|
|
| 9/10/77 (977482) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 5 |
|
|
|
| (977494) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 17:13:09 2010, in response to 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 16:10:53 2010. I remember the destruction of the el too, and also as a small child, couldn't understand why they were getting rid of it. I too thought the whole thing was going, and remember riding in the car under it imagining the whole el gone.I remember that stub with the billboard at Sutphin/Jamaica very well, as well as when they first redid the sidewalks along Jamaica AVe where the el was removed. What I truely don't understand is that they cut the subway off from the LIRR at Jamaica, by ending the el at QUeens Blvd (and later 121 St) instead of keeping the Sutphin station for the connection. it was so ridiculous, and all they did by getting rid of the Sutphin station was one extra block of no el. DUMB DUMB DUMB. |
|
|
| (977498) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 17:35:59 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 17:13:09 2010. Very stupid.The Jamaica shopping district began at Sutphin, so I suppose it had to be cleared completely. Idiotic that the eventual point of demolition was just at the point the Sutphin Blvd station began. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (977515) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 18:16:37 2010, in response to 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 16:10:53 2010. Of ALL the travesties of el destruction, Bronx Third Avenue El was the dumbest because it was still carrying a healthy number of passengers given its uelessness after they removed the Manhattan portion. Myrtle comes next for the same reason and almost as much use. DO bear in mind though that the Myrt closed its token booths at night due to low ridership while the 3rd never did until it closed entirely.The Jamaica line is also a travesty but most of it still exists. So in the greater scheme of things, especially considering that it was rebuilt and modernized, it ain't quite as severe and probably only qualifies because it was local to you and in your living memory. |
|
|
| (977518) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by kahlua on Fri Sep 10 18:19:52 2010, in response to 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 16:10:53 2010. Thank you... Ive never seen the el past Supthin Blvd. I always wondered what it looked like.. Most of the buildings are the same though its rather easy to tell were they were taken. |
|
|
| (977519) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Fri Sep 10 18:21:20 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 17:35:59 2010. I remember riding under the el after it was closed and saw 1 or 2 pieces of it being cut down. ouch I must agree DUMB DUMB DUMB oh uh DUMB!!!!! |
|
|
| (977521) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 18:27:42 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 18:16:37 2010. One argument against yours: both of those els were mainly 19th century structures incompatible with modern subway cars and not connected to any lines which went into Manhattan. Both were in desperate need of repair at the end. The Jamaica Ave el torn down was Dual Contracts all the way, connecting to a subway line which went directly to Manhattan. It was in no worse shape than any other structure of the period. |
|
|
| (977522) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by mcorivervsaf on Fri Sep 10 18:29:02 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 18:16:37 2010. You can thank former NYC Mayor John V. Lindsay for the demise of the 3rd Avenue El in the Bronx. The passenger use of the 204th Street station, which was the lowest of that entire Bronx segment of the El, might have contributed to its demise as well. What a shame. |
|
|
| (977523) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 18:33:41 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 18:16:37 2010. The thing that was dumb about Jamaica was that it was allowed to be abandoned on just the promise of a subway. If they had let it run just 11 more years, it wouldn't have been as tragic, as the subway finally came 11 years later, although it should have also been at least one more station to replace the length of the old el.It was entirely stupid to abandon it in the middle of no where at Queens Blvd station. Even more asinine was a couple years later at 121st St. If they "had" to do the unthinkable, and abandon it, it should have remained to Sutphin Blvd Station to keep the LIRR transfer alive. And it should have remained there until Archer opened, or at least until the very final end when it had to be connected to the El at 121st St. They realigned the entire Atlantic Ave el structure on the L and kept it running right to the end, and 80 years earlier rebuilt the entire Broadway El, northern Myrtle El, and part of the Fulton El all in place while service continued to run.....so there's no reason they couldn't have kept the el running to Sutphin while the Archer connection was made. In any event, yes, the third Ave el was a tragedy that it was removed. It should have been connected to the Lexington Ave line, and instead of there being a Pelham local and a Pelham express, there should have been two Lexington Ave locals, the 6 and the 8, with maximum headways allowable on Lexington Ave local (it wouldn't have effected any of the Lexington Ave riders, as the only difference for them would be that instead of all 6's there would be divided between 6 and 8's. And when the Second Ave subway finally got built, the connection of one or the other to the SAS, let's say Lexington local going to third Ave line, and the SAS going to the Pelham line (which is built to BMT standards under dual contracts anyway). The only reason I would send the Lexington Local to Third Ave is because I don't think that el was dual contracts, and had to remain IRT. |
|
|
| (977524) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 18:33:49 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by mcorivervsaf on Fri Sep 10 18:29:02 2010. Lindsay only oversaw the final chapter in a long, sad process of cutback and neglect aimed at undercutting support for unwanted structures. Only the Franklin Ave. shuttle was saved from eventual doom.Even the measly 4-car trains could handle the crowds better than the Bx55. |
|
|
| (977528) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 18:36:28 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by kahlua on Fri Sep 10 18:19:52 2010. Aside from 168th St which looked sort of like Lefferts Blvd on the A, the other stations on the Jamaica El were completely identical to the remaining Jamaica Ave stations. |
|
|
| (977530) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 18:41:54 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 18:27:42 2010. This is all true. The end of the Jamaica El was even in better shape than Alabama, Cleveland, Crescent, etc were.And truely, the Myrtle El was also a tragedy, as that line would have been no harder to rehab than the stations on Fulton of the J...like Alabama, Cleveland, etc. If those stations could have been saved, there's no reason the Myrtle's couldn't be. It would have been a different world down Myrtle too, as back then iot was a crappy neighborhood, but today it's gentrifying....it would have gentrified a lot sooner had the el still been there. As for third Ave, I don't understand that it was never connected to the subway. Either the 3 train from the West side should have been somehow routed to there, or it should have been connected to the Lexington line. The Lexington Local could have been split to go to third Ave and Pelham, with an 8 train going to Third Ave. It would have also been ripe for connection to the SAS when completed, with the SAS going to Pelham Bay Park, and the Lexington Ave local going to Third Ave. And the R12's ran on the Third Ave El, so I am not convinced it couldn't take normal equipment. The R12's were heavy subway cars, no? |
|
|
| (977531) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 18:43:46 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by mcorivervsaf on Fri Sep 10 18:29:02 2010. I do have to agree with people here, the 3rd Ave is unthinkable too that it was allowed to be abandoned. |
|
|
| (977534) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 18:46:22 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 18:36:28 2010. The only oddity in the el east of 121st was the lower elevation between Metropolitan and just east of Sutphin. When I did my infamous "walk" of the el structure in 1987, I made note of it and never ventured east of Queens Blvd.Here's a nice pic of the the el rising to a normal height just before Sutphin Blvd. Although the tracks were totally intact all the way to the bumper block, they never laid trains up on the elevating portion. 
|
|
|
| (977540) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 18:58:48 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 18:41:54 2010. Nobody wanted to spend any kind of money upgrading el structures. Connecting the 3rd Ave line to the subway would have required some significant expense because all the stations could not platform more than 6 cars. |
|
|
| (977541) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Andy on Fri Sep 10 18:59:49 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 18:41:54 2010. The Bronx Third Ave. El between 149th and Fordham was still a 19th century structure, that had a third track added in 1915. The only real Dual Contracts construction was the stretch between Fordham and Gun Hill, opened in 1920. The R12s that ran on the El in its last years were only four car trains and were restricted to maybe 20 mph. A typical ten car subway train could not have run on the Third Ave. El (platforms were probably too short also). |
|
|
| (977542) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 19:01:23 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 18:46:22 2010. Seeing that photo makes me even more angry that they didn't keep the Sutphin station....it's only a block. That's146th St next to the train, here's the same view today. What would have been so terrible to keep transportation in the Jamaica district, by keeping that one extra block of the el, to allow the Supthin station to remain open as the terminal?View Larger Map |
|
|
| (977543) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Sep 10 19:01:36 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 18:41:54 2010. They did some modification to the R12's specifically assigned to the Third Ave. el to make them lighter. This is what I was told at the time but I don't know exactly how this was accomplished. I do know their top speed was reduced, but maybe all they "took out" was field shunting, which was taken out of all equipment many years later as a reaction to the WillyB wreck.Don't ask me what field shunting does other than affecting speed. Maybe if TD reads this he can get technical. I do think one of the many reason why these els came down was becasue everybody agreed they were blights to the surrounding neighborhoods. Buses were cheap to run becasue diesel fuel was cheap and there was no such thing as air pollution (concerns). When we got to the Franklin shuttle rehab not too many years ago, these concerns came full circle. |
|
|
| (977545) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Sep 10 19:05:06 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 18:43:46 2010. I wonder if that was the snetiment at the time or Monday morning quarterbacking many years later.Of course we'd like to have them all back today with all the traffic and pollution that took their place. |
|
|
| (977546) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 19:07:12 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 18:33:41 2010. True ... but they actually GOT a subway. Maybe not in the same place, but something got built. All the 3rd and Myrt riders got was a stupid bus that just drove everybody else away. At least when they came for the Franklin, people already knew the score and FOUGHT it.But too late then and now for everybody else. |
|
|
| (977547) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Sep 10 19:07:47 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 18:33:41 2010. Even in those times, would there have been $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ available to upgrade and get connected to the Lex?Me sez probably not. |
|
|
| (977549) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 19:09:59 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by mcorivervsaf on Fri Sep 10 18:29:02 2010. I was a regular since I lived under the el at 204 and Webster. The one angle there was that the D train was three blocks away and most of the population there was closer to the D than the IRT. One thing that made people head for the D was that when the 3rd got down to 149th, the 2 and 5 were already SRO for the unreliable crawl down Lex. But if you worked on the east side, you had no choice but to take it.Aside from 204 though, there was plenty of ridership south of there ... |
|
|
| (977550) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 19:11:43 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Sep 10 19:05:06 2010. I believe there was significant pressure to not close the 3rd Ave el, but there were vague promises of a replacement subway running alongside the Metro North ROW. It was also the South Bronx who needed it the most, and we all know where these people rated in the early 70's on the political scale. It was just too "brown" for people in power to care about. |
|
|
| (977551) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Sep 10 19:14:40 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 19:01:23 2010. In their defense, they would have needed a longer distance than Supthin Blvd. to stay "open" since the yard is in ENY and they were able to lay up trains past Queens Blvd. For economic purposes, as it was lots of trains had to be deadheaded to/from ENY. If they ran to Supthin and had no layups out there, operating/personnel expenses would have been higher and even if a train went bad, there would be no gap train to replace it.IIRC they were able to lay up 4 trains north of Queens Blvd., 2 on each track. |
|
|
| (977552) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 19:15:28 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 18:27:42 2010. The Myrt was definitely in need of a rebuild, and they were actually considering doing just that. Same for the lower 3rd. That was the basis for the R-39 order that never happened. If i remember correctly, the Jamaica el was also in need of structural modernization which they actually went and did.But no, the actual cause for the doom of the other two lines was strictly money-based. City was broke, and the Empty-yay came along only interested in the LIRR and begrudgingly stuck with the subway. THAT was what actually happened. :( |
|
|
| (977554) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 19:18:21 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Sep 10 19:01:36 2010. They also cut out the dynamics and ran them straight air only ... |
|
|
| (977556) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Sep 10 19:20:36 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 19:18:21 2010. Didn't realise that.That takes a lot of weight away indeed. Didn't the Q's have no electric brake also? |
|
|
| (977558) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 19:23:22 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Sep 10 19:07:47 2010. The big thing after the Empty-yay transition from NYCTA was Ronan's attitude. MTA was formed to bring the LIRR back from the dead and NYCTA pissed away several year's worth of their future budget paying for Lindsay's "air conditioned subway cars." As far as MTA was concerned, that was LIRR's money being stolen and as Ronan once put it "not ONE MORE DIME until NYCTA pays us back." Seriously ... MTA refused to spend any more money after all those new cars because all they cared about was the LIRR.Wonder why everything went absolutely to shit in the subways in the 70's and 80's? There's your answer. |
|
|
| (977559) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 19:28:27 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Sep 10 19:14:40 2010. For 2 years they terminated trains at 121st without any of the extending tracks used. They did use the Jamaica bound track all the way to 111st to store trains in a very odd setup. |
|
|
| (977560) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 19:30:08 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 19:11:43 2010. As much as there's some truth to that, the MAJOR issue for the Empty-yay was that all those new subway cars were more than enough expense for their LIRR. Had there been separate funding for the subways, perhaps some of that might have happened, but there was no money. As it was, the only reason why 63rd Street happened was the lower two tubes, not the ones that the feds forced them to somehow use.When MTA found out how much it was going to cost to fix those els, down they came. And after paying for those new 38-s through 44's, that was the end of any more spending as far as Ronan was concerned. THAT was the problem. Subways were stealing money from the LIRR and it *had* to be stopped. It was. Remember who was running things, not to mention Nassau then. :( |
|
|
| (977562) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 19:32:05 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 19:30:08 2010. You also have to wonder if Archer Ave construction would have stopped had the el not been closed in '77. IIRC that thing was already 200% over budget by 1980. |
|
|
| (977564) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 19:34:34 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Sep 10 19:20:36 2010. The Q's were still AME if I remember correctly. When I came ono board, you didn't have to qualify on those anymore unless you worked "misc." The issue wasn't so much the weight as it was the "lurch" as I recall ... the dynamics had a tendency to "grab" too hard for the structure and so they cut them out. And the third notch removal (that's what they actually did - those 12's wouldn't do parallel with the third notch removed) was to ensure that they didn't get up to too much of a speed where the air would lurch them either. |
|
|
| (977566) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 19:36:49 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 19:32:05 2010. Yep ... but there was something about the nature of the "new contruction" that the feds picked up a good part of that build. I'm not sure of the details, but I remember hearing back before it was built that if they had built it where the el *was* then it would have been a "replacement" rather than a "new build" and wouldn't have gotten as much money as it did. |
|
|
| (977570) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 19:39:28 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Sep 10 19:01:36 2010. Given the close spacing of 3rd Ave el stations, a speed limit was probably not a problem. |
|
|
| (977573) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Sep 10 19:40:47 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 19:28:27 2010. There were lay up locations for 3 trains at 121 St. terminal however: 2 back to back on the northbound track, first train in the station and the other right behind it and one train at 111 middle. |
|
|
| (977574) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 19:42:59 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 19:39:28 2010. North of Fordham, they were reasonably far apart - even more so than the other IRT lines. 3rd Ave was a high seniority line too, thus you wouldn't have had cowboys to emasculate. The mods done on the cars were strictly for load purposes ... |
|
|
| (977578) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 19:46:55 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Andy on Fri Sep 10 18:59:49 2010. This makes the Jamaica Ave el demolition even more frustrating. None of these problems plagued the el in Jamaica, it was as modern as any el in New York City. |
|
|
| (977585) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Fri Sep 10 19:53:24 2010, in response to 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 16:10:53 2010. Damn, some awesome nostalgic shots!!! And damn did you ever bring back memories of the Jamaica El, how I remember when it ended at Queens Blvd, with the remaining tracks from east of Queens Blvd to the end of track at Sutphin Blvd being the relay point for the J. And do I fondly remember those R-27/30s that roamed here coated in graffiti!! |
|
|
| (977597) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Sep 10 20:05:04 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 19:23:22 2010. Then there was the two-word, "Ronan stinks" editorial. |
|
|
| (977600) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 20:06:52 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 19:23:22 2010. Is history repeating itself? 1000+ R160's later and the MTA is now crying poverty. |
|
|
| (977602) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Sep 10 20:07:54 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Fri Sep 10 19:53:24 2010. I still remember when the trains were clean. That R-27/30 JJ train I rode on back in March of 1968 was still wearing its original olive green drab and was still clean. |
|
|
| (977611) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 20:43:48 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Sep 10 20:05:04 2010. He had a railroad to run ... just wasn't the subway. :( |
|
|
| (977612) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 20:44:10 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 20:06:52 2010. Somebody GETS it! :) |
|
|
| (977613) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Fri Sep 10 21:05:34 2010, in response to 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 16:10:53 2010. At least Jamaica got its replacement subway. 2 Ave is still waiting. |
|
|
| (977637) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 22:01:46 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Sep 10 19:39:28 2010. I would imagine if they were that close, they could have abandoned a few of them if they extended the platforms to 10 IRT length cars. That would have been more acceptable than the whole line abandoned. |
|
|
| (977641) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 22:06:56 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 19:15:28 2010. If i remember correctly, the Jamaica el was also in need of structural modernization which they actually went and did.That is probably the stations between Alabama and Crescent on the Jamaica line. They were about as bad as any Myrtle station at that point. They did finally redo them in the early 80's. The Fulton El portion of the J line was original 1880's el structure. |
|
|
| (977643) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 22:09:17 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 19:23:22 2010. If the 80's, it wasn't just the LIRR. The stations and lines which became the Metro North lines, were in much worse shape than the LIRR when Metro North was formed in 1983. |
|
|
| (977644) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 22:10:36 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Sep 10 19:14:40 2010. That is probably true, but I would guess that if they put a switch close to 121st St, and they only used the Manhattan platform at Sutphin, they could have used the whole jamaica bound track from 121st to Sutphin for lay up. |
|
|
| (977645) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 22:10:36 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 22:01:46 2010. They actually weren't all THAT close to each other except down towards 149th. Bronx blocks are longer than other boroughs using the East numberings. They worked out to be almost similar to other IRT lines for distances. |
|
|
| (977647) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Sep 10 22:11:26 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 22:06:56 2010. I thought they did steel work as well? |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 5 |
|
