Some Thoughts from an Old Timer

Hi Folks:

   I have not posted some pictures and maps for a long time because of both hard and software problems... therefore  I would like to apologize to you all.  Currently, I am running out of ideas to post and I do not know how long I can continue this blog.  Now I would like to give you some of my biased options about the current state of affairs of transit in the New York region.

1. Lack of Interesting New York City Subway Equipment.  Today, for both the IRT and IND-BMT divisions, in my humble opinion, the current equipment lack variety.    On the IRT subway lines, you basically have two types of equipment:  The R-62's and the R-142's, and newer R-188's.  There are two basic types and the newer equipment is similar to the R-142's which is similar to the R-160's on the BMT-IND Lines.  In the "B" division, you have the elderly R-32's which are interesting, R68's which are similar to R46's, some R-42's, and similar R143's and R-160s.  So generally speaking you have two major classes for the IRT and five on the BMT-IND, you have generally seven types of cars.  One person posted me and told me that unlike the old days, we have air conditioned cars and better signage.  This is true but system wide, there is only seven basic types.  I was told... well, in the old days, you had only three basic types:  On the IND, you had the R1-9 series, for the BMT, you had the BMT Standards and for the IRT, you had the Low-V's.  While this is somewhat true, let us pick a year and see what types of cars were around. Let us pick, the year that the Third Avenue El stopped running in Manhattan in 1955.  Generally, on the IRT, you had Low-V's  and there were some variants around.  You had the Steinways, you had old elevated equipment such as the Q types and other types.  You had the post war R-12  to R-15 types on the Flushing Line and I believe the R-17's. On the BMT, you had the BMT standards, some elevated equipment as the "C" types, you had the very different Triplexes. You had some borrowed SIRT equipment on the Culver Line.  Even the BMT standards had two classes as well with different types of roll signs and roofs.  What was interesting, is that you had some IND equipment on the BMT, such as  on the Fourth Avenue Line and you had some modified Low-V to run on the BMT around 1959.  On the IND, you had only two types, the R1-9's and the R-10's.  Some R1-9's had experimental features.  I believe the R-11 experimental cars were also around.  In short, passing and viewing a train yard was very interesting those years.  No one would mistake a Low-V interior for a BMT standard interior.  Today, the interior of IRT cars are similar to the cars on the Lettered Lines.  Yes, the current information systems on board the newer equipment is wonderful , but when the newer R160's style equipment gets old, and the same style would be copied in the future,  riding the subway would be very boring indeed because of lack of variety.  And if the equipment should be vandalized, the boring environment will not be a pleasant one, just as was in the 1970's on the IRT, where the R 17 to R -35? equipment looked alike.

Great Russian Transit Simulator: Autobus, Tram and Trolleybus

Hi Folks:

  I came across this video by accident.  I cannot make out the Russian title but it was posted in Polish which translates as a "Great Russian Simulator:  Bus, Tram and Trolleybus"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pJeLqjwM5pM


I did not see any trams in this segment and the sounds of the trolleybus is similar to the autobus.  During simulation, speed, acceleration and bending angle is measured, in Russian.  Very interesting.
More to follow..

Look at this, folks!

This picture comes from a Facebook account called "Trolleybus" which deals mainly with trolleybuses and some art work that is connected with them  This site is very interesting and posted this picture that I came across by accident.  According to the information presented , it is from the Italian City of Bologna and it is not a recent picture.  Some viewers call it a fake.  Is this vehicle connected with the maintenance of the trolleybus facilities or is it a general sanitation truck for the city of Bologna?    I do not know.  By the way, I do not know the status of the Los Angeles trolley truck demonstration.  Is it being built?  All that I can say to all you folks who do not believe in trolley trucks, ... wake up and smell the ... garbage.

Thanks, Tramway Null(0)

20 Light Rail Lines for New York City

Auto-free New York has been on the scene for many years promoting various rail friendly projects including light rail for 42nd Street in Manhattan.  According to their website, on January 20, 2015 they had a guest speaker that suggested that New York City can use twenty light rail routes.  The introductory paragraph on the matter is shown below:

 Paul Gawkowski, former MTA planner and our guest speaker in December, brought to the December 30 forum his list of twenty NYC bus lines that are best candidates for conversion to light rail. The list was of considerable interest to City Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez, as he is concerned with a five-borough approach to transit improvement. The challenge for the working group is to make the case that advancing vision42 will stimulate citywide interest in light rail lines for each of the five boroughs.

