Classic Railroad Quiz (at least 50 years old).

643007 views
7034 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,189 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Friday, September 25, 2020 4:58 PM

https://www.pacificelectric.org/pacific-electric/western-district/pacific-electric-tracks-in-the-hollywood-freeway-a-missed-opportunity/ 

My miss in a quick read of the article.  I knew the Hollywood Freeway (the Hollywood Cahuenga Park Way) was the right line.  Dates are still right.

 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,829 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Friday, September 25, 2020 9:38 AM

Glendale-Burbank could not be termed a "pure" rapid transit line, since the lilne did include some street running and sidewalks or pavement boarding requiring steps n the cars   If you consider it rapid transit, the I'll claim Beacon and Commnwwealth came earlier and ended up closer to rapid transit, getting there in stages.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 12,986 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, September 25, 2020 8:37 AM

I think you may have your LA croggled.  The median of the Arroyo Seco Parkway (110) -- which was the Pasadena Freeway -- is only four feet wide.  The route with the PE down the median is Huntington Drive -- Route 66 after 1926, for a while -- and it isn't to my knowledge a limited-access road under the 1939 law -- in fact I think the roads on either side of the median were only made 'one-way laned' after the PE was taken out in '51.  Note that neither the Pasadena Short Line nor the south local ran down the line of the Parkway, either as built or expanded.

The Hollywood freeway is the enormous cut across Cahuenga Pass, where there was a preexisting trolley line -- I believe this is highway 101, not 110.  That is surely what you meant; it's surely what I meant.

I thought it was a shame this track was not preserved, just as I think it a shame one track of Lackawanna wasn't preserved at Garrett Mountain.  But priorities were different then...

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 12,986 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, September 25, 2020 8:35 AM

.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,189 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Friday, September 25, 2020 7:05 AM

First was Pacific Electric's Hollywood line in the middle of the Hollywood Freeway (now the "110", originally Arroyo Seco Parkway) on June 15, 1940. Passenger shelters were reached by walkways under the Freeway lanes.  Abandoned October 1, 1950.

The Dearborn Subway was one of the two started during the 1930s by Chicago's Department of Subways and Superhighways.  The Subway tunnels were completed at the same time as the State Street Subway that was opened in 1943, but Dearborn didn't open until Feb. 25, 1951 since none of the stations could be completed due to wartime shortages.  The Milwaukee/Dearborn route replaced the former Logan Square route via Marshfield Avenue and the "Met" main line.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 12,986 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, September 25, 2020 6:55 AM

Cahuenga Pass 1940-1952

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,829 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Friday, September 25, 2020 5:02 AM

RC, if that is yur second such line, which was the first?

The IC South Chicago Branch?

Pacific Electric?

But maybe Congress is the first, as pure rapid transit, and the Jefferson Park and further extension to O'Hara is the second?

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,189 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Thursday, September 24, 2020 9:05 PM

CTA's Congress Line, which replaced the Garfield Park L and opened on June 22, 1958.  Through routed with the Milwaukee Avenue Subway/L (Logan Square) via the Dearborn Subway as Congress/Milwaukee (A).  Douplas/Milwaukee (B) used the line for about a mile from Paulina to Halsted.  Congress is now the Blue Line (extended to O'Hare airport), Douglas the Pink line, rerouted over the Lake Street L to the Loop.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 12,986 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, September 24, 2020 12:26 PM

.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 12,986 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, September 24, 2020 12:24 PM

I took the question to mean a line in the median of an honest-to-goodness limited-access highway, like the ATSF relocation through Pasadena going East that is now used by the Gold Line, or the DC Metro along I-66.

That leads to specific modern answers, which I may or may not have correctly isolated.

Theoretically the extension of the IND into New Jersey over the George Washington Bridge wouldn't have qualified even if routed along Rt. 4 down the Palisades, nor I think would the Key service adjacent to the ends of the big SF bridge...

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 12,986 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, September 24, 2020 12:21 PM

.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,829 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, September 24, 2020 12:11 PM

It depends on what you mean by rapid transit.  Beacon Street, Boston, was the earliest, center-reservation streetcar line, and originally was an a surface operation, with the downtown street runng in pavement replaced by subway in four steps to a now subway and center-reservation-only operation, and Commonwealth Avenue wuuld be the second.  Certainly, today, these are rapid transit as well as light rail.

Much later came the relocation of Pacific Elecdtric's Glendale  - Burbank line to a center-reservation in a highway.

The first center-reservation pure streetcar line, with no rapid-transit pretensions was St. Charles in New Orleans.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 12,986 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, September 24, 2020 11:50 AM

Ignore previous 'answer' I posted here; I misread the reference.

What is more interesting, perhaps, is what was the first one, and why is it poignant?  (The Judge would know!)

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,046 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, September 24, 2020 10:15 AM

When this rapid transit line was built, it was only the second median strip operation in the United States.  What is the line, when was it built and what was its original through routing?

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,189 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Wednesday, September 23, 2020 10:53 AM

The Met (Metropolitan West Side Elevated) started it, then entered a joint arrangment with CA&E, then pulled out, leaving CA&E to finish.  CA&E ran the last recorded funeral train in July 1934.  CTA took over from Met successor Chicago Rapid Transit in October 1946.  Your question.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,046 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, September 23, 2020 10:25 AM

The city is Chicago, the agency is the Chicago Transit Authority, and the charter is funeral trains.  Chicago Rapid Transit, and the Met prior to that, ran funeral charters to west suburban cemeteries near Westchester.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,189 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:30 AM

When this city took over its transit systems from private ownership after World War II the new agency's charter gave it the right to run a certain type of charter train, a right which it has never exercised.  One of the predecessor companies had engaged quite successfully in this charter business, but at the time of the agency's takeover a charter of this type had not been run in more than a decade.  Name the city, the agency, and the type of charter.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,829 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:12 AM

Very precise and look forward to your question.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,189 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Wednesday, September 23, 2020 6:27 AM

A tunnel connection under the Narrows was proposed after WW I to connect with the BMT Fourth Avenue line - the tunnel a victim of New York infighting, the depression and Robert Moses (who wanted, and got, the Verrazano Narrows Bridge, successfully defending an attempt to have the SIRT use it.)  SIRT matched its equipment and electrification to BMT specs in anticipation of the tunnel.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,829 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, September 23, 2020 3:50 AM

Finally, whew!  And you know the reason the B&O used New York City subway couplers on these cars, so state it!

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,189 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:04 PM

Oh - Staten Island Rapid Transit (technically B&O...)

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,829 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, September 22, 2020 8:34 AM

Again, there were no track connections ever directly.  One would have had to drag the MU equipment over thraee bridges to make an all-rail move.  Some of this equipment may have made this move.  If they did not, part of their move was on water.  Like most new equipment delivered to the TA.

I'm surprised you don't remember, because in previous postings you demonstrated as much knowledge about these MUs as me!  And the operation.

The NYCentral, NYNH&H, and LIRR never had equipment that could couple directly with NYCity Subway equipment.  (The LIRR and NYN&H both probably had wood equipment at one time equipped with Van Dorns, but probably requipped with MCB-Janneys when use was elsewhere from use of elevated tracks.)

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,189 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, September 22, 2020 8:09 AM

New York Central?  There were and are some track connections besides the originally planned connection in the basement of GCT.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,829 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, September 22, 2020 6:46 AM

No. again, the entire fleet.  Only only one type of car.

The system had no direct connection with the NYCTA.  One was planned but has not been realized. Expensive.  I think on the Trains Forum, I've already expressed the hope that it will be realized for frieght as well as transit, instead of a more expensive frieght-only connection now being proposed.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,189 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, September 22, 2020 6:02 AM

I know there were track connections with both New Haven and Long Island, but I'm going to go with LIRR. 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,829 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:57 AM

I did not know that, and it is a good answer, if you are sure you are right.  Can you post a photo?

I have a different answer.  The hint is that eventually some of these cars actually did couple in shop moves with some NYCTA cars.  And air, if not even MU, was compatible.

Photos of both the NYCTA cars and the other system's cars have been on this Forum.

Aparently, I was wrong about the TA changing to a different coupler.  With different and shinier material, looks more like a modified Tomlinson, which is in effect what the Westinghouse always was.

Would you like to provide this second answer as well?   Who and why?

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,189 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, September 21, 2020 9:58 AM

Delaware River Port Authority's Bridge Line from Philadelphia to Camden (predecessor to today's PATCO Lindenwold High Speed line) used them on their Bridge cars.  I think the original intent was to keep them separate from cars on the connecting Broad Street subway.  They did operate on Broad Street (but only with other Bridge cars between 1968 and the early 1980s after DRPA upgraded the Bridge line.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,829 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, September 21, 2020 8:57 AM

The Westinghouse automatic coupler that included electrical and air connections was introduce with the original New York City IRT subway cars in 1904 and continued in use in all New York City subway cars until just about the start of the 21st Century on new equipment.  IRT-BMT-IND and the Unified NYCTA.  Only one other system used these couplers an they did use them for all their MU electric cars.  Who and why?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 12,986 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, September 18, 2020 1:27 AM

By all means go ahead.  I haven't come up with a Degges-level question and that's now the standard to follow.

SUBSCRIBER & MEMBER LOGIN

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FREE NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter