BusTalk

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

(SEE PREVIOUS POST)

Here is an excellent, detailed, "in depth" page on the Chambers Street station..............

www.columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/chambers.html

["BROADWAY SUBWAY"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

More on the "Steels".........

When these "Brooklyn Battleships" were being designed, the only "large scale" rapid transit cars then in operation were the new Cambridge cars in "Bah-ston", running on BERy rails.

The "Steels", I've read, featured a seating plan that was part rapid transit, part suburban commuter; the original cars even had window shades (and shaded bulbs), further keeping with the "suburban" nature of the outer neighborhoods then served by the "Bee-Are-Tee's" new subway lines.

The "Steels" also had the distinction of being the first subway cars in "Noo Yawk" to be equipped with recessed rooftop markers and roller curtains.

Too, unlike the earliest "INTERBOROUGH" rolling stock, the "Steels" utilized automatic doors, right from the start.

They were also the first cars to utilize the once-commonplace pantograph gates at each end, and were also the first to introduced cloth roller curtains to the New York subways.

Indeed, these "Battleships" were quite ahead of their time.

"Unsung Heroes Of The Underground:", for sure..........

"NYO"

["2000"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

Here are two interior views of a new "Steel" in 1915; note, in both photos, the suburban commuter car-style window shades and frosted globes covering the bulbs..............

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?114184

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?114185

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

["B.M.T. LINES"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

"Steels" trivia (from: SUBWAY CARS OF THE BMT", James Clifford Greller)...........

"...........the first 100 cars were numbered #2000-2099, and were all single units, equipped for double-ended operation. They were also equipped with cab signals* and speed control for the Sea Beach line, but this system was unsuccessful and traditional wayside signalling was adopted......."

*(recall, too, the PRR/H&M "Red McAdoos" and "K" cars, running on the "joint service" line to Newark, were equipped with cab signals)

"........beginning in August 1920, the 'ABs' were modified with a nine-point jumper cable, for full multiple unit door control, so that only one conductor was required to operate the doors........."

"........as these cars became more familiar with the traveling public and train crews, they became known by different names. They were known as 'Standards' and 'B-types', and also, 'Steels'..........."

"NYO"

["WEST END"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

Recall.............

The "Bee-Em-Tee", when compared to the staid, decidedly old-fashioned "Eye-Are-Tee", was, indeed, a flashy "playboy".

The BMT was the ONLY one of the "Noo Yawk" subway systems to run experimental trains, as well as run articulated equipment in regular service.

Look at the sleek and shiny "Zephyr", the bulbous, flashy "Green Hornet/Blimp", and the smart-looking, streamlined "Bluebird".

Despite its antiquated network of spindly El lines (carrying equally antiquated, creaking, wooden rolling stock) in Brooklyn, the "Bee-Em-Tee", was, in many ways, a "forward thinker".

And, of course, the "Eye-En-Dee", then indeed the "new kid on the block", could be best described as "tastefully utilitarian" (the IND indeed KNEW what it took to combine functionalism and attractive design, especially in regards to its spacious, modern stations)

But, ah, me.....that was all many generations ago..........

"NYO"

["1 CONEY ISLAND"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

"Gone too soon".............

Just as we've often lamented the premature retirements of the distinctive TDH-5106s (with their protruding front sign boxes) so should lament the premature passing of the "Bee-Em-Tee's" articulated "Multi-Section" units of the later 1930s.

These sinewy, sleek trains were retired in 1961, as the "Tee-Yay" was looking to divest itself of "non-standard" rolling stock (oddly, the older "Triplex" units remained in service until 1965)

The "Multis" were built by ST. LOUIS and PULLMAN.

These modernistic units were indeed "speedsters"; they simply LOVED to RUN! (in fact, signs were posted inside the cars, advising passengers to "HOLD ON")

These cars were also the first "production model" subway cars to have full-width cabs, which, of course, are now "the law of the land".

The "R-30s" were little more than 30 years old when they were retired, still fairly "young" for a subway car; the "Multis", on the other hand, were roughly only about 25 years old when they were sent to the scrapper's in late 1961...........

"NYO"

["PULLMAN"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

"A MULTItude of memories"...........

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?46932 ("new kid on the block")

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?46935 (interior view, 1936. The small fans recall those later used on the "R-10/12/14s")

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?144460 (E.105th Street grade crossing)

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?6736 (ERA fantrip at Coney Island, 1961)

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?52947 (this photo depicts a smiling, happy group of folks aboard what was obviously a circa-1961 fantrip at Chambers Street; note "PARK ROW" on the roller curtain)

*This photo depicts the interior of a restored "Q" car; awhile back, I recall reading in "NEW YORK SUBWAYS" (Sansone) that at least some of these fans were salvaged from the "Multis" when they were scrapped:

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?6869

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

["ST. LOUIS"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

Also..........

From Greller's "SUBWAY CARS OF THE BMT":

"......the ability to run with a one-man crew was not pursued with the Multi-Section units, but the metal work on the sides of the units, where the door for the mirror would be, seems to have provided for it. Perhaps this vestigial design remained when the cars were nearing production, to save additional costs........."

".......these units operated the Canarsie line until 1956, when again the IND Fulton service would cut into the stronger, Dual Contracts rebuilt portion of the elevated. The rest of the Fulton elevated was razed, thus rendering the old 'C' units surplus........"

".......the Multis were transferred to the Myrtle-Chambers run, and again served another former elevated line. Here were running the ancient 1300-series convertible 'BUs'; in 1958, these last gate cars were, in turn, replaced by 'Q' cars.......

".......the Multis made their last runs in September, 1961, looking as good as they day the first arrived. The lightweight units showed no wrinkles for all their years of served. Sadly, none were saved...........

"NYO"

["16 CANARSIE"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

"TWILIGHT" (CIY, 1958)

Note the "R-15" (signed for the #7) hunkering down between the "Multi" and the grizzled wooden El car..........

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?26297

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

["7013"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

"EAT YER HEART OUT, 'EYE-ARE-TEE'!"

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?47349

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?128002

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?75915

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

Seriously speaking, I was always a bit surprised that the "Eye-Are-Tee" never even experimented with articulation; as the the INTERBOROUGH tunnels are tight, and there are many sharp curves (like the "Tubes"), one might think articulated trainsets would been a good choice for the "Eye-Are-Tee".........

"NYO"

["57th ST. MANH'TN"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

"The 'parent' of the "Eye-En-Dee".............

In a sense, the BMT, IMHO, was indeed a strong influence on the IND.

Think about it.

Like the BMT, the IND's new rolling stock were, overall, of the same "heft" of the BMT's, instead of the shorter, narrower rolling stock that hallmarked the older IRT.

Too, As the BMT expanded, and more underground stations were opened, there was indeed a trend towards larger and more spacious stations, again, I feel, later influencing the IND.

As we have noted previously, the "Independent" was the epitome of a modern SUBWAY system.

There were no corporate ties to antiquated elevated lines, nor were there any associations with old-fashioned streetcars; here, indeed, for that time, the very zenith of modern subway design and operation had been reached, with the opening of the 8th Avenue line...........

"NYO"

["INDEPENDENT SUBWAY SYSTEM"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

Here are a few older views at platform level at De Kalb Avenue; if the old BMT-style mosaics were replaced with IND color bands, this station easily could have been one on the IND...............

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?5500

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?4607

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?4773

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

["BRIGHTON LOCAL"]

[W.B. Fishbowl]

[W.B. Fishbowl]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

W.B.:

Yet again, an EXCELLENT post; indeed, more like an engineering report than a "common" post.......thanks for sharing further historical data here.

The following is from Stan Fischler's "UPTOWN, DOWNTOWN".........

".......unlike the Victorian IRT, with its mosaics and 19th-century kiosks, or the BMT's melange of subways, els, and trolley cars, the IND represented the very acme of modern subway engineering......."

".......its bright, new stations, were, as a rule, long and spacious. Instead of mosaics, IND designers resorted to simpler, yet colorful tiles to spell out the station names. ......."

And, also, as we have already discussed, the BSS in Philadelphia is indeed a "kissin' cousin" to the "Eye-En-Dee" (albeit on a much smaller scale)

The station designs clearly reflected this...............

"NYO"

["8TH AVE. SUBWAY"]