 

A member of the group has given me a list of these twenty routes and they are below:  Notice that City Councilman Y. Rodriquez is also interested in this list.  Remember that a few weeks ago, MTA officials stated that they are interested in light rail for New York City as a fast way, probably using unused rights of way of rapidly bringing rapid transit to underserved areas.  I saw this list for the first time a few hours ago and I will make the following comments.   A member told me that lines for Staten Island should have been included.  I am familiar mainly with Broooklyn and here are my comments:  The B-46 Utica Avenue route, B-44 Nostrand Avenue, b-35 Church Avenue, B-41 Flatbush Avenue streetcar routes were among the last trolley routes in Brooklyn and they lasted until 1951-1956.  These are heavily used routes. Perhaps they lasted so long because the carried the most passengers and were efficient.  Other routes such as the McDonald Avenue, Coney Island Avenue routes lasted almost to the end but were not included in the list.  Notice that the B-6 Avenue D route is way up there and it was never a streetcar route.  I remember seeing in an ERA Bulletin a piece that said that the New York Regional Plan recommends light rail for bus routes that meet a certain criteria of passenger use.   It also said that most Manhattan bus routes meet this criteria.  Sorry folks, I cannot give you a reference.

 

More to follow on this interesting topic in the future.

http://vision42.archpaper.com/

 

 

  

Transit Fantasy: Kronos (1957) Meets the Church Avenue Trolley

 

 

These series of pictures were part of an Powerpoint presentation that I experimented with many years ago.  Of course, in Blogger, I cannot post a Powerpoint file so you will see a series of JPEG files.

 

The main background here is a great picture from the Frank Pfuhler collection taken from Dave's Rail Pix.  It shows a Church Avenue trolley (PCC # 1050) running eastbound on Church Avenue near East 18th Street near the BMT Brighton Line Church Avenue station.  The view is towards the south west during a snow storm.  On the antique street lamp is an advertisement  for a great film "I'll Cry Tomorrow" that tells the story of Lillian Roth.  I believe the year is 1955-56.  Kronos was a science fiction film that was released in 1957, so in reality, Kronos would not have ever meet the Church Avenue Trolley because it was released one year later.  I was a small child when Kronos came out and the "monster" or "alien", or whatever you will call it, was a ET that grew larger as it absorbed energy.  It had two poles at it's top that could, in my fantasy, be connected to any set of trolleybus wires.  Of course, on Church Avenue, you had a simple standard streetcar wire network. so we can say, the Kronos did not have a return for the positive current as shown below.  In this series, Kronos "takes a walk" on Church Avenue, looking at the "I'll Cry Tomorrow" advertisement, slips in the snow and goes west on Church Avenue.  It ends up on the Third Avenue El (demolished a year earlier) and makes a cameo visit to the Ninth Avenue Lower station on the Culver Line.  By the way, Kronos, as it grew bigger, became bigger than a 100 story building.  I incorporated it also in New York City skyline as well.  I remember when our beloved "World Trade Center" was being built,  in some respects, the World Trade Center had some characteristics with  Kronos.  They were both over 100 stories tall, were a large rectangular solid that was metallic and shiny and had a tall pole on the top.  The World Trade Center also had two "skylobbies" where there was a cafeteria and was the exchange for local and express elevators.  The windows at the skylobbies were slightly different compared to the other floors and it is ironic that "Kronos" also had two or three sections with a pole(s) on top that had a red light that glowed.



Trolleys for the Bronx? Thonx!

Hi Folks:


http://www.welcome2thebronx.com/wordpress/2015/01/05/can-streetcars-make-a-comeback-in-the-bronx-nyc/

 Please look at this trolley proposal for the Bronx.  Interesting material here.  Will discuss in a few days.  Very interesting.  The area shown is the general area where the 3rd Avenue El was abandoned in 1973.  Will discuss hopefully in the future.  Also discusses the 167nd Street- Concourse trolley station.  Enjoy!

Montreal Also to get Trolleybuses by 2017?

This link was posted by WillD of subchat this week dealing with Montreal's 100% Electric Future.
Thank you WillD so much.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aKx-WrdfzJY#t=0

Montreal's all-electric future

Posted by WillD on Thu Jan 1 08:58:53 2015 STM appears to be serious about electric surface transportation. Since New York City may bet some of its electric from Canada, why not New York?