You are correct. The Cambridge - Dorchester "Tunnel," Boston Elevated cars pioneered doors (3) spaced along the side without any at the ends, standard railroad width, and longer cars. The original BMT steels, in A (single motor car) B (two driving motors each end with blind motor in the middle), BX (two driving motors with trailer in the middle, only one such in a seven-car train and not allowed over the Manhattan Bridge), and BT (BX with the trailer removed) were all based on the Cambrdge - Dorchester cars, with similar length and identacle width and height. But Stillwell came up with considerably lighter car design. I consider all these cars, Boston's and the BMT's as very good designs.
The IRT cars were simply adaptations of regular elevated railroad practice, Chicago as well as NY and Brooklyn, to the subway. Of course the big innovation was pioneering, along with the LIRR, steel construction. Structurally, the big Boston cars were an enlargement of the structural design of the modified Gibbs IRT subway cars, just then recently modified with center doors. The Gibbs design was basically a gondola car, with heavy framjing around doors to preseve sructural integraty. Stillwell's designs used the entier side as a truss. Both of course were an improvment over a house on a flatcar, which was the typical previous wood-car construction.
Overmod aegrotatio I guess the paper written by the NYC board of transportation was wrong about this. I should probably go find it and post it here. Now that you've invoked it == yes, you should. Or at least provide detailed cites so that someone can search for it.
aegrotatio I guess the paper written by the NYC board of transportation was wrong about this. I should probably go find it and post it here.
Now that you've invoked it == yes, you should.
Or at least provide detailed cites so that someone can search for it.
I don't disagree, but I have to admit that I honestly can't find the piece. I read it on the nycsubway.org web site and saved it, but I just can't find this piece now. It's a great article. They talked about how the IRT was an experiment and how the BMT reflected better ideas.
What this piece does not mention is that the BMT and IND specifications were derived from the wider trains used on the Boston Cambridge Subway (the modern MBTA Red Line) that were developed after intensive study of mass transit in that city. These specifications also ended up being the basis of most subway systems today including the Philadelphia Broad Street Subway and today's BMT and IND.
But you are certain it was the R-32's?
N (ote that when the Q-types were about to start their third career on the Myrtle Avenue Elevated, they had their roofs lowered, so they could go to Coney Island, via the Nassau Cit and the Motague St. Tunnel for repair and maintencance. (There second careeer was on the 3rd Avenue Elevated, but they were built for BMT Astoria and Flushing services.
daveklepperLion, as far as I know, the R-32's are not taller than newer equipment.
I only know about the embargo, not the mechanical reasons behind it. The issue is a vertical issue. The spacing of the trucks could have something to do with it as well as the overall height of the train.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Upper platform is northbound at 125th St. If I remember correctly there is a tower at the north end of that platform.
Lion, as far as I know, the R-32's are not taller than newer equipment. The older equipmenet that may be unable to fit are probably the various nostalgia trains, with cleristory and semi-cleristory roofs, R1- R10, BMT Steel Standards ("B-types), D-Types, IRT LowV's, and the elevated gate-cars.
The IRT R-33 and R-36 cars, which became the Red-Bird fleet, are as tall as the R-32's and the remaining ones are work-motors and rider cars that can run anywhere on the entire system.
In passing, the 4th Avenue subway in Brooklyn has higher than normal clearances to accomodate the regular box and refrigorator cars of the period (1915).
Contract II did include the upper portion of the Lexington Avenue subway, the part from Grand Central south beihng part of the original subway. I think from memory from all the times I rode that line, that the track spacings and tunnel width with invert on each side would not permit easy conversion to B-Division standards. More than cutting back platformj nosings woiuld be required. Nearly the whole line is in a double-level tunnel, with the local tracks on the upper level and the express tracks on the lower level. At 116th Street you have a conventional single-level four-track subway local station, and at 125th two levels again, but with southbound local and express on one level and northbound on another. (Lion or someone can remind me which is up and which is down.)
Some recent repairs caused new problems. The tracks in the Monague Tunnel were upgraded during the shutdown. Problem is the new profile is an inch or two taller, ergo some of the older equipment can no longer fit in there. I think the only cars that are embargoed are the R-32s.
The Money Train is long retired. It basically went away with the token.
First there is not enough cash in the booths any more, and the time to service TVMs is so extensive that a Money Train would tie up the railroad to a farethewell.
Armored Cars are now used up on the streets. The driver undoubtedly remains with the car, Two Guarda (well armed) and a Technician goes down to service the machines. Replentish tickets and remove cash from several machines. The Station Agent has no access to the vending machines.
The Route of the Broadway LION *does* have a money train. : )
aegrotatioI guess the paper written by the NYC board of transportation was wrong about this. I should probably go find it and post it here.
alloboard Thanks. Makes sense. One day in the future the IRT tunnels has to be widened and new cars to be built.
Thanks. Makes sense. One day in the future the IRT tunnels has to be widened and new cars to be built.
No chance of it. There is no reason to do so.
IRT was intentioally built to smaller dimensions so that "real trains" could not operat there.
It is just not worth the cost of changing it, since the routes are what they are.
