CHANGES ON THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE RAILWAY.
Engineering News, October 17, 1895
Whatever may be the possibilities of train service on the Brooklyn
Bridge when the new terminals are fully completed and the gauntleted
tracks are laid, the experience already accumulated goes to show
that the terminal stations will be found objectionable and unsatisfactory
in many ways, and unable to properly provide for the immense crowds
which use the bridge railway. The New York station is at present
in an unfinished and chaotic state, but even now some serious
objections in the proposed permanent arrangement are evident,
chief among which is the inconvenience resulting from raising
the grade of the platforms so much above that of the old station
and above that of the elevated railway station. Formerly there
were about 36 steps to climb from Park Row to the bridge station
platform, but now this is increased to 56 (unless persons walk
nearly the full length of the station to a shorter stairway).
This increase is a serious matter to many persons who use the
bridge.
The bridge track formerly entered the station on a down grade,
but the change in level above referred to is such that it now
enters on an up grade with reverse curves, and this arrangement
seems almost certain to cause trouble with trains stopped for
any reason on the approach near the foot of the grade in wet or
slippery weather. The reverse curves prove very trying to the
equilibrium of passengers standing in the cars. Of course, the
answer made to this is that with trains running at 45 seconds
headway, there will be seating capacity for all passengersa
claim, however, which is still to be proved. There is also a dangerously
wide space between the station platform and car platform, made
worse by the beveling off of the edge of the platform; but this
may, perhaps, be changed.
The new Brooklyn station has been in use for a few weeks, and
has developed a very faulty arrangement and entire inadequacy
of the stairways. The stairways from the platform to the main
floor of the station (on the street level below) are in the form
of an X, with the result that there is confusion at the landing
at the intersection, as some persons wish to continue straight
on down, while others wish to turn and go down the other leg of
the X. These stairs again are much too narrow, and in the busy
hours, when a crowd is massed about the head of the stairs, there
is a dangerously narrow margin between the crowd and the edge
of the platform. At each end of the platform will be stairways
up to the platforms of the Brooklyn Elevated R. R. Between the
two openings of the X stairways leading down from the bridge platform
are two stairways leading up to the overhead gallery connecting
with all the elevated railway stations, and this concentrates
the bulk of the crowd from both ends of the train at the middle
of the platform, and persons from the head or rear of the train
who wish to ascend the stairways have to meet and combat with
the crowd at the head of the descending stairways. The crush is
even worse than at the old station, and will probably be still
worse when trains are discharging passengers on both sides of
the platform at intervals of 45 seconds.
In all provision for handling crowds, it should be a fundamental
principle to keep the crowd moving in one direction, and to make
any branching avenues diverge at the least angle possible. This
was practically the case at the old Brooklyn station (except that
the head of the train was beyond one of the branching avenues),
the main crowd moving straight down the platform; one-half of
the width of the end of which had steps to the street and the
other half continued on to one of the elevated railway stations,
while there were two avenues branching off at right angles, and
affording access to the street and to another elevated railway.
In the new station, however, the arrangements are such as to set
up bewildering and conflicting currents in the crowd, with the
additional danger of an island platform.
While the Brooklyn station has no great architectural pretensions,
it is in itself a simple and pleasing structure. Its appearance,
however, is entirely spoiled by the heterogeneous arrangement
of the ugliest and baldest of galleries and stairways, which connect
the bridge station with the shanty station of the Kings County
Elevated R. R., and are supported by a motley mixture of columns,
plate girders and trusses. The elevated station and its connecting
galleries are built over the open space (or so called "plaza,"
which was to be such an attractive feature of the new terminal),
between Fulton St. and the bridge station, making a dark and gloomy
spot upon which, in wet weather, fall the discolored drippings
from the structure. The Brooklyn Elevated R. R. has used a solid
floor on its part of the work, and it might have been supposed
that the other elevated road would have been required to put in
a solid and watertight floor, thus limiting the droppings to the
edges of the structure, but instead of this there is an open floor,
which is practically as dark as a solid floor, but gives the company
no concern as to drainage. Even the small remaining clear space
of this "plaza" will probably be invaded by a two and
four-track belt for the electric surface cars, and by platforms
for these cars. Taken altogether, the Brooklyn station, with its
complicated arrangement of stairways, galleries, platforms, etc.,
offers excellent opportunities for strangers to get lost or to
be carried to other places than their intended destinations. The
design of the terminal was, of course, complicated by the necessity
of taking the two elevated railways into consideration, but the
adopted plan does not appear to have solved the problem with any
degree of success, especially in view of the great expense incurred.
The question of electric traction for the Brooklyn Bridge is
again being revived, and one of the trustees who has recently
visited the Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.'s plant at East
Pittsburgh, Pa., has been strongly advocating that company's insulated
conductor system, noted in our issue of Oct. 10.
The plan proposed is to first test this electric system for
switching, for which purpose it is proposed to equip the two end
cars of each train with the necessary motors, contact bars, etc.
We are inclined to believe that the adoption of electricity
for switching purposes will be practically forced upon the bridge
officials in order to handle the trains at the terminals with
the 45-second interval, which is proposed when the new gauntleted
tracks and terminals are completed. If any of our readers desires
to test the question for himself, he can make a large scale copy
from the diagram of tracks at the new terminals, published in
our issue of Nov. 8, 1894, and by moving upon it pieces of paper
representing the trains and the switching locomotives, he will
find that only clock-like precision of movement and the utmost
celerity of movement at every point will permit the switching
of trains on the system proposed. The margin of time is so small
that a delay of a few seconds at any point will put the whole
system out of joint. If each train can carry its own motive power,
however, so that the switching locomotives can be dispensed with,
and so that the much quicker start which is possible with electric
traction can be made, the problem will be very much simplified,
and the proposed 45-second interval may probably be easily reached.
A great advantage of electricity for switching purposes would
be that it would dispense with the noise, smoke and smell of the
present steam locomotives. We believe that the noise made by these
machines might be materially reduced if they were equipped with
proper mufflers on the exhaust nozzles, such as have been used
for years by builders of light steam motors, but the other objections
to the use of the locomotives would still remain; and it is quite
probable that the change to electricity for switching purposes
would result in a saving in annual operating expenses over the
cost of operating the present steam locomotives.
But if electricity were to be adopted for switching the bridge
trains, it is manifest that the simplest possible system should
be chosen; and why it should be seriously proposed to adopt the
new Westinghouse system for this purpose passes comprehension.
As our readers are aware, this system is designed for street railways,
to dispense with an overhead wire, and it seems to be a very meritorious
and promising system for this especial use; but on the bridge
railway there are no objections to the use of either an overhead
wire or a third rail to supply current to the cars. Such a system
can manifestly be made much simpler than the necessarily complicated
Westinghouse system; and the simpler an apparatus is, the less
liable is it to get out of order. Now, it is a sine qua non
that any switching system to be a success on the bridge must get
out of order extremely seldom. Interruption to the service must
not be permitted, and any complication which tends to make such
interruption possible, should be condemned at the outset. We very
much doubt, indeed, whether the responsible officials of the Westinghouse
Co. would themselves recommend their ingenious and meritorious
new system for the peculiar conditions of the bridge service,
for such an installation might easily lead to its being unjustly
condemned. So far as is at present apparent, the responsibility
for the advocacy of this system rests with a single one of the
bridge trustees. If this is indeed the case, we may hope that
when electric switching is introduced on the bridge, it may be
in a form calculated to give permanent satisfaction.
While the use of electricity for switching seems, in the light
of present knowledge, to be a desirable improvement, the propulsion
of cars by electricity over the whole bridge is an entirely different
matter. Every train hauled over the bridge has to be lifted vertically
about 70 ft. to reach the center of the span. With the cable railway
the cars running down the grade aid in the propulsion of the cars
going up the grade, so that so far as the power absorbed in propulsion
is concerned, the heavy grades of the bridge are practically eliminated.
With electric traction, on the other hand, very heavy motors,
consuming a large amount of power, would be required to haul the
trains at present speed to the center of the bridge, and then
the accumulated power would have to be absorbed by the brakes
while running down the steep grade to the terminus.
In the absence of comparative estimates, we should apprehend
that the expenditure of power to haul trains up the grade with
the electric system would be much greater than the loss in friction
of the present cable system. The reduced life of car wheels and
brakeshoes consequent upon the increased use of the brakes, which
would be necessary with the electric system, would also tend to
make its operating expenses higher.
But the question of the comparative safety of the electric
and cable systems overshadows in importance all questions of relative
economy. With the cable system at present in use, it is possible
to run trains at shorter intervals than would be under any other
system, because the attachment to the cable keeps the trains evenly
spaced, especially in running down the grades. To prevent collisions
of trains with each other, two safety factors are always present.
First, the cable, and second, the brakes. To substitute electricity
for the cable would be to deliberately dispense with one of these
factors, and to make the safe spacing of trains a matter dependent
upon the skill and good judgment of the motorman. The advocates
of electric traction upon the bridge should understand what it
is they are proposing. It is to let a heavy train run down a grade
a half mile long, and averaging nearly 3 per cent. in steepness,
the train being controlled only by the brakes. A train is standing
at the foot of this grade, and when the system is in regular operation,
will start to move out of the way barely one minute before the
train running down the grade arrives. Suppose the standing train
is delayed by any one of a dozen possible causes. Suppose the
brakes fail on the moving train, or ice and sleet on the rail
interfere with their holding power.
Every one familiar with railway operations know that things
will not always move with precision. Every piece of machinery
is liable to breakage, every trusted employee is liable to error.
It would require only minor contingencies, such as are bound to
occur more or less frequently in the operation of any railway,
to cause a terrible collision, were trains moved over the Brooklyn
Bridge at the proposed short interval without the safeguard of
the cable.
But it may be said that electric railways are in operation
all over the country over grades much steeper than that on the
Brooklyn Bridge. That is, indeed, true; and it is also true that
not a few serious accidents have occurred on such steep grades,
and are bound to continue to occur. Moreover, it must not be forgotten
that the handling of a heavy Brooklyn Bridge train on a long grade,
and the handling of an ordinary electric car running at street
railway speeds have little in common. Nowhere in the world, that
we know of, has it ever been attempted to run trains down so long
and steep a grade controlled only by the brakes, and with a terminal
station at the foot where a train is always standing on the main
tracks. We sincerely hope that such an experiment will not be
first tried on the Brooklyn Bridge.
Brooklyn Bridge | Bridge Page
| Contents Page
|