Long gone and no great picture of it here.
It was to the left of this picture of the north end of the 60th Street Yard.
Footbridge to Riverside Drive and 72nd St.
View south from the footbridge. At the right margin is a locomotive on the roundhouse track.
Too dark but I see the turntable. Hell Gate Bridge in the distance.
Mike
[8D] A T T E N T I O N R A I F A N S and R A I L H I S T O R I A N S and R A I L R E S E A R C H E R S: 8D]
NEW WEBSITE FOR ALL PICTORIAL INFORMATION!
MIKEGOOGLEASKMRJEVESBINGWANSWHEELETC.HOLYRAILROADSPIKEHEHASIT! If he don’t got it it don’t exist! Pick a pic, any pic! Choose by location, choose by railroad, choose by equipment, or don’t choose at all…Mike will find it and post if for you. Guaranteed money back if he can get it to you within 2 minutes! Faster delivery than Domino’s everytime! If you like your pictures rare, or well done, MIKEGOOGLEASKMRJEVESBINGHWANSWHEELETC.HOLYRAILROADSPIKEHEHASIT! is the only place you need to know. Order on line or forget about it!
ThaNKS!
Henry and Dave, thanks for the favorable reviews.
Google books has scanned a 1920 publication about the railroad situation in the Port of New York. The link is set to page 105 because there’s a picture (not a very good picture) of the 60th Street Yard. The roundhouse is partly visible behind the water tower. The silouette of the grain elevator is recognizable at the top. The book itself is worth at least of few minutes of exploration. I learned a lot.
http://books.google.com/books?id=GH4AAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA105#v=onepage&q=&f=true
Mike
Very cool! Thanks for sharing this.
Any idea about the dates of these photos?
Bob
1920s. One more of the roundhouse. We can’t see it but the folks in the picture can.
The south end of the 60th Street Yard.
Mike
I can provide this photo of the roundhouse from the New York Central Industrial Guide book
For a higher resolution version:
I have seen this message before. What does it mean? How does one access the web site referenced in the message? Or is the message just some form of spam?
Apologies if it is genuine - but as it seemed to reek of SPAM and also seemed to be yelling at me I avoided it like the plague.
I thought I understood a lot of the people here until these last two posts! I certainly overestimated them.
Suffice it to say that this message is as incomprehensible as the first one that I referred to in my earlier post.
If true, Henry, whose responsibility is it to ensure that he is understood if he proffers a communication? If you get little feedback, or mostly questioning feedback, shouldn’t you reflect, as the creative personality you appear to be, on what you have done and why it hasn’t been positively received?
Instead of slamming those who ask for clarification, or who admit that they looked askance at the post, why not make yourself plainly understood, be more patient, and accept that your attempt at creativity has fallen short? Even if it could be agreed that you are more intelligent than they, as your quote above suggests strongly that you have concluded, it is highly confrontational to state it outright, and I would characterize it as highly egoistic. In that respect, it could be that people have judged your communication on its face value, which would be the general protocol on forums. The civil thing to do is to acknowledge that you have not made yourself understood, that yours is the responsibility to do so if you are going to communicate here, and to offer to adjust your expression.
Or to refrain from such interactions entirely if it is not your style to attempt to explain yourself. You may find that those looking on will be forced to conclude about you the same way as your statement above.
-Crandell
It was a compliment to Wanswheel’s ability to come up with great, fantastic, pertinent pictures as needed on any subject that is presented here! He deserves recognition and compliments. And I shouldn’t have to explain myself! It has nothing to do with me being superior in anyway, I don’t consider myself above average but.average intellegence should be able to figure out what I said and did. If people are too stupid and ignorant to understand that then I am correct in my last post!
Well done, Henry. You open yourself to a lot of judgement by this last statement.
Have a good day. Or, try to…
-Crandell
The two recent posts by wanswheel on the New York city roundhouse, and the photos and drawings, are extremely interesting and, as such, are very constructive posts for all of us as model railroaders.
It is too bad that these posts have to be trivialized by juvenile comments and rude responses.
At a minimum, this sure seems to be a violation of the forum rules which we have all agreed to abide by.
You may note that Wanswheel and others got what I said and did. Sorry about those who didn’t. If you or they want to judge me, then go right ahead. HAPPY NEW YEAR anyway!
Henry6: The only problem I had with that is the ran together bit but if they only would read it a little closer they would have got it!! LOL!! [bow]
That batch of pix are really good for the scans. [swg] Thanks for sharing Wanswheel
Now—if only I knew what the turntable length was-----[:-^]
Yes indeed!
Even more and better photos! [tup]
I especially liked the third one from the top (the loco on the right margin on the roundhouse track) but all the photos make superb inspiration for modeling purposes!
I’m a newbie here, and will have some questions as I go along. (I just subscribed to “Model Railroader” magazine, and of course, these Forums).
For Wanswheel: are these photos the sort of thing that “Classic Trains” magazine publishes, and/or they from your own private collection? They really are great to view, and thanks again for sharing them with us. [:)]
All best,
Joe
That’s okay everybody, I can’t find Mike Whan’s site either!