25 Responses

  1. Joe says:

    This is a fascinating find. In the 16 years I’ve been studying the terminal, I never came across anything about the lower level having numbers other than the 100-series scheme. I have old track maps, which are revised versions of the originals (from the ’50s) that list the tracks in the 100-series on the lower level.

    You stumbled onto some interesting thoughts. One of which was the adding of passenger tracks. It wasn’t so much that tracks were added over the years, but rather, the terminal was built in small sections called “bites,” from east to west. So when the first ‘bite’ was completed, it was opened (on two-levels) and the construction moved west. It’s possible that in the beginning, since only a fraction of the terminal’s entire two-level track system was opened at any given time, all tracks were merely numbered the same on both levels (since movement between the levels may have been difficult during construction, and specific railroads were assigned to each level). Once the terminal was done, and the flow was fully opened up, the need arose to clearly delineate the upper and lower levels.

    The fact that track 11-12 became 111-112 indicates, though, it was a mere adding of the digit that changed, not a renumbering of the track sequence.

    This is a good mystery…

    • Emily says:

      At first I thought that maybe the tracks were single digits when the lower level first opened, and it was changed to the current 100-series once the rest of the Terminal opened. I know that the suburban concourse opened in October of 1912, and then the rest in Feb 1913, so it could make sense. The only thing is if there are still marks that are visible (albeit barely) from the old numbering, those numbers were probably up for a while.

      • Joe says:

        Of course, the lower level opened before the upper. That would make sense. Though, track maps seem to suggest the lower level always had 100 series numbers, so maybe, as you said, the ‘passenger facing’ designations were not 100’s. Then when the upper level opened, they changed the signage.

        It would be nice to know exactly when, though it’s one of those things that seems like no one documented it.

        • Emily says:

          Right, I think that is why most people were reluctant to believe there was a renumbering. I have 1912 diagrams that show 100-series numbers. But the tracks that the railroaders needed to know didn’t necessarily have to sync with what they showed the public.

          • Joe says:

            Though if that’s the case, why didn’t they begin the “passenger numbering” with 1, instead of 17 (or whatever the first UL track was) on the Upper Level. The public sees the same numbers as the actual tracks. Likely because mass confusion would occur, even for employees, having different numbers used inside the terminal bldg vs. the track area.

            Do you have pictures of the ’50s era Solari board from GCT? Because I remember the 80’s OMEGA board had separate columns for Upper Level tracks and Lower Tracks, with the LL column having three digits for track numbers. So even then they felt compelled to call out the level the train was on (unlike today, where it’s assumed a 100 series track is LL). Maybe an old photo of the board will yield a clue.

          • Emily says:

            That is actually not a bad idea… I think people took a lot more photos of the upper level as opposed to the lower, so finding images of the departure board may be helpful. Will have to see if I can find some…

  2. Larry Dawson says:

    A photo which appears as a plate in David Marshall’s book, GRAND CENTRAL, presents the lower concourse at 4 AM, with the gates at the right, and from what I canmake out, the nearest gate is number 6. The other gate numbers are
    not visible.

  3. Pete Smith says:

    Wouldn’t dare try to add to the discussion. I’m just fascinated by it all, and your theory sounds highly plausible. Thanks for keeping me riveted!

  4. Al Cyone says:

    It’s always fun to follow the thinking of a logical mind. And though I’m afraid I have nothing to contribute to the solution of the mystery, I couldn’t help but think of King’s Cross railway station platform 9¾ (not that I’m a Harry Potter fan, having read none of the books nor seen any of the movies).

  5. John Lang says:

    Interesting stuff. What really caught my attention was the photo with the Pittsfield destination. It would be great to see photos with destination signs that are no longer seved. Maybe the old solari board. Places like Chatham, or even Litchfield would be great. Anyway intriguing things about GCT. Thanks for the all the research you do and your good work.

    • Emily says:

      Back in the old days there were some Harlem Division trains that would follow the B&A from Chatham up to Pittsfield and North Adams, which is actually pretty cool. You might like this photo, shows a GCT departure board for a train heading to Idaho :)

  6. Jeff M. says:

    Utterly fascinating. You have me hooked. Enquