because those are the original lengths. The stations were very easy to extend to their current length because of the space distance between the tracks. the same thing could have easily been done on the Myrtle El. |
|
|
| (908356) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 13:40:25 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 13:28:38 2010. There has to be something I am missing, because the Myrtle Ave el in no way looks any weaker than the existing Fulton St. structure in the area I noted. Lattice style pillars still exist on the Crescent St. portion of the el as well.Those older style pillars also seemed to be sturdy enough for the MP41's, as the Chestnut St. incline proves:  |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (908357) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 13:45:47 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 13:38:21 2010. Here's an even better comparison. Norwood Ave in the 1960's: Franklin/Myrtle, prior to abandonment:  Unless we are talking steel quality, which is insane because the Myrtle Ave el structure is a whoppong 3 years older than the Fulton St. el is, I don't see the difference in structural strength. The Myrtle Ave structure looks more modern! |
|
|
| (908362) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 13:54:49 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 13:45:47 2010. Yup, and since they were built at almost the exact same time, they are nearly identically constructed. I always said, to know what the Myrtle Ave el was like, you need to look know further than the J running abover Fulton St. |
|
|
| (908365) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 13:58:32 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 13:40:25 2010. Yes, that's another thing to remember, the LIRR ran it's trains on the J's "flimsy" structure too. There is no problem with the R160's running on Fulton St, so I can't imagine why it would have been so hard to make the Myrtle usable for that too. |
|
|
| (908367) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 5 13:59:22 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 11:21:04 2010. Wow...virtually identical. That stuff about the Myrtle being weak seems to me to have been a bunch o'bunk...although there may have been issues with clearances in tight spots, neceessitating the R39, were the line to have survived.What letter do you think it would have received in 1985, if it hadn't been killed in '69? |
|
|
| (908369) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave and Myrtle 1970 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 14:00:35 2010, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave and Myrtle 1970, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 5 10:11:07 2010. I traveled for two years every day between Downtown Brooklyn and Ridgewood.....the Myrtle El would have saved 1/2 off my trip. As it was, I had to go all the way to Manhattan for the F train, just to go back to Brooklyn again. It sucks that they got rid of it. |
|
|
| (908370) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 14:02:47 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 5 13:59:22 2010. although there may have been issues with clearances in tight spots, neceessitating the R39, were the line to have survived.The Myrtle Ave is no more curved than Fulton St on the J is, and the Fulton St segment was altered to allow for the wider subway cars. The Myrtle Ave el could have also been altered. The reason they needed the R39's is because they didn't alter the el. |
|
|
| (908371) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Mellow One on Fri Mar 5 14:03:15 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Fred G on Thu Mar 4 22:36:49 2010. Note the difference beteween the old latice type unimproved pillars on the old section and the stronger solid pillars on the improved section. |
|
|
| (908373) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 14:04:16 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 5 13:59:22 2010. although there may have been issues with clearances in tight spots, neceessitating the R39, were the line to have survived.The Myrtle Ave is no more curved than Fulton St on the J is, and the Fulton St segment was altered to allow for the wider subway cars. The Myrtle Ave el could have also been altered. The reason they needed the R39's is because they didn't alter the el. What letter do you think it would have received in 1985, if it hadn't been killed in '69? That's a good question. The K was used for the Chrystie service already, and they used "MJ" on the Myrtle. The K train wasn't running anymore though by the time the TA got rid of the double letter route letters in the early 80's, so there's a good chance the Myrtle el's MJ may have become the K train. |
|
|
| (908376) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 14:09:01 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Mellow One on Fri Mar 5 14:03:15 2010. Note the difference beteween the old latice type unimproved pillars on the old section and the stronger solid pillars on the improved section.Broadway near Flushing Ave (MJZ)  Broadway at Flushing Ave  Broadway near Kosciuszko (J/Z)  Norwood Ave (J): |
|
|
| (908380) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Mar 5 14:25:03 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 13:30:35 2010. The problem with Myrtle unlike the Fulton structure was that due to the placement of the stairways to the street on Myrtle, the girderwork at the station entrances was above and alongside the trackway rather than directly below it as on the rest of the structure. Those girders were too close to allow a 10 ft wide car to pass and replacing or moving them to provide clearance would have been prohibitively expensive. |
|
|
| (908386) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 14:32:07 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by randyo on Fri Mar 5 14:25:03 2010. Allright, that actually makes sense. An extensive rebuild of the stations would have been in order then, something out of the question in the late 1960's. |
|
|
| (908390) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 14:41:37 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Mellow One on Fri Mar 5 14:03:15 2010. Just west of this location, there is a return to lattice style pillars. Some of these were replaced east of this portion in the 1980's, which meant they existed for over 60 years supporting heavy steel subway cars.I have no doubt that the old Myrtle could have used R12's. |
|
|
| (908391) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 14:46:07 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 14:04:16 2010. Did you forget about:
|
|
|
| (908413) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 5 16:27:24 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 14:46:07 2010. Hmm...but since we're speaking purely of hypotheticals here, had the Myrtle survived, they'd have needed something, so maybe K wouldn't have been assigned to the 8th ave line?I'm kind leaning towards one of the other letters- maybe P or X... |
|
|
| (908414) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave and Myrtle 1970 |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 5 16:29:04 2010, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave and Myrtle 1970, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 14:00:35 2010. Yep...I gotcha! |
|
|
| (908415) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 5 16:30:46 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 11:42:17 2010. Yeah...look how the community prevented the MTA from getting rid of the Franklin Ave Shuttle, despite the MTA's best attempts to let it rot from 1957 to 1998. |
|
|
| (908418) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 16:36:13 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 5 16:27:24 2010. Or simply "S", as the Third Ave line was signed. |
|
|
| (908419) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 16:37:01 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 5 16:30:46 2010. And the case for abandoning that was far better than the Third Ave el, and probably the Jamaica Ave line (at least until the subway was opened). |
|
|
| (908421) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 16:44:13 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 16:37:01 2010. ....and the Myrtle El... |
|
|
| (908423) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 16:56:09 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by randyo on Fri Mar 5 14:25:03 2010. Yes, that is what I heard, but it couldn't be something that couldn't be rectified. I think where I "heard it" was from you here in the past. I never saw this anywhere else, but I will take your word for it. And it would only have to be done at the entrances to the stations? That's 8 beams? (Assuming it wouldn't need to be done at Jay St, as the trains wouldn't be going past there anyway). Is it noticable in this photo, or where were these beams?  
|
|
|
| (908424) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 16:58:42 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 14:46:07 2010. No, but at the time they got rid of the AA (which is what became the K on 8th Ave), would have been the same time they would have gotten rid of the MJ lettering, so it's safe to say the K would have wound up on Myrtle. The AA would have become something else. |
|
|
| (908425) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 16:59:05 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 16:36:13 2010. The third Ave line was assigned "8". |
|
|
| (908426) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 17:00:08 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 14:41:37 2010. Yup, and those were even the heavy BMT Standards riding above Fulton St on those lattice girders (and Broadway which still has them).... |
|
|
| (908429) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Mar 5 17:05:22 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 16:59:05 2010. It was never used. Ever. All of the 8 signs said "Astoria."
|
|
|
| (908438) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 17:31:33 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Mar 5 17:05:22 2010. Yes, I know, but it was assigned to that line in the final years, even though they never used it on the trains. The MJ of course was never used on the Myrtle either. |
|
|
| (908440) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Mar 5 17:35:24 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 17:31:33 2010. Only in the minds of the teeyay ... yeah, I always got a kick out of that MJ thing too ... back in those days, it was slang for marijuana. Hmmmmmmmmm. :) |
|
|
| (908443) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Fri Mar 5 17:45:51 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 17:00:08 2010. How could R-12s run on the Myrtle El? Those were IRT cars!! |
|
|
| (908444) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Mar 5 17:47:21 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Fri Mar 5 17:45:51 2010. The Q cars were IRT-sized as well ... they also ran for a long time on the 3rd Avenue el as expresses. |
|
|
| (908445) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 17:53:14 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 17:31:33 2010. The weekend M shuttle was designated SS for quite a while. |
|
|
| (908446) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Mar 5 17:59:01 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 17:53:14 2010. Yup. That brings back many memories. M sign was baby blue. What color was SS? I seem to remember black or dark gray. |
|
|
| (908451) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Mar 5 18:08:49 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Mar 5 17:47:21 2010. All this talk about weight in the Eastern Division reminds me about a story a motorman told me years ago.He said that the TA did not want to put A/C on the old R27/30 fleet and used the argument that the older sections of structure and Williamsburg Bridge would not be able to support the additional weight. |
|
|
| (908452) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Mar 5 18:13:23 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 11:21:04 2010. If you zoom in the top photo you can see reinforcing girders under those cross beams.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (908453) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 18:15:32 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Mar 5 17:59:01 2010. I recall dark green. Some M stations had them as late as 1984. |
|
|
| (908454) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 18:17:40 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Fred G on Fri Mar 5 18:13:23 2010. I see them, but they were few in number. Most are just as small as the ones seen in the lower pic. This small section of the el looks exactly as it did 100 years ago and it always puzzled me as to how it manages to stay up in the air, if you assume that the old el structures could not handle modern steel subway cars. |
|
|
| (908455) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Mar 5 18:19:08 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Mar 5 18:08:49 2010. Well ... the 27/30's were pigs. Got to run some and they felt like driving a Bradley tank. I believe they were the heaviest pieces of crap ever ... so even without the added weight, they shoulda brought the house down. :) |
|
|
| (908459) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Fri Mar 5 18:41:04 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 18:15:32 2010. I recall dark green. Some M stations had them as late as 1984.It was dark green. Effective with the July 1, 1968 Edition of the subway map all shuttle route became dark green. (Dyre Av, 42 St, Bowling Green, Lenox Terminal, Culver and Franklin.) Effective with the closure of the lower Myrtle Avenue El in October 1969 a new route the "SS Myrtle Av Shuttle" was created and its color was dark green as well. Others routes using dark green at the time were the CC,GG and RR. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (908463) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave and Myrtle 1970 |
|
|
Posted by bklynsubwaybob on Fri Mar 5 19:11:18 2010, in response to Nostrand Ave and Myrtle 1970, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 3 15:59:30 2010. When I started working for Cars and Shops in 1970 I remember a Superintendent and Foreman telling me that the R12/14 were being considered for Myrtle Avenue service. IIRC a test train was used but with its dynamic braking disabled. |
|
|
| (908465) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by jan k. lorenzen on Fri Mar 5 19:13:33 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 13:54:49 2010. Also remember, Myrtle west of Bway was built by two different steam era companies a few years apart. The part from downtown to Grand was built as part of the Lexington el which swung south at Grand, the part east of Grand was part of the Park Ave. el. Those two sections were literally feet apart at that intersection. Once the two companies merged, the Park Ave. and Grand from Park to Myrtle section was taken down.One of the things that sealed Myrtle's fate was the closure of hte Brooklyn Navy Yard in 1966 with resultant loss in passengers. That, and it was old, tired, and not quite suited to modern transit operations. It really was a relic, and I still wonder why it never was made part of the Dual Contracts rebuilding like Broadway was. |
|
|
| (908474) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Mar 5 19:50:54 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Mar 5 17:35:24 2010. Today it would be the Mojo.:) |
|
|
| (908477) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave and Myrtle 1970 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Mar 5 19:54:47 2010, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave and Myrtle 1970, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 11:15:24 2010. The BMT standards outweighed the R-16s by a good 5-7 tons apiece. |
|
|
| (908493) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Union Turnpike on Fri Mar 5 21:08:39 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Mar 4 17:43:06 2010. If the Myrtle Avenue El had survived and was still running to Bridge-Jay Streets, what would've happened to Metrotech? |
|
|
| (908494) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Mar 5 21:23:26 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by jan k. lorenzen on Fri Mar 5 19:13:33 2010. Also remember, Myrtle west of Bway was built by two different steam era companies a few years apart. The part from downtown to Grand was built as part of the Lexington el which swung south at Grand, the part east of Grand was part of the Park Ave. el.No. the Lexington Ave Line ran from the Brooklyn Bridge along Water, Front, Washington, Park, Grand and Lexington, as this 1886 map shows. The Myrtle ran along Myrtle and crossed the Lex at right angles at grade. A collision ensued a couple of weeks after this operation started. As a result, the Myrtle turned off onto Grand and used the Park Ave El to the Ferry. The Lex turned onto Myrtle and followed the Myrtle to Adams St. This means that the Myrtle was built by a single company, even though it had two operating sections, operated by different companies. |
|
|
| (908530) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 23:51:59 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 17:53:14 2010. Oh, I thought you meant the whole old Myrtle line.Yes, the shuttle from Bway was the SS for a while...the signs even lasted into the late 80's or early 90's at many of the stations. |
|
|
| (908531) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 23:52:42 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Fri Mar 5 17:45:51 2010. The Myrtle El line was set to IRT standards, which is the same as the old BMT elevated standards. |
|
|
| (908532) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 23:53:19 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Mar 5 18:15:32 2010. Longer than 1984, some of the stations lasted until the later 80's. |
|
|
| (908534) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 23:53:54 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Mar 5 18:08:49 2010. That is correct. they couldn't AC the old R30's because they were too heavy even without the extra weight. |
|
|
| (908538) | |
Re: Myrtle Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Mar 5 23:58:47 2010, in response to Re: Myrtle Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Mar 5 23:53:54 2010. If only the vendor had proposed using helium instead of freon. :) |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 9 |
||
