BusTalk

[W.B. Fishbowl]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

W.B.:

As the "Moit" was closed down only several years later (1969) one wonders why the "Tee-Yay" even bothered to install new "toid rail"?

I still wonder about the "Moit" being retained with new lightweight cars; I had heard awhile ago that these cars would have been more compact versions of the "R-38s" (aka "Brightliner Wannabes") and designated "R-39".

As far as the Culver Shuttle, I think its fate was sealed when through service to Manhattan was abolished.

From photos I have seen, the Shuttle was even more decrepit than the "Es-Eye-Are-Tee" at that time.

That it survived until '75, in such a run-down state is still a bit of a mystery.

Also, when the Shuttle closed, free transfers were issued for the "B-35" buses which ran along 39th Street.

By this time, of course, only Fishbowls and "Dangerfields" made up the "Em-Tee-Yay's" bus fleet............

"NYO"

["BRIDGE-JAY"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

W.B.:

"Toid rail" on da "Moit" (1940's/1960s)...............

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?113320

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?113321

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?6865

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?141806

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?39309

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

["MJ"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

Wykoff Avenue, 2002.

The sleek lines of the "Are-Tee-Es" down below contrast sharply with the ancient "Bee-Em-Tee" tower up on "da El".......

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?1410

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

["Rapid Transit Series"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

Early "toid rail" at the cavernous, ever-expanding Park Row terminal (c.1900s); note how "spindly" the "toid rails" appear in comparison the the heavier, more hefty "subway" type that would later "rule the rails"...........

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?116198

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

["PARK ROW"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

Myrtle Avenue, 2011.

The pay phone glimpsed at far left of the photo indeed dates this scene as much as the "Are-Tee-Es" seen running beneath the silent, sinewy, steel remains of the old "Moitle Aven-uh" El...............

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?144497

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

["MTA"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

While on the subject of different types of third rail, note caption of photo showing gate car #479 (second from top).................

https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Chapter_1,_The_Elevated_Lines

["479"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Now, we have often discussed how the "Eye-En-Dee" hallmarked the epitome of modern subway construction in "Noo Yawk".................

Recall, now, that, in Philadelphia, the nothern half of the "Bee-Es-Es" (BSS) opened between City Hall and Olney in 1928.

This was four years before the "Eye-En-Dee's" 8th Avenue line opened.

So, now, we have to think.......MIGHT have at least SOME aspect of the "Eye-En-Dee" been influenced by Philly's new subway, at least regarding station designs?

Just thinking........

"NYO"

["CITY HALL"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

Here's a few random "BSS" photos; I can certainly see "Noo Yawk" stations here (unlike the "Eye-En-Dee", note no wall frames for ad posters)

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?62489

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?17026

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?143934

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?139320

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?143940

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

["INDEPENDENT SUBWAY SYSTEM"]

[W.B. Fishbowl]

In the "color band" tile schemes and streamlined look (i.e. no elaborate mosaics), "fer shurr"; don't know about the other parts. Philly's subway certainly drew from "Noo Yawk" with respect to car widths and the way the tunnels were designed and built, however. (We know two entities adopted the "Bee-Em-Tee's" various specs for their own use: "Ess-Eye-Are-Tee" and "Eye-En-Dee.") I have seen various articles in Engineering News-Record and Electric Railway Journal from the 1927-29 period about the "Bee-Ess-Ess." Their "Brill-boas" had to have been an influence for the "Eye-En-Dee's" "Arnines," though.

Remember, also, it was around 1928 that contract drawings for the Eighth Avenue terminus of the 14th Street line - which, like the two stations of the Nassau Street line (Fulton Street and Broad Street), in their tile work, were originally finished proto-"Eye-En-Dee" style - were made per:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433057747630&seq=15

after "Bee-Ess-Ess' " first leg opened.

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

W.B.:

Just imagine if The "Eye-En-Dee" also rostered those fearsome, Art-Deco "Rocketeers" that ran on "Bee-Es-Es" rails until the early 1980s (imagine these flashy behemoths rocketing along on the "A"?)

Now, look at the "Aitch & Em's" 33rd St. terminal, which opened in 1940, the same year that the "Eye-En-Dee's" 6th Avenue line opened.

Though the "tubes" were indeed "kissin' cousins" to the "Eye-Are-Tee" (especially rolling stock wise), the new 33rd Street terminal indeed echoed the "Eye-En-Dee".

Interesting, also, to think of what new "Bee-Em-Tee" stations would have looked like, had their been further expansion (I'm wagering "Eye-En-Dee" influence would have been pretty prominent).

In Philly, the Market-Frankford El's original (BRILL) rolling stock easily recalled the "Lo-Vs", in both overall styling and dimension.

And I still maintain that the original "Bee-Es-Es" rolling stock had "family ties" with the "Standards" (aka "Brooklyn Battleships")

Both types were big, brawny, hefty, and of a functional, no-nonsense design that was also attractive............

"NYO"

["CANARSIE L'C'L"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

BMT/BSS rolling stock comparions............

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?17090

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?26222

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

["PRESSED STEEL"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

BMT/BSS interior comparisons...........

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?70178

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?70159

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?6452

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?6426

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?128526

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

["DITMAS AVE"]

[W.B. Fishbowl]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

W.B.:

Greatly appreciate the "in depth" low-down on the platform speqs, measurements, etc.....talk about the REAL "nitty gritty"!

Recall that the "Aitch & Em" opened in 1908 (uptown tubes), four years after the first section of the "INTERBOROUGH" opened.

I often wonder, had the "tubes" gotten off the drawing board about the time the "Bee-Are-Tee" was planning its first subway, would the "tubes" been built to larger dimensions, which would have, of course, led to the building of rolling stock that would have been more-or-less that of the "Standards"?

Too, look at the "El-Eye-Double-Are's" first MU's, the MP-54s; these cars, as we both know, were virtually identical to the early "INTERBOROUGH" cars, with the exception of their vestibule traps and large headlights.

In just a few years, however, the MP-41 design was replaced by the larger, more commodius "MP-54s", the last of which ran until the early 1970s (recall, also, that the PRR was the LIRR's parent, back in those days)..............

"NYO"

["INTERBOROUGH"]