There are more projects that could use that money.
All IRT tunnels *are* built to the larger statndards except the original City Hall to 242nd Street via Times Square (think shuttle alignment). The only difference there is the depth of the platform edges. It would not be prohibitive to cut them back. That was an intended possibility. The other problem however is the length of the platforms. No IRT platform can berth a 600' train. B Division trains using the IRT would need be limited to 8 cars.
The Board of Transportation paper may have been written at or shortly after Unification, June, 1940. And practical economics may have caused the change in policy since then.
Conversion of the NYW&B line for operation by the IRT as the Dyar Avenue line was done with the possibility of eventual operatoin by the B Division, and all clearances were so planned except for the station platforms, where the nozings are wood and can be removed to accomodate 10-ft wide cars. Signals were and are IND standard.
The north-south portion, but not the east-west portion, of the new 7 line extension to 11th and 34th may also be planend this way.
daveklepper To clear up the confusion, no, all work on A Division is not built to B Division standards. A good case is the new South Ferry station which is completely A-Division clearances, not just platform edges.
To clear up the confusion, no, all work on A Division is not built to B Division standards. A good case is the new South Ferry station which is completely A-Division clearances, not just platform edges.
I guess the paper written by the NYC board of transportation was wrong about this. I should probably go find it and post it here.
Fun fact: the old South Ferry station used those automatic gap filler appliances with a recorded announcement warning passengers to pay attention to them.
The standard elevated structures were all built for three tracks, even as on Livonia Avenue in Brooklyn (2) and Jamaica Avenue, the center express track was left out. All construction was heavy enough to allow the addition with its support girders. In addition to these two, the standard structures include New Utrecht Avenue (D), Macdonald Avenue Ditmas - Kings Highway or Avenue X (F), Jerome Avenue (4), northern Westchester Avenue (6), White Plains Road (2), most of Flushing Line (7) north of Queens Blbd on Roosevelt Avenue, and Astoria (N). On the other hand, the Manhatenville Viaduct each side of 125th Street on Broadway (1), the southern portion of Westchester Avenue the short stretch on Southen Blvd. (2 and 5), and I think Broadway north of Dykeman were designed and built by the IRT. Similarly, the Broadway elevated in Brooklyn, Myrtle Avenue (not sure about this, may be part and part), the complex around East New York and the Jsmaica elevated as far as Cyrpess or Ceder, was designed and built by the BMT or its predicessors.
When the BMT and IRT ran joint service on both Flushing and Astoria, the BMT steel subwy equipment ran only to Queensboro Plaza, and beyond that point pasengers were accomodated on composite cpen-platform gate cars, replaced by the open-platform cars rebult into side-sliding-door steel-end cars conforming to IRT restrictions. These later went to the 3rd Avenue Elevated and ended up replacing the last gate cars Myrtle Avenu Metropolitan Avenue - Downtown Brooklyn Bridge and Jay Streets, torn down south of Broadway.
I do not know of any changes to the Astoria Line other than cutting back platform edges and relocating those black-on-white numbers shwoing where to stop according to train lenth, although the changes at Queensboro Plaze station and the junctions on each side were very extensive. It was an eight-track, two-level station, with foiur tracks on each level, now it is a four-track station with two on each level.
Thanks for the update. Interesting that they have their own armored cars, rather than using Brinks.
I wonder how they would cope if they had a station without vehicular road access. But they don't.
daveklepper As far as I know the money train still runs. I'll try and obtain current equipment information. My impression is that there may be three, two serving IND-BMT lines plus IRT 7, and one for the remaining IRT lines. All converted "Red-Bird" IRT R-33-R-36 equipment.
As far as I know the money train still runs. I'll try and obtain current equipment information. My impression is that there may be three, two serving IND-BMT lines plus IRT 7, and one for the remaining IRT lines. All converted "Red-Bird" IRT R-33-R-36 equipment.
The money trains were discontinued at the beginning of 2006:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/nyregion/thecity/31mone.html?ex=157680000&en=7f9eb6f4d0f34db4&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
The increasingly cashless (Metrocard,credit card readers, etc.) fare payment system lead the MTA to switch to collection by armored cash carrier,they own a small fleet of those vehicles:
http://www.hankstruckpictures.com/pix/trucks/mark_simiele/2012/12-29/scan0338.jpg
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
What is true, is that all City-built elevated structures, both A and B Division, are built to standard plans, allowing stocking of parts and girders etc., for economical repaiar and replacement. Thus, the Astoria elevated, which was originally built for IRT-sized cars, was easily converted to handle the BMT through operation. Another exception is the No. 6 subway in the Bronx, which was one of the latest IRT subways constructed, and which probably can be converted, and where all work in recent years has kiept that in mind. But the adhering to B-Division standards in new work in not ell-encompasing, just decided on a case-by-case basis.
The extension of the A to Liberty Avenue over former Fulton Street El structure did not require platform modifications, because the 14th Street -Lefferts rush hour Multi subway service preceded this conversion, and that elevated was built for 10-feet cars originally to conform to the width of the original Brooklyn Bridge cable railway line cars.
aegrotatio Since the 1940s, all new work on the A Division is built to B Division loading gauge and standards with the exception of the platform edges. Of course, old work requires retrofitting or is not at all possible. The loading gauge for the A Division (IRT) is 8.5 feet. The B Division is 10 feet.
Since the 1940s, all new work on the A Division is built to B Division loading gauge and standards with the exception of the platform edges. Of course, old work requires retrofitting or is not at all possible. The loading gauge for the A Division (IRT) is 8.5 feet. The B Division is 10 feet.
Very loooooooooooong range work may have station platform work be equipped with quick removal platform extenders. 9" ?
Rebuilding the two major ex-IRT lines, which run the length of Manhattan under 4th and 7th Avenues, would disrupt a significant percentage of the entire island's underground infrastructure. The alternative would be to fire up a couple of BIG tunnel boring machines and go deep - into rock that could double for ceramic armor. Either way, the total cost would probably exceed the present national debt.
Then there are the river crossing tunnels...
And the miles of elevated track built to yesterday's clearances...
Granted anything is possible that doesn't violate the laws of physics and chemistry, but anything that involves money has to have benefits that exceed the costs. I would be hard-pressed to make that claim for widening the A division tunnels and rebuilding the elevated structures to allow increased clearance.
Chuck (Native Noo Yawka)
When the IND came out did people have to pay a different fare to make transfers to the IRT and vise versa? And I haven't seen much history about the annexation of the two systems and the building of the free transfers when MTA took over.
There's a report published in the 1940s that describes how the IRT was a grand experiment and that New Yorkers will have to live with it, good and bad. It also mentions that all new work on the IRT will be built to the new standards designed for BMT from the lessons learned while building the IRT (except for platform edges, of course).
The one interchange not spoken so far is the money train. does it still run as often and how has the metro card changed its dynamics ?
An excellent source for questions such as this one is the book "Tracks of the New York City Subway" by Peter Dougherty. It's not just track plans; history, power systems, yards, subway cars, and more are covered in detail.
I bought my copy from www.nyctrackbook.com
The onlyl real track connections between PATH and NYCTA are via the NEC, Penn Stagion (or via CSX and Selkirk Yard, near Albany) and the LIRR. PATH equipment has been tested on the LIRR for speed capabiliity tests, and this was supposed to be kept secret. The movement was via Penn Station in both diriections. There is no usable track connection or even a usable tunnel for service now.
But one could be constructed.
The main problem with A-Division (IRT) NYCTA equipment on PATH is lenth and overhang on sharp curves. Plus signal system west of Journal Square.
My own dream is for large capacity 14th STreet Canarsie trains to run through to Journal Square, Newark, and Newark Airpot, and small capacity PATH trains running only to Journal Square, but the downtown line through routed with the 6. A 14th St. tunnel to NJ would be the most people per hour for new tunnel construction possible. A much better idea than extending the 7 to NJ.
alloboardI wonder if there are track connections from PATH to any of the NYC Subway lines.
I don't know of any physical connecting track. There have been proposals to connect the 6 train to PATH, which the Port Authority & I believe Parsons Brinckerhoff said was infeasible but others find possible within limits. Much, much more than track and CBTC compatibility would be needed to run PATH service over MTA, and horrific cans of worms open up if the opposite is tried...
Since we are on the general subject of subway options, this page might be interesting.
I wonder if there are track connections from PATH to any of the NYC Subway lines.
One thing I woiuld like to see is massive signal relocation (closer to walls, further from track, some relocation of piping and conduit, so PATH equipment could be accomodated on IRT lines. PATH equipment is slightly shorter than IRT equipment, but has a bulge at the belt rail, allowing wider aisles between longitudinal benches. IRT equipment could then be so constructed and increase capacity of the cars by 5 to 10%. And the PATH Wolrd Trade Center service could then be through routed with the 6.
alloboard but anything is possible.
I normally reply to that line, "EXCEPT MY GETTING PREGNANT".
By far the best and most economical way to increase capacity on New York City's existing subway lines is to go to cab-signalling ATC, which allows 90 or 100 second headways instead of 120 second headways on the newest of wayside signal installaions and as long as 180 seconds on older ones. The work on the 7 Flushing Line is underway, and has been completed on the 14th Street - Canarsie Line.
To convert the IRT lines to IND-BMT standards (they are identacle, and the earliest R1 IND cars were test-operated in revenue service on the BMT Sea Beach Line before opening the first "8th Avenue Subway."), we would be talking in today's terms of billionjs, not millions, of dollars, and huge city disruptions similar to those encountered in building the sugbways in the first place.
I should note that there is regular non-revenue operation of IRT passenger equipment on IN D-BMT lines, since all major repairs and overhauls are dpne at Coney Island Shops, and medium-repair work and upgrading is done at 207th Street for most of the fleet and at Coney Islan for the 7 line. The 7 is connected to the N by crossovers at Queensboro Plaza, and the 1 has a ramp to the IND 207th Street shops (A). The old main 149th and Lenox IRT shops (3) have been gone for almost 50 years. There is also a ramp to the IND`(D and B) Concourse yard from the 4, Jerome Avenue, if my memory is correct.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.