The Platform Extensions of the IRT
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ค. 2022
- We are all aware that the NYC Subway's mainline IRT Lines run 10-car trains, but this wasn't always the case. The platforms that support these 500+ foot long trains, were not as long as they are today, and in this video, we will be exploring the history of the IRT's platform extensions.
My Gaming Channel: / mysticzeenoz
Join My Discord Server: / discord
Follow Me On Instagram: / mystictransit
My Twitter: / realzeenoz
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @mystictransit
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/mystictransit...
Credit to Spicy for my Channel Banner
I make cool Transportation Videos, mostly revolving around Railfanning/Trainspotting, Station Tours, and Informational-Type videos. This is an overall chill channel, so if you like Transportation, Consider Subscribing!
#IRT #NYCSubway #MTA - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Playoffs Day 1 // GEN vs RRQ | TLN vs TS](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JhkzKOhvOps/mqdefault.jpg)
The dumbest platform extension was Bleecker St. As with several of the other extensions, the uptown platform was built to the north and the downtown to the south creating a transfer to the IND Broadway-Lafayette station. As a result, the subway map had to show two separate Bleecker St. stops; downtown with the transfer and uptown without. This was finally corrected about 10-odd years ago and the transfer is now available in both directions.
Between 14th St and Brooklyn Bridge, with the exception of Canal St, all the rest of the local stops (Spring St, Bleecker St, and Astor Pl) were constructed off ways during the time it was first made, which is why those three stations are constructed that way.
The reason for that is the southbound platforms were extended first, in the late 1940s. The northbound platforms weren't extended until the late 1950s and early 1960s. The extensions created offset stations.
mainly because of how they did Astor Pl. Which only worked well for Astor Pl.
The correction involved extending the northbound platform at its south end to match the southbound platform and allow a connection to the IND mezzanine and free transfer to the B/D/F/M lines.
NYC was already over 200 years old before ground was broken for the Contract-1 subway. At one moment of sobriety, miniature horse were planned for the motive force. Great Vid.
Actually, the original IND stations (8th Ave, 6th Ave, South Brooklyn/Culver, QBL to Roosevelt, Fulton to Bway Junction lines) were built even longer than the 600 ft standard. Some can fit an 11-car long IND train. However, those trains never run and the later IND stations (east QBL, east Fulton) were built only 600 ft long.
I love these videos they’re very informational (also congrats on 10k mystic!)
Thanks, and I'm glad you're enjoying the videos!
Congrats
The current 7 line used to be IND, and the N (R) used to be IRT. They swapped in the forties(?). The current 7 used to have a four track run in Queens. You cant see it now, (demolished) but the Astoria elevated stations were built "ginger bread" style like old Third Ave. El stations.
id love to see photos of this 4 track 7 train line
After I saw this video, I started looking for points on IRT stations where platforms were expanded (mostly on my hometown 1 line). I've seen them on 168th, 157th, 86th, 79th, 50th, and 28th
Flushing Line was upgraded to 11 cars by 1963 and the full IRT main line (Broadway-7th Avenue and Lexington, plus Brooklyn) was completed in 1965. The R36 MLs, being the last of the postwar IRT SMEE fleet (1948-1965) did not replace any prewar equipment (all gone by February 1964 except the Third Avenue El), but served as the fleet addition, allowing added capacity for 10-car operation.
The design on the postwar IRT station extensions (also used at Grand Street and IND 57th) is a variant of the postwar IND style by the Board of Transportation (NYCBOT) that debuted on the Euclid extension in 1948. The lower (express) platform at 59th-Lexington that opened in late 1962 was the same design.
It is amazing how the IRT lines and some BMT lines appear to have more longer but slimmer platforms in their underground stations while we have stops like Fordham road and 145 on the IND line and Utica Avenue and Nostrand Avenue on the A line in which the actual platforms themselves are very wide. And most of the mezzanines on these lines are very huge if their platforms aren’t so wide. Meanwhile, the IRT and BMT lines are more narrow in platforms and mezzanines for example, Sutter Avenue on the L is WAY too skinny and the stairways are very narrow. I don’t feel 100% safe on that platform.
Very interesting and informative video.
