Dear Visitors:

Please scroll down the page to see present and archive blogs.

Thank you very much: Tramway Null(0)

Webrings - Maps - Trolleys and More

Navigation by WebRing.

Thursday, January 5, 2017

Elevation Near the New Second Avenue Subway

  In the map below, I brought in an old typographical map and some elevation contour lines for the east side of Manhattan.  I was able to bring in the Lexington Avenue subway map but unfortunately, I was not able to locate a new shapefile dealing with the the Second Avenue Line that opened a few days ago.  Second Avenue is two blocks east of the Lexington Avenue Line (shown in green).  Notice the change of elevation along Second Avenue in Manhattan.  At particular locations, the Second Avenue El had to be built higher to avoid all these dips.  When I locate a new subway shapefile, I'll add it.   The old typographical map is interesting.




Sunday, January 1, 2017

Second Avenue Subway Opened 12 minutes Ago


https://youtu.be/5lN7iyWWziI?t=89

 As type this, at 12:12 pm New York time, the Second Avenue subway probably went into revenue service twelve minutes ago.  I am at home but I could not go to the opening.  In an interesting subchat posting "BMT Invades the Upper East Side", there is much truth in that statement.  The new Second Avenue subway is an extension of the Broadway - 7th Avenue BMT subway as far as present service is concerned because the Q train runs along the BMT lines from Coney Island to 57th Street and 7th Avenue.  In early subway history, and I will not quote references which I do not have presently but some may have been posted here years ago, the future plans for subway extensions was very different at the beginning of the 20th Century.  At the earlier stages, the IRT subway the opened in 1904 and extended to Brooklyn in 1908 may have be planned to go to Bay Ridge via Fourth Avenue.  The lower level at Atlantic Avenue was built with a track perhaps pointing to the Manhattan Bridge.  Who knows, if these plans may have been carried out, our traditional BMT lines, including the Culver, Sea Beach, West End and Fourth Avenue lines may have been part of the IRT network with branches to the upper Bronx!  In Manhattan, in planning service to upper Manhattan and perhaps the Bronx, the BMT subway at 57th Street was supposed to be extended to upper Manhattan as the BMT subway.  Everything above 59th Street in Manhattan could be considered as IND or IRT territory and now this changes.  Other changes of stripes occurred in Brooklyn.  The traditional BMT Culver subway line from Ditmas Avenue south became the IND D train in 1954.  The BMT City Line Elevated Line east of Grant Avenue became the IND Fulton Street Line in 1956.  The Dyer Avenue IRT line was originally part of a Westchester based private railroad.  In the late 1960's according to the Regional Plan, if the Second Avenue was extended to the Bronx, it would have "captured" the IRT Pelham Bay Park Line.  That line would have been modified to Dual Contract standards including provisions to use BMT-IND wider equipment.

Let us wish the Second Avenue Subway success and that the users will have many benefits from it.  It is really a "stubway" but something is better than nothing.  I guess that "Hell really froze over" today at 12 noon.

According to subchat, as of today, January 2, 2017, the new Second Avenue subway is beginning to experience "congestion" in turning trains around at the 96th Street station.  If appears that the turn around time involving signals and crossovers in greater than the regular schedule of trains.  It was suggested that since the tunnel goes north to 99th Street, there should have been a crossover north of the station as well.  Let us see what happens Tuesday morning which is a regular work day.  It was also suggested by some that the users of the new subway will not be Lexington Avenue Line users in the area but unhappy bus riders who need to get to their destination fast.  Do not forget that a GM fishbowl will solve all our transit woes.  Just joking.  Let us  see what happens regarding congestion; perhaps the signals and schedules need to be modified

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Problem Solved: Can you patch this up?


  Several post ago I mentioned about that mysterious line in the altitude map of western Brooklyn to Coney Island.  From the info below, it seems that the altitude information comes from photographs that were patched together.  Look, it is better than nothing!  The map below was produced with ARCGIS and the earlier maps were produced by QGIS.  I assume that this aerial map source as used to derive surface elevation because the seams happen to be in the right places as described before.


he National High Altitude Photography (NHAP)
program was coordinated by the USGS as an interagency project to acquire
cloud-free aerial photographs at an altitude of 40,000 feet above mean terrain
elevation. Two different camera systems were used to obtain simultaneous
coverage of black-and-white (BW) and color infrared (CIR) aerial photographs
over the conterminous United States. The color-infrared photographs were taken
with an 8.25-inch focal length lens and are at a scale of 1:58,000. The
black-and-white photographs were taken with a 6-inch focal length lens and are
at a scale of 1:80,000. The NHAP program, which was operational from 1980 to
1989, consists of approximately 500,000 images. Photographs were acquired on
9-inch film and centered over USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles.

In the first map below, the second map below was georeferenced using ARCGIS.  I did not do a very good job of it and you can see that the transit lines are ghosted. At any rate, once the map is geo referenced, you can bring in any data layer.  I brought in the altitude contour line (vector file) in pink and you can see the abnormality follows the aerial photograph's seam line in about the same position that we mentioned before.




  From National High Altitude Photography data with subway shapefiles added.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Second Avenue Subway is Getting Ready



In this photo  from the New York Times by Karsten Moran, (for the NY Times),  the new Second Avenue Subway is shown south of the 96th Street station showing the track crossover.  Looks cool, but will it open on time on New Years 2017?


Thursday, December 8, 2016

Did Your Transit System go through a "Brutal" Stage?

  Many complex systems, living and non-living, can be viewed as going through various stages.  This can also be applied to nations, organizations and so much more.  Thus a system could be viewed as being  at a new born state, going through a childhood, leading to maturity, adulthood, middle age and old age.  Can the same viewpoint be applied to your transit system or a particular line?  In my unscientific, not researched view, I believe that the New York City Transit System ( bus and subway ) went through such a stage roughly from 1963 to the late 1980's.   We are not assured that a system cannot revert to such a stage again.   What is a brutal stage? Is it a stage of economic loss,  grafitti covering everything and no hope?  This may be part of it.   During this period at least for the New York Transit System, some extensions took place (Crystie Street, Sixth Avenue, Essex - Lafayette) and so on, but many lines were abandoned: ( 3rd Avenue El in the Bronx, the Myrtle Avenue El in Brooklyn, The Bowling Green Shuttle on the IRT, the east end of the BMT Jamaica Line, the Culver Shuttle and so on ).  One aspect of Brutalization would be dealing with the passenger comfort environment.  I noticed that from the 50's on, the use of windows on buses and subways in New York City decreased.  Windowed wind screens, made of wood and glass, were a fixture of many older elevated stations.  When these wind screens became shabby, they were replaced by ugly sheets of metal.  Windows on the IND Prospect Park Line viaduct (Smith-9th Street and 4th Avenue) were cinder blocked up.  Any light coming into the subway (Fourth Avenue Line) was blocked up by making ventilation grates narrower.  Standee windows, on buses, were eliminated and comfortable seats near windows were eliminated.  In the picture below, taken from NYCsubway.org , a GM Fishbowl bus with advertising panels is resting at the end of the subway system at Stillwell Avenue - Coney Island in Brooklyn in the 1970's.   A  marked West End train is above (R27-30 ?) and the Coney Island gas tank is towards the left hand side of the photo above the West End subway train.


The bus below, with lighted advertising panels, with the J&B Liquer ad was an iconic bus during the years around 1964 - 1980's, specially in Manhattan.   It was nice to look at but the advertising panels hid the view of standees in the fishbowl.  The seating was not so comfortable as well.  The top photo comes from bus.nycsubway.org and  is from the Richard Panse collection from 2008.  This was taken at the 2008 Bus Rodeo at Floyd Bennett Field.  The bus is a fish bowl with standee windows and a interesting seating arrangement.  I believe the red seats in the back on near the windows.  Buses similar to this in the 1960's to 1970's in New York had a U shape seating configuration with no seats near the window accept the last two at the back left and right windows.  If the bus had advertising panels like the one below, the standee windows were gone.  Let me see, no air conditioning,  hard to see where you are going if you are standing because nothing is visible at eye level, no seats near windows, hard seats, diesel oil smell... what a good transit experience!  If you sat in the back going over a broken street at a hill in the Bronx, you had a bumpy ride and you may hit the ceiling!  Now that is brutal transit.

To be continued....

My other examples of "Brutualization":


  1. Not using destination signs in the front cap of trains.  When the R-32 and R-38 cars were rebuilt in the 1980's, the former front destination sign areas were covered over and replaced with a early digital LED  single number or letter fixture.  Older equipment simply had the front destination window covered over.
  2. Not using the lighted destination indicators on the side of trains.  As things got bad in the late 1960' and on, cars that had lighted destination sign indicators, which lighted the destination, were simply not used.  The bulbs were not replaced and such cars, such as rhe R-10's that had green lighted signs, and other car types, such as the R1-9's, R-16's to the R-38's, simply did not work anymore.  Was this a union issue or perhaps the bulbs were very hard to replace.  Rebuilt equipment, such as the R-32's that run today have side destination curtains but are not back lighted.  Incidentally, the dot matrix signs are wonderful, but if you need to the know the destination, such as Church Avenue or Coney Island in the PM rush on the F trains, you need the dot matrix sign to recycle for some time until you get to see the destination.
  3. Reduction of glass areas in the cars.  The R-16 to R-38 cars started to have less window areas.  Particularly the R-44 or R-46 cars at the end of the cars.  Why?  If you look at some of the older type of equipment, such as the BMT Standard B types, and the R 1-9 class, even the door pockets had windows.
  4. I know that many railfans are devoted to the BMT and IRT "Red Bird Class", which covered various equipment types from the R-16 to to the R-30.  I found these cars very hot in the summer and as a young railfan of less then ten years old, you could not see the tracks from the high windows.  The view from the Low V's, BMT Standard Cars, IND R-1 to R-9's were much better.
In the photo below, taken from the NYCsubway.org website, a Joe Testagrose photo taken on 2/12/1978 shows a marked up "B" train of R-38 cars at the Bay 50th Street Station on West End Line.  Notice that the route indicator "B" is in the right window where the destination sign formerly was located.  Notice the blank left window above the doorway.  By this time, the side destination signs no longer light up.





This is my opinion folks.
Tramway Null(0)





Thursday, December 1, 2016

December 3 is the 60th Anniversary of the Luckenbach Steamship Disaster





  It has been sixty years since that disaster, at 3:15 pm on December 3, 1956.  It is interesting that around December 12, 2016, there will be community planning meetings dealing with the route of the proposed Brooklyn - Queens connector streetcar.  Various streets are considered, including Second or Third Avenues which is close to the former site of the disaster at the waterfront and 35th Street.  One map shows the line going down 39th Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues.  This area is rich in transit history and was near the former route of the Church Avenue trolley at 39th Street and Second Avenue, four street blocks away from the former explosion site.

P.S.   A few days ago there was a public hearing in Sunset Park dealing with the proposed light rail line shown below.  The residents of Sunset Park do not want it at all on any street because of many reasons. It is true that the Fourth Avenue subway is one block away from one of the proposed routes.  Perhaps the line can terminate before it reaches Sunset Park.  The citizens of Downtown Brooklyn are  also not thrilled about it as well. In MHO, streetcar proposals should stress passenger comfort and efficiency and not neighborhood development of fancy areas. Perhaps that many crowded bus lines that feed into the subway rail heads in Queens such as 179th Street can be converted to PRW Light Rail because of efficiency and comfort.  These light rail lines should feed into the 179th Street terminal for across the platform transfer to the IND subway.


Map from Sunset Park Patch:

  You can see the general location of the disaster on the map.  35th Street and the waterfront.  The map shows possible routes for the Brooklyn-Queens streetcar.


The picture below comes from the organization that is sponsoring the streetcar connector.

The picture shown here is near 35th Street and 3rd Avenue, about three avenue blocks away from the former disaster site.  Notice the highway structure.  An eyewitness who had a store near 40th Street and 3rd Avenue in 1956 told me that as a result of the explosion, a piece of the highway fell on the head of a young kid  near 40th Street and 3rd Avenue on that day and the kid passed away.  There were many fatalities in the area, especially on the waterfront.


Friday, November 18, 2016

532 Neptune Avenue and the Culver El

The above photo was taken from YIMBY, a New York  real estate website.   The source is S9 Architecture.   If completed, this 40 story tower will be the tallest residential tower in the southern part of Brooklyn near the Atlantic Ocean.  I posted this story before, but what is interesting for rapid transit fans is the rendering of the Culver El in the foreground.   Although built during the "Dual Contracts" period of around 1919-20, this section of elevated structure is not similar to other el structures built during this time and along the same line, but consisted of parts supposedly from the reconstruction of the Fulton Street Elevated Line in another part of Brooklyn.  So we may say that old meets new in this picture.  This is near the Neptune Avenue stop on the "F", Culver El.   This area is so very rich in rapid transit history.

This picture is so cool.

Tramway Null(0)