|
|
| Re: 9/10/77 (977482) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
|
| (978249) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 12 20:17:36 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 12 19:59:36 2010. THIS has got to be the worst scheme the IND equipment got...the MTA silver and blue didn't really go with them at all.
|
|
|
| (978250) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Sep 12 20:35:15 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 12 20:17:36 2010. Could have been worse.Thankfully they never got the all white scheme! |
|
|
| (978252) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 12 20:47:21 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 12 20:17:36 2010. This paint scheme happened when MTA took over, and the LIRR got the M1s.Some big muckymuck thought that all of the subway cars should have that same corporate look. barf 
|
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (978255) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 12 21:01:52 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Sep 12 20:14:08 2010. Looked about as good as painting 160's el pillar green ... :) |
|
|
| (978256) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 12 21:08:03 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Sep 12 20:35:15 2010. You were saying? DAYUM! Thought it was a 32 until I tried to insert my door key and there wasn't any hole. :) |
|
|
| (978257) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 12 21:08:40 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 12 20:47:21 2010. Ronan. He marked his territory everywhere. :( |
|
|
| (978259) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 12 21:10:16 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 12 21:08:40 2010. I got a dog who does that.(No I do NOT have a dog!) sheesh!
|
|
|
| (978264) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Sun Sep 12 21:32:03 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 12 20:17:36 2010. That color scheme didn't go with any of the cars which got it. Grafitti was usually an improvement. |
|
|
| (978267) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 12 21:40:00 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Sun Sep 12 21:32:03 2010. LION must agree that that was the most ugly color scheme he has ever laid eyes on.BUT on *my* layout, those silver and blue units are the cat's meow.
|
|
|
| (978268) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 12 21:40:43 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 12 21:10:16 2010. Here Ronan! Here Ronan! *BAD* Ronan! :) |
|
|
| (978270) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 12 21:44:19 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Sun Sep 12 21:32:03 2010. *usually*? :) |
|
|
| (978272) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 12 21:44:43 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 12 21:40:43 2010. Poor Dog. Keeps doing the same thing, and apparently expects a different outcome.
|
|
|
| (978274) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 12 21:45:30 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Sep 12 21:44:43 2010. Yep ... that was Ronan! :) |
|
|
| (978294) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 12 22:58:55 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Sun Sep 12 21:32:03 2010. It looked good, when first applied, to the R30's. But of course, this scheme rarely lasted more than a week or two before it's "unoffical" scheme would be put on top of it. This J train at Flushing Ave almost looks like sending a lamb out to slaughter:
|
|
|
| (978295) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 12 23:03:09 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 12 21:01:52 2010. Heh...I loved the "el Pillar Green" on the R10's in their final days. I liked it even more than the red on the other cars. As for the stations, when they first did the green scheme at stations, I liked it, but grew to hate it as it turned up at every single station. I liked the 90's when every el station had a different color, it was more interesting. And I HATE the el green they now paint the els with once again. I liked the beige/gold scheme, which I feel was better on the els. It was much lighter on the street below, the green makes everything darker. |
|
|
| (978296) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 12 23:04:14 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Sep 12 12:21:49 2010. Wow, that's a cool photo, the new with the old. |
|
|
| (978299) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 12 23:17:45 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 12 23:03:09 2010. I was thinking more along the lines of that icky "mint green" that they painted the interior of the 27/30's with that ended up on the steel of many els, at least in the Bronx as well as school hallways. A disgusting color indeed. :) |
|
|
| (978312) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 12 23:51:27 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 12 23:17:45 2010. Ah yes, that is WAY worse. |
|
|
| (978328) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Mon Sep 13 02:17:45 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Sun Sep 12 18:15:53 2010. The abandoned El was removed in the Fall of 1990, except for the bridge over the LIRR which was removed in May 1991. |
|
|
| (978331) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Sep 13 04:36:47 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 12 09:57:59 2010. Main reason why I think that can happen are the environmentalists, who are the one group I think would be able to push it.Realistic chances of it actually happening: Just about nil, but I would never say never. And Chris R16 is right, it might be more sellable in the Bronx because of the issues with the Bx55. |
|
|
| (978358) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Sep 13 08:43:29 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 12 23:17:45 2010. You mean that hideous pistachio green? Eeeewwwwwww! |
|
|
| (978359) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Sep 13 08:46:01 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 12 21:08:03 2010. That looks like 401 before it was restored to operable condition. |
|
|
| (978360) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Sep 13 08:46:53 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 12 21:45:30 2010. I'll bet a lot of people wished they were dogs and Ronan was a tree. |
|
|
| (978361) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Sep 13 08:48:12 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 12 20:17:36 2010. That's 1801 before the State Museum got their hands on it. |
|
|
| (978389) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Sep 13 11:45:54 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 12 20:17:36 2010. Yes, this did NOT work on the R1 thru R12's. On later cars, it's actually my favorite paint scheme. |
|
|
| (978390) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Sep 13 11:46:36 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 12 21:08:03 2010. That actually looks better than the silver and blue stripe. |
|
|
| (978391) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Sep 13 11:47:33 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 12 22:58:55 2010. That was the problem. If it had been kept clean, it would have looked great. |
|
|
| (978404) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Sep 13 12:26:51 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Sep 13 11:47:33 2010. It looked great on the flat sided carbon cars, such as the R27-30's. it also looked okay on the comparable IRT equipment.I didn't like it on the R10's, or the R16's however, and it definitely didn't look good on the old IND equipment, from photos I have seen. |
|
|
| (978439) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Ian Lennon on Mon Sep 13 13:55:26 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 12 07:19:28 2010. That is true. We had to deal with the crap coming over from ENY. There were plenty of muggings, and home robberies. |
|
|
| (978474) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Sep 13 15:08:14 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Sep 13 11:46:36 2010. Absolutely ... anything but the "war between the states paint." But that TOO looked incredibly stupid. If they finally got around to painting the arnines after so many decades, it would have behooved them to just cut to the chase and use some nice fresh Pullman green, gold leaf "City of New York" optional. But faux R32? Ahem. :) |
|
|
| (978477) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Sep 13 15:19:23 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Sep 13 15:08:14 2010. I think they liked the look of stainless steel, they tried to make the older cars look like the new ones. Of course, had the MTA embraced the technology back in the 40's, paint would not have been necessary. And R10's may have survived into the 21st century. |
|
|
| (978484) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Sep 13 15:39:14 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Sep 13 15:08:14 2010. And worse.... "Faux R46"..... |
|
|
| (978485) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Sep 13 15:39:25 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Sep 13 08:48:12 2010. That one finally got the RIGHT paint. :)
|
|
|
| (978487) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Sep 13 15:40:25 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Sep 13 08:46:53 2010. Nah ... most Teeyay people merely wished that Ronan had NOT "changed at Jamaica." :) |
|
|
| (978488) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Sep 13 15:41:26 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Sep 13 08:46:01 2010. Could be ... the rule back then was get the number plates off so they could be screwed onto other cars that were overdue for release to the road. :) |
|
|
| (978495) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Sep 13 15:58:54 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 12 23:51:27 2010. That's what I had in mind ... you painted my arnines, take THAT, 160s! :) |
|
|
| (978496) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Sep 13 15:59:20 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Sep 13 08:43:29 2010. Atsa da one! ;) |
|
|
| (978501) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Sep 13 16:12:19 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Sep 13 15:19:23 2010. Heh. Ronan was obsessed with "uniformity" even where it was neither practical nor possible. "Doctor Ronan" was New York's "Doctor Detroit." But yeah, that was the "reasoning" and it looked stupid. :) |
|
|
| (978504) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Sep 13 16:13:55 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Sep 13 15:39:14 2010. Even worse! "Faux M-1" ... like the rest of the fleet. Took years for Ronan to figure out that the subway was NOT the LIRR, nor was it ever going to be. :( |
|
|
| (978581) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Sep 13 19:47:48 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Sep 11 13:18:52 2010. It wasn't stupid when you consider the money and time they saved by not having to maintain service to two stations while the connection to Archer was made. |
|
|
| (978595) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Sep 13 20:13:32 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Sep 13 16:12:19 2010. I hear there was a reference to the Holy Ronan Empire back then. |
|
|
| (978596) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Sep 13 20:16:41 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Sep 13 15:41:26 2010. 401 had that scheme when it sat as a schoolcar in Jamaica Yard. The other clue is that the signbox is missing from the side facing the camera. Look at any photo of 401, renumbered 491, parked at Jamaica Yard, and you'll see a panel in place of the signbox. I'll bet it received a replacement box from Seashore's 175 as well as a pair of side door leaves. You can tell which ones they are, too: they have no indents while the rest of the doors do. Only the R-1s didn't have those indents on the side doors. The rest of the prewar fleet did, including 1689. |
|
|
| (978928) | |
Why Did The Archer Ave Extension Take So Long To Open? (Re: 9/10/77) |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Tue Sep 14 23:17:12 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by El-Train on Sat Sep 11 15:25:39 2010. From my NYCTA in the 1980s page on www.nycsubway.org:[Through the early 1908s], work on the 63rd St and Archer Avenue subway lines continued, although the MTA considered stopping work on these projects in October of 1980, and spending the money instead on maintaining the existing system. The Archer Avenue line was due to be completed in 1984, and the 63rd Street line in 1985. Progress of the Archer Avenue subway tunnel stopped in March 1982, when on March 5th, part of the tunnel caved in around the vicinity of Archer Avenue and 138th Street. One construction worker was killed, and three others narrowly escaped injury. This four-man crew was reinforcing the tunnel walls when this reinforcement gave way, causing the cave-in. By July of 1985, political pressure on the MTA regarding the project was growing. Senator Alfonse D'Amato asked the Senate to investigate the tunnel project and the use of federal funds to ensure they were being spent appropriately. He also asked the US Attorney's Office to launch a grand jury investigation of the tunnel. Many probes did take place -- by the FBI (for criminal wrongdoing), the TA's inspector general and the Department of Transportation (because 80% of the money spent on the tunnel was federal funds). One of the subcontractors for the tunnel was defending itself against a fraud indictment. Early in the investigations, documentation regarding the project's major expenses was found to be inadequate. Water seepage became a very serious problem, with 6 feet of water in some tunnel sections. In fact, as early as 1974, the TA was made aware of these leaks but did little about them. Meanwhile, tracks rusted, concrete disintegrated and formed stalactites in the tunnel. Cracks appeared in the new tunnel walls. The 21st Street station, without seeing a single paid passenger, was tagged with graffiti. An incorrectly designed 5-foot thick support beam did not allow clearance for trains to pass beneath it; when it was altered to provide the necessary clearance, it may not have been reinforced adequately. The FBI was looking into allegations of bribery, where a TA engineer okayed the repairs instead of replacing the beam, which might have further delayed the project. Despite everyone in the field of transportation examining the tunnel project for monetary and project management defects, the MTA also hired a firm to re-examine the tunnel for structural and engineering defects. Based on the results of this study, a decision would be made whether to finish completing the line. Construction Technology Laboratories of Skokie, IL, was hired to assess the structural integrity of the tunnel, and report back to the MTA within 90 days with a recommendation to keep the project going or stop work and abandon the project. The Federal Urban Mass Transportation Administration announced on July 22nd, 1985, that it would suspend federal funding pending the outcomes of the investigations. And why did it come to this? The water leakage problem, internal infighting, faulty record keeping, time-consuming attempts to obtain funding for repair work and the fiscal crisis of 1975 led to the situation. While all tunnels leak to some extent, excessive leakage has to be taken care of; the TA knew about this in 1974 but didn't do anything about the problem. This type of leakage accelerated corrosion. In September of 1985, there was political pressure (again) placed on the TA to abandon the line, because the expected ridership would cover a very small amount of the line's operating costs. MTA figures on fare recovery indicated that between 1% and 6% of operating costs would be covered by fares, even if the line were to be extended to the IND Queens Blvd line. In October of 1985, Construction Technology Laboratories found the 63rd Street tunnel structurally sound. One girder in particular, "G-4", was scrutinized because of the lack of train clearance underneath it; 13 inches of the girder were shaved off and its structural integrity was questioned. The engineering firm found the girder to be sound. The project would ultimately continue. By the end of 1985, it was well known that the original intent of the 63rd Street subway, to run to eastern Queens, was never going to happen. It was also known that the current terminus of the line, at 21st Street in Queensbridge, was useless; 220 passengers an hour were the usage projections in 1984. The MTA was studying four options for making this line more useful:
--Mark |
|
|
| (978945) | |
Re: Why Did The Archer Ave Extension Take So Long To Open? (Re: 9/10/77) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Sep 15 00:07:40 2010, in response to Why Did The Archer Ave Extension Take So Long To Open? (Re: 9/10/77), posted by Mark S. Feinman on Tue Sep 14 23:17:12 2010. This is also an argument against using federal money for intrastate items. Instead, this should be state money only for it (the federal taxes would be reduced as a result of this pool being eliminated, or it would be put toward debt repayment). |
|
|
| (979256) | |
Re: Why Did The Archer Ave Extension Take So Long To Open? (Re: 9/10/77) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Sep 15 20:57:11 2010, in response to Why Did The Archer Ave Extension Take So Long To Open? (Re: 9/10/77), posted by Mark S. Feinman on Tue Sep 14 23:17:12 2010. Thanks for this info. I did not know D'Amato demanded an investigation, I swear I remember him being implicated due to a connection between his Island Park machine and one of the faulty concrete contractors.BTW, the leaking east of Sutphin Blvd on the E is STILL a problem. Els don't leak, BTW. |
|
|
| (979285) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Sep 15 22:12:26 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Sep 13 19:47:48 2010. The way service was cut back was moronic. The entire el should have stayed open until 1985. The cutback to Queens Blvd also necessitated the installation of a new crossover west of the station, a ridiculous expenditure for only a 7 year time period. |
|
|
| (979292) | |
Re: Why Did The Archer Ave Extension Take So Long To Open? (Re: 9/10/77) |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Sep 15 22:28:17 2010, in response to Re: Why Did The Archer Ave Extension Take So Long To Open? (Re: 9/10/77), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Sep 15 20:57:11 2010. depends how they are built, much of the Red Line in Chicago is on an embankment which must have proper drainage systems. And waiting for a train on an L is way wetter and colder than in a tunnel. |
|
|
| (979399) | |
Re: Why Did The Archer Ave Extension Take So Long To Open? (Re: 9/10/77) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Sep 16 07:51:37 2010, in response to Why Did The Archer Ave Extension Take So Long To Open? (Re: 9/10/77), posted by Mark S. Feinman on Tue Sep 14 23:17:12 2010. 1908s?:) |
|
|
| (983449) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Mon Sep 27 00:09:27 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Sep 10 18:41:54 2010. The R12s were slightly lighter than the Steinway Low-V cars that previously ran on the 3rd Ave line. It wasn't the weight of the cars that was the problem, it was the faster acceleration and braking rates of the R12s that caused problems with the El structure. The 3rd Ave El in the Bronx was built to handle subway cars but by 1970 the El south of Fordham Rd was in poor shape due to years of neglect. |
|
|
| (983466) | |
Re: 9/10/77 |
|
|
Posted by Randyo on Mon Sep 27 04:06:27 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Sep 11 13:14:25 2010. Since there were areas of the Fulton El between Nostrand and downtown Bkln and also between Hinsdale St and Grant Av that were not rebuilt under the dual contracts, attempting to incorporate it into the Fulton St subway other than where it was done would have been impractical. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