A little off topic: I would like to know your opinion on the Livonia Avenue L Station with its new overhead platform please. I don’t know If it’s video worthy or not 🤷🏽♂️ lol
@@blaazer9473 it’s actually been 2 months since I was at one of those stations. Most likely Cortelyou. Yeah that’s pretty skinny but nah not like Sutter lol I think the only difference is Cortelyou has poles while Sutter doesn’t lol
The IRT and BMT were built much earlier than the IND was. The City of New York purposely built the IND with huge mezzanines to allow for future expansion. BTW, Nostrand Avenue on the A and C was originally supposed to be a local station. When plans were changed to make it an express stop, it was decided to ramp the express tracks to an upper level station platform, and wall off what would've been the express trackways. It's the only two level express stop where the express platforms are on the upper level, and the local platforms are on the lower level.
@@pbatommy that makes sense, my mom told me that the IND trains were considered the “Cadillac” trains since they were built a little bigger with more space.
The elevator is needed but it only offers full accessibility on one side of the station. The other side still has to be accessible via a bridge and a lot of steps.
Congrats on 10K dude! Been here since 1K, and the content has been incredible, keep up the good work!
I really appreciate you doing this specific topic. Very fascinating 👍🏽👍🏽
Great video and very informative.. I’m learning so much with your channel and I’m very grateful for everything you do
Thank you
The 7 line definitely runs 11 cars for capacity. When "redbirds" ruled the line in the summer they would remove one car because it didn't have AC. They even experimented with 8 in the summer on weekends. That was a disaster and didn't last long.
Apparently a group of conquesters beat up an elderly conductor and took their keys. The conquesters were so weak they had to beat up an elderly person just to conquest. I hope the elderly conductor gets better.
cool video and cool info of the subway ststions and congrats on you 10k and have more videos to come
Happy 10k subs!!! 🎉
I just realized that I was there for all of the clips taken by you here. And this is the 4th time I'm watching
Great history. I love this channel
Great wealth of knowledge and drop off some history on the First platform extensions NYC transit
6:21 - [train-spotting] Rail-car 1976, the bicentennial car.
Well done!!
congrats on 10k and awesome vid
That is great history that I should have known a long time ago. I have seen many stations on the A-Division with extended platforms.
on 103rd Street it still has the 8 car S
Great video. And I am one of your 10k subscribers!
Given that the flushing line was joint operated even years after the dissolution of the IRT/BMT may be a hint to why the 7 got 11 cars.
As another commenter mentioned the extensions was approved in 1949, 9 years after the creation of the unified system and decades before the worlds fair. Perhaps it was kept in case of future conversion to IND operation (a 10 car IRT set would be shorter than a 10 cart bmt/ind set).
Given all the second system plans at the time and the fact that all IRT dual contract lines were designed to eventually be able to be used by the bmt/IND in the future, it’s not that far-fetched.
yeah I like this video too and learned a couple of things I did not know. However, I think it also skirts the point that some stations are impossible to upgrade for higher capacity... But I guess we can look forward to more reduction of pop.
If I remember correctly because I haven't been on the Lex. the lower level of the 4-5 was added in the 60's.
6:12 - Most subways have the trains running in opposite directions on train-tracks side-by-side, on the same level. This station has train-tracks on two levels? - Downtown trains, down-below the trains uptown, one level above. (up/down -- kinda makes sense) :D
The 7 Super Express has 12 car trains (Not sure if now), which will make them 612 feet long, this being the longest train consist.
Besides the C and G lines, the other following route lines should start having ten cars: J, L, M, and Z.
The platforms on most of the BMT Eastern Division (the J, L, and M) cannot fit 10 car trains. They can only fit 8 car trains. The only 3 stops that could fit 10 car trains were Fulton and Broad Streets on the J, and 8th Avenue on the L, since, as built, they were built to IND dimensions, and had IND tilework.
I think I have theory why the 7 train is 11 cars long. It was extended too 11 cars because of the 1964-65 worlds fair and a lot of people would need to be transported in and from Manhattan to the fair from subway.
Yeah, it might have been extended due to the Fair itself, but why keep it 11 cars after that?
Well supposedly the 7 train was gonna be a BMT/IND Line.
@@lgaalt6380 true
@@lgaalt6380 would this mean that the Flushing line would have been converted to IND/BMT specifications?
Interestingly, it looks like B division trains can be stored on the Flushing Line express tracks, but only west of Woodside.
@@KingofGamingAndTrains456 right
A new 79th Street Station would be added on the BMT 2nd Avenue Line, along with a 91st Street Station. There would also be a Central Park West Station on the [2], [3], & [13] trains, with a transfer to the [B], [C], & [K] trains. New 91st Street & 66th Street Stations on the IND Central Park West Line would also be added, along with 96th Street becoming an express station. The abandoned 91st Street, 18th Street, City Hall, & South Ferry Loop stations would all be reopened to their former glory. The 91st Street Station platforms would be extended north & south, while the 96th Street Station platforms would be extended north. The 18th Street Station platforms would be extended north & south. The City Hall Platform would be extended in both directions & connected to the Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall Station. All South Ferry Loop platforms would be reopened to make way for shuttle service & terminating (1) trains. The Brooklyn-bound trains would use the new platform.
Can u pls do a video on the 8 Av derailment at 14 St?
Just to add that bmt along 4 ave , broadway line you can tell some area that have platfor extension. Most station still show it because of drop celieng .
Even though you are talking about IRT
Nice vid I like it
Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed the video!
5:37 I thought that was an R142 for a second lol.
Interesting.
Sometimes the c might need 2 more cars since the c also uses r46s as of now
What happened to the red strip on 7805 😭 @ 1:21
I propose the BMT Second Avenue Subway phase 2 to have a 103rd Street, 110th Street, 116th Street, & 125th Street stations. The new BMT 125th Street Line would be separate.
The 7 was extended to 11 car trains in the 1950s. This was well before the World's Fair. Also, platforms on the original Contract 1 stations were done in the late 1940s on the lower Lexington Avenue line between Grand Central and Union Square, the upper end of the 1 line north of 96th Street, the West Farms line (today's 2 and 5 south of E. 180th Street), and the southbound platforms on the lower Lexington Avenue line south of Union Square. The northbound stations on that segment were extended later in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Due to the differences in when platforms were extended, the platforms at Astor Place and Spring Street were offset. Until recently, with the construction of the transfer to the uptown 6 from the IND at Broadway-Lafayette/Bleecker Street, the Bleecker Street station had offset platforms as well.
7 was extended to its max length of 11 car trains in 1963-64 when the R-33/R-36 WF cars were introduced, just before the 1964-65 NYC World Fair.
@@robroy6374 the motorman who broke me in on the 7 had 35 years seniority in 1984. I asked him when did the 7 go to 11 cars, and he told me they extended the platforms to 11 cars about 1955, when he first was able to pick the 7. They sent about 100 R17s there to run the 11 car trains initially. They often ran mixed with R15 cars. The older R12/R14 cars were kept together. That guy was great to learn from.
@@pbatommy that's false. when the R-12/14/15 cars ran on the #7 line in the 1950s, the max length was 9 cars.
@@robroy6374 wrong! The platforms were extended much earlier, but 9 cars was the maximum length due to car shortages, until the R17s arrived.. Here's some information I discovered about the 7 line platform :
During the joint service period, the elevated stations on the Astoria and Flushing Lines were only able to fit nine 51-foot-long BMT elevated or IRT cars, the rough equivalent of seven 67-foot-long BMT subway cars. After the BMT/IRT dual services ended in 1949, the New York City Board of Transportation announced that the Flushing Line platforms would be lengthened to 11 IRT car lengths, and the Astoria Line platforms extended to 9 BMT car lengths. The project, to start in 1950, would cost $3.85 million.[88]
@@pbatommy false. Flushing Line platforms were lengthened to approx. 570 ft (an 11 car #7 train is 561 ft) in 1962-63. before 1962-63, Flushing Line platforms were the max length of approximately 480 feet, so a 9 car (of the 51 ft SMEE IRT cars) 7 train length was 459 feet.
0:04 - While IRT was the first 'subway', however were there electric transit trains built over avenues and street in other places in New York City?
Yes keep it coming
Nice, where do you get all the information from
Why aren’t you on schedule did something disturb you or are you sick
I’m Early, Nice!
I heard that they tried 11 car E and F trains in the past
I wanna see C Train go to queens tbh like the A
there is an IRT station the platform can only fit 5 cars. This is 145th street
They need to fix the Spring Street and Astor place stations (6 line), so that they line up with each other.
The 42 St port authority station is off too.
I kind of like the off set platforms and it’s a quirk that makes the Lexington - Park Ave line has and I personally wouldn’t change it for anything!
yo #7705 got different door motors i swear
So the IRT took away the 18th street station on the 6 line for being too close to 23rd and 14th… but they KEPT the 18th street station on the 1 line?!?!?
Yeah that is strange, however as someone who may have to ride on that line in case the 4 and 5 express aren’t running, I would be glad that there is no 18th Street Station since I usually always in a hurry to get to grand central lol.
That station was too close to 23rd on the Lexington Avenue Line due to the platform lengthening at that station, with the 22nd Street station entrances 4 blocks away and too close to 14th Street-Union Square's downtown platform.
In contrast, the 18th Street station on the Broadway-7th Avenue Line was placed at a considerable distance from the 14th Street and 23rd Street station to the point where local trains can get some speed in before entering either station. I would love to also see this station closed as well, but this could be long term.
@@TheRailLeaguer I’d leave the 18th St Station along the 7th Ave line alone. There’s no real reason to close it. If the 18th St Station along Park Ave can be reopened, great, but between Union Sq and Grand Central, you already have three local stations between and there’s no real necessity in renovating and reopening 18th St except for nostalgia.
@@wanderer34 I don’t intend for short term closure of the Broadway-7th Avenue IRT station, especially since there are some stations that are worth closing due to distances (ex: Beverley Road on the Brighton Line).
As for Lexington Avenue, there’s really isn’t a need to reopen 18th Street station on that line
@@TheRailLeaguer I do t see the need to close any subway station considering the city is growing and the MTA has never closed a station since the early 50’s.
I’ve heard of the MTA decommissioning entire lines (Myrtle Ave elevated in Brooklyn, the 3rd Ave elevated lines in the Bronx and Manhattan) but never really closing a station. Beverly RD on the Brighton line is a local stop and I wouldn’t touch it since it serves the local area.
This isn’t Chicago, Philadelphia, or Boston, where certain stations were closed due to low ridership and declining populations, NYC has always grown and continues to grow so closing a station is a highly inconvenient and inefficient endeavor!
The Q train line I live on has 8 cars
Can you do a video about Can the F be rerouted to grand central ?
So early this video don’t even have 2160p60 lol
3:03 what is that abandoned station?
The 18 street
0:52 - This extended platform is the part beyond the roof-covered platform?
4:39 - I know the *A division* has narrower cars. If these train-cars would be in a *B division* station there would be a wide (dangerous?) gap to step over from platform to car. ..and if an *A division* train were to go into a *B division* station the train would not fit in through the platform.
Are all trains built with the same track-gauge?
Where is the SIR train video?
I propose renovating the 34th Street-Hudson Yards & New South Ferry Stations into the standard IRT design. I also propose renovating the Second Avenue Subway into the standard BMT design. All new extensions would follow either IRT, BMT, or IND designs. The Inwood-215th Street Station on the [C] would follow the IND pattern merging with the IRT, as it would have a transfer to the (1) train.
I’d reopen the old South Ferry station and having service for off peak and weekend service only. The only reason for the new South Ferry Station was the South Ferry loop was slowing down ‘1’ service so a new station was constructed but I’d reopen the old South Ferry for sentimental and historic reasons.
If anything, I’d be open to extending the ‘L’ train to 34th St - Hudson Yards with stations on 10th Ave, and 23rd St via 11th Ave. All the stations would be in the Art Deco IRT mosaic.
And the ‘C’ train uptown ends at either 145th St or 168th St. You’re referring to the ‘A’ train and I don’t see the need to really extend the ‘A’ to 215th St for a transfer and the ‘A’ and ‘C’ trains have a transfer at 168th St with the ‘1’ train.
@@wanderer34 Reopening the South Ferry loop station is too redundant, even during off peak and weekend service. The new station can handle basically all current and future off-peak needs on the 1 line. As for a a museum exhibit, it’s not really that appealing for something like a excursion trip.
In addition, it’s also too redundant to be used by other services. Bowling Green is a stones throw away so those folks would be better off walking.
@@TheRailLeaguer the historic value of the old South Ferry station is too valuable, especially considering that the outer South Ferry station was designed by Heins and Lafarge.
I’d love to see the old South Ferry station reused for off peak service or maybe into another museum like the NYCT museum in Brooklyn and not go out of the way like old closed stations. Besides, there’s starting to be graffiti and vandalism in the old South Ferry station and Id hate to see that station destroyed because of vandalism.
@@wanderer34 Again, off-peak service to the loop is redundant and confusing for South Ferry riders. There’s literally no reason to reopen that station for service. 1 train riders have a new station that can accommodate 100% of current and future ridership and service needs. It’s also of slightly less historical significance compared to the City Hall Loop (much of the design is seen at other stations on the line).
I thought that B division trains ran a maximum of eight cars when in service.
6:49 - This is the edge of a station extended? How do you know?
Can you do video of 18th St 1 train because ignorant Kenneth Rembert thinks it's closed
👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩Good
The 7 ran 9 car trains from time to time as well.
Before the R36s were delivered, the 7 was short cars. The fleet consisted of 350 cars (250 R12/14 and 100 R15s). Because of this, only 9 car trains were run until another 100 R17s were shipped to the 7, which allowed for 11 cars trains. Incidentally, while the R12/14 trains ran as solid trains, the R17s would often be seen mixed with R15s, the first place in the IRT where mixed car classes were run in the same train.
@@pbatommy The changeover with first R17s was around May 1963 prior to the first R33 WFs in September. By this point mixed trains were already appearing on the Main Line IRT, as R17/R21/R22 and R29/R33 were being mixed.
Watch ⌚ in the next century cars will Increase to 20 or 25
But the IRT is still much better than the IND, shows you don't have to spend a huge amount of money to provide good service.
All of the Platforms on the B division should be extended
Interesting how we went from talking about proposals, least used stations, subway history, tragic events to *platform extensions*
Their photo of IRT train running 6 4 and 8 car into the late 70s the 7 line was werid running BMT and IRT train on the same line for a while until 50s/40s I think but during the 1960s world fair train were lengthened to 11 car also the LIRR MP75 Aka ACMU and Metro north ACMU ran 10 to 11 car 85 feet train to the world fair the IRT R36WF where 2 car married pair and the R33WF where Single cars and since they where only one car and had 2 cabs they didn’t have AC so during the summer months the R33 WF wouldn’t be used also during the 70s the R12/14 couldn’t be used on the end of train and for The conductor car because the R12/14 has speaker problems with the rest of the fleet so they where confined to body cars than leading cars
Was that a homeless dude in 3:14 ?
bruh someone already commented "first" in 10 seconds of the video being uploaded
It's wild how quick they're getting with clicking the notification 💀
Well they do like your videos
@@MysticTransit word
That was me who was doing it clicking on the videos I just love your videos you're so entertaining
I'm glad all of you enjoy my videos! It's nice to upload and immediately see some of you commenting on them.
I'm done with this train system. If the state is gonna "force" new Yorkers to use the public transit because of congestion pricing they better fix this broken system and actually make it safer by letting police doing their jobs. I'm sickened to just how much of an abysmal failure our city leaders refuse to do anything because of their stupid wokeness priorities, disgusting, truly is
1. New York City and it’s subways are safe from actual data, yes crime went up but it’s below national average.
2. Stop using “woke”. Just stop.
3. How is this related to the video?
@@peskypigeonx 1. Still unacceptable to not solve the issue of crime and especially when it ticked up (and some incidents are not even being considered crime like mentally ill dangerous acts that threatens the safety of our people, so that's why you have a placebo)
2. Why? That is the truth behind Alvin Bragg reasoning for refusing to prosecute crime
3. Because it's the subway system, and i can say whatever I want
3:30 145 wasn’t supposed to get esi and should have been abandoned and 148 get esi instead and train traffic would improve
First
Extended the Pelham 6 line to co op city mall barto Bronx.