BusTalk

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

"Standards" vs ME-1's.......

It is a bit ironic that, while the SIRT's electrification appeared to be "in sync" with the BMT's far-flung network, the new rolling stock (though somewhat inspired by the Standards) were not quite the "kissin' cousins" they were thought they would be.

It turned out, due to different braking systems, the ME-1's were unable to MU with the BMT's rolling stock.

This was discovered when the surplus ME-1's arrived on BMT rails in 1953.

Recall, also, that the SIRT cars had to conform to the Standards of the Interstate Commerce Commission; being that the SIRT connected with the CNJ at Cranford Junction, it was classified as a Class One railroad.

The SIRT was already down 30 cars when, in 1962, a fire at the Clifton shops destroyed seven more cars of the dwindling ME-1 fleet.

Indeed, the SIRT was now seriously short of rolling stock.

The "Tee-Yay" was willing to meet the SIRT financially, but the cars they initially offered (Standards of the 2100 series) were deemed unsuitable for SIRT service.

Then, in 1965, the "Tee-Yay" offered cars of the 2600 series, which had been rebuilt in 1960.

While the SIRT was willing to accept these cars, the parent B&O feared that the cars might prove unsuitable for Staten Island service.

The B&O decided to take a six-car test train, if the ICC would waive installation of fixtures for conformation to ICC rules.

The ICC refused the request, forcing the SIRT to limp along for nearly a decade more, using a fleet of overworked cars, dating back to 1925......

"NYO"

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

Here's an interesting "front end profile" comparison between a Standard and an ME-1 (Coney Island yard)

Note how the ME-1 is more angular in appearance than the Standard; also, the deck roof of the ME-1 gives the car a more "no nonsense" look than the more refined ogee roof of the Standard......

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?46943

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

A sea of Old Looks make a fine backdrop for these ex-SIRT cars (as well as other vintage BMT rolling stock) in these timeless yard scenes........

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?75771

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?75772

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?6761

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

["BMT LINES"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

Here's a nice photo of a smart-looking, freshly-shopped set of ex-SIRT ME-1's on BMT rails; note that the large headlights have been removed.

Also, note that the cars are now equipped with old metal plate destination/route signs, "recycled" from scrapped BMT El equipment.

The ex-SIRT cars were also re-numbered by the "Tee-Yay"......

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?87190

["CULVER L'C'L"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

A three-car train of refurbished ME-1's are seen here "struttin' their stuff" on the Culver line, in 1955.

Note the new number plates, snappy paint, and the "recycled" metal destination signs.

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?112794

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

The SIRT, as you know, had been plagued with several fires over the decades; the first being in 1927, only two years after the electrification.

Seven cars were destroyed at Tottenville; the original wooden station house and platforms were also destroyed, but the wooden ferry house survived.

Eight cars were destroyed during the massive 1946 St. George terminal inferno.

Then, in 1962, seven more cars were lost during a fire at the Clifton shops.

The motor cars purchased by the "Tee-Yay" had subway-style "Axiflow" fans installed, and the "flip over" seats were bolted into place, requiring of the passengers to now ride backwards.

BMT-type door controls were installed between the center doors.

All of the ex-SIRT cars were retired in 1961, and scrapped in 1962.

However, the five trailer cars used as work equipment/yard offices survived for several more years........

"NYO"

["RIDE THE RAPID"]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

SIRT's R-44's.....

there were 52 cars total for the SIRT: all GE.

34 "A" cars and 18 "B" cars.

Three-car trains ran in "ABA"or "AAA" sets; the SIRT was under ICCFRA rules (recall, during the ME-1 era, trains of at least four and five cars operated during rush hours)

Differences between the "main line" and SIRT R-44's ("ME-2's"); the sIRT cars were so equipped:

1: FRA grab irons at all doorways (passenger and end doors)

2: No trip cocks (recall, B&O position light signals were in use)

3: Headlight dimmers

After GOH, the 12 mainline GE cars were re-assigned to the SIRT; four-car trains were now possible ("ABBA"/"AABA"/"AAAA")

Side destination signs were removed.

All cars remained single-unit cars (couplers at each end); "B" cars could not run by themselves......

"NYO"

(source: "EVOLUTION OF NEW YORK CITY SUBWAYS" (Sansone)

See also:

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?27919

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

SIRT R-44's, then and now......

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?150638

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?44836

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

In this bright (but dismal) scene from 1974, we see a string of cold and lonely-looking retired ME-1's, sitting forlornly on the leads to the old Arlington line, at St. George.

On the far left, you can glimpse one of the "KENNEDY" class ferries, docked at one of the west lay-up slips......

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?45580

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

[W.B. Fishbowl]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

New SIRT cars......

From what I have been reading, the next new car class for the SIRT will be the R211.

It will be interesting to see if the new cars for SIRT will be of the more "conventional" type, or the open-gangway equipment.

This, in itself, will be interesting to follow, as things develop (recall the arrival of new MTA cars was severely hampered by the pandemic and related fallout)......

"NYO"

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

Worth a thought.....

Let's suppose that the "Tee-Yay" had taken over the SIRT in the 1950's.

I can easily see cars of the R-16/27/30 type being purchased for SIRT service; or, if the "Tee-Yay" took over in the 1960's, perhaps BUDD (or St.Louis) equipment based on the R-32 ("Brightliners)" or the R-38.

Would the cars purchased for the SIRT by the "Tee-Yay" have had R-16 style seating, or seating "in sync" with the R-27/30?

Of course, as the B&O would still have been operating freight service on Staten Island, the "Tee-Yay" purchased-cars would have had to have conformed to FRA/ICC standards.....

"NYO"

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

Just imagine of the banner stretched across the front of this new train of R-16's had read:

"STATEN ISLAND-HERE WE COME!"

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?75677

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

I can easily imagine a two-car, off-peak set of R-27's/30's heading for Tottenville......

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?75630

(courtesy: nycsubway.org)

[NEW YORK OMNIBUS 2629]

The B&O and the SIRT (continued)......

The B&O, being a "Class One" railroad, had no way of truly influencing the design of the ME-1's, which were, indeed, more of a rapid transit car than a "main line" coach.

Now, consider Mr. McAdoo's H&M; here was an "upstart" rapid transit line from New Jersey that had STRONG connections to the "Standard Railroad Of The World" (the PRR)

The PRR, also, was the parent of the LIRR for decades; the "joint service" H&M/PRR MP-38's featured porthole windows, clearly "in sync" with the LIRR's new MP-54's (oddly, the PRR itself did not begin operating MP-54's in suburban service until 1915; the H&M/PRR "joint service", however, began about 1912)

Prior to WW1, there were ambitious plans to extended the Hudson Tubes beyond its 33rd St. terminal all the way up to Grand Central.

Being that the PRR and the NYC were bitter rivals for decades, I would certainly assume that the NYC would not want a rapid transit line from NJ with such strong ties to the PRR to darken its grand and opulent doorstep.

Sometime before 1920. there were also plans to extend the H&M south through Jersey City (mostly using CNJ rails) and then, from Bayonne, tunneling under the Kill Van Kull to Staten Island.

Being that the B&O was in total control of rail traffic on Staten Island, I do not think that they would exactly welcome the H&M into its hallowed territory.

Indeed, optimism ran eternal, over a century ago......

"NYO"