Melrose station

Discussion relating to the Penn Central, up until its 1976 inclusion in Conrail. Visit the Penn Central Railroad Historical Society for more information.

Moderator: JJMDiMunno

Melrose station

Postby PC1100 » Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:43 am

Does anyone recall what the Melrose station looked like in the period from 1975-1980? This is the period between the construction of high level platforms in the Bronx (late 1974/early1975) and the construction of the housing project above the station. I've seen old photos that show it in the low level platform days, and it looked just like the other stations in the cut in the Bronx, but the building appears to have heavily altered the station (ie the removal of the original stone wall of the cut on the track 4 side). Up until recently the track 3 platform was only 1 or 2 car-lengths, while the track 4 platform was 4 car-lengths, with no lights on the platforms. I'd have to guess that without the buildings above, the station would have been identical to Tremont (two 4 car-length platforms in a cut with standard 1970s Harlem/Hudson Line lights). Were the platforms built 1974-75 as 4 car-lengths on each side with the typical platform lights, and later modified/truncated when the building was constructed above, or were they built in preparation for the building above?
PC1100
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: Westchester County, NY

Postby Penn Central » Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:38 am

As the image below shows, there was a station building at Melrose until it was demolished in the mid 70s when the high rise building was constructed over the tracks. Trains that made stops at Melrose used ACMU equipment and the conductors opened the traps. Until the 1980s, we didn't use bridge plates when the outside tracks were out of service in the Bronx. Instead, there were walkways and we opened a single trap door on the ACMUs. That ended when New Haven trains started stopping at Fordham. The 4400s had all been retired by 1976, so they needed bridge plates.

There were lights installed at Melrose with the high level platforms, but they were frequently vandalized and not working.

Image
User avatar
Penn Central
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:19 pm

Postby Mike Roque » Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:17 pm

Any chance you have a photo of Fleetwood station from that same era?
User avatar
Mike Roque
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:34 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Postby Noel Weaver » Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:28 pm

Penn Central wrote:As the image below shows, there was a station building at Melrose until it was demolished in the mid 70s when the high rise building was constructed over the tracks. Trains that made stops at Melrose used ACMU equipment and the conductors opened the traps. Until the 1980s, we didn't use bridge plates when the outside tracks were out of service in the Bronx. Instead, there were walkways and we opened a single trap door on the ACMUs. That ended when New Haven trains started stopping at Fordham. The 4400s had all been retired by 1976, so they needed bridge plates.

There were lights installed at Melrose with the high level platforms, but they were frequently vandalized and not working.



I like that picture but the train is not Y-71 because 71 always had some
head end cars including an RPO in its consist.
Noel Weaver
Noel Weaver
 
Posts: 9623
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 9:33 pm
Location: Pompano Beach, Florida

Postby PC1100 » Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:21 pm

Thanks. That's actually one of the old pictures I was talking about (a great photo by the way). I know about the old station building and the locals covered by the ACMU's which made the Bronx stops up to 1975 (the year the high levels were completed in the Bronx). What I'm curious about is that period between the completion of the high levels in the Bronx (May 1975) and the completion of the building above (January 1981). This April 1975 shows the new platforms at Tremont: http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?76771

Unless there was a period when Melrose was the only station with low level platforms, there must have been a few years in the late 1970s when it had both high levels and no building above. My question is, were the platforms at Melrose built ('74-'75) with 4 car lengths on both tracks 3 & 4 and then later modified for the building? Or were they built with track 3 platform shorter than the track 4 side? If you look at the track 4 side, its clear that unless the platform was put up after the supports for the building, some serious reconstruction must have been done to the platform on that side.
PC1100
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: Westchester County, NY

Postby Track Builder » Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:33 pm

Melrose Platform (Track 3) was extended to 4 cars after the removal of the Port Morris Switch (Oak Point) after the New switch to Oak Point (Oak Point Link) was installes at Highbridge (Off Track 4)
Track Builder
 

Postby Brakeman1 » Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:51 pm

Track Builder wrote:Melrose Platform (Track 3) was extended to 4 cars after the removal of the Port Morris Switch (Oak Point) after the New switch to Oak Point (Oak Point Link) was installes at Highbridge (Off Track 4)


Really?!? I work on the Harlem Line and Its only 2 Cars Track 3 Side and 4 Side for that matter at Melrose and Tremont Stations...
Brakeman1
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: New York

Postby Otto Vondrak » Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:19 pm

That's way after the period being asked about above... predates Metro-North (and myself, for that matter).

-otto-
----------------------------------------------
Moderator: New York State Railfan :: New York Central :: Toy Trains
NYW&B Fan Site :: A Magazine I Read Often :: A Museum I Volunteer At
User avatar
Otto Vondrak
 
Posts: 20263
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 6:47 pm
Location: New York

Postby checkthedoorlight » Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:48 pm

I am really confused. I could have sworn that the project that rebuilt the Melrose and Tremont platforms in 2005-2006 extended them to 4 cars, and I also remember being on a train that stopped at those stations after this project finished, and it was announced as "rear 4 cars only", but when I checked the aerial data on live.local.com (which was taken later than 2005), it still measures out to about 2 and a half cars. Somebody is gonna have to take a photo of a stopped train at this station, and then we'll know for sure.
User avatar
checkthedoorlight
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:11 am

Postby PC1100 » Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:18 pm

Both stations are definately two carlengths on both tracks 3 & 4. You can really see the difference between the old (1975) and the new (2006) platform lengths at Tremont. The old platforms basically took up the entire length of the setback in the wall, from the stairway south to the end. The new platforms start at the same spot but end far short of the south end of the setback in the wall.
PC1100
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: Westchester County, NY

Postby checkthedoorlight » Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:35 pm

why would MNRR want to SHORTEN the platforms? Also, how could Melrose tk 3's platform be shortened when it now extends outside the overbuild, over what used to be the Port Morris connector?

I really need to do a cityticket ride this weekend and investigate.
User avatar
checkthedoorlight
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:11 am

Postby DutchRailnut » Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:39 pm

Track 3 side platform is no longer in the Melrose tunnel its outside and two cars long.
Track 4 is shortened to 2 cars the south two car leghts are removed.
Same at Tremont both platforms were shorted to 2 cars at track 3 and two cars on track 4.

Why not longer , ever seen more than 30 people on those platforms ???
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.
User avatar
DutchRailnut
 
Posts: 21817
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Postby pnaw10 » Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:43 am

DutchRailnut wrote: Why not longer , ever seen more than 30 people on those platforms ???


Good point... I never really thought about this until I saw it or heard it somewhere recently: we're always quick to build new infrastructure or expand existing facilities when the money's there do to the job... but how often do we consider the long-term impact of maintenance costs?

If a station isn't being used by enough people to fill the platform as it is, shrinking it down is good policy. A smaller platform means: less time someone has to spend shoveling snow and/or spreading salt; fewer trash cans that need to be checked; fewer lights racking up electric bills.

Not to mention a much smaller up-front cost to build it, since it required less building materials, and fewer man-hours than a longer platform. You also save on inspection and repairs... since there isn't as much platform to inspect and repair! :-D
.
User avatar
pnaw10
 
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:41 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY - formerly New Hamburg

Postby UpperHarlemLine4ever » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:55 pm

You know what, no one has still answered the original poster's question.
User avatar
UpperHarlemLine4ever
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:29 am
Location: N White Plains, NY

Postby DutchRailnut » Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:54 pm

you obviously did not read Penn Central's responce
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.
User avatar
DutchRailnut
 
Posts: 21817
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Next

Return to Penn Central

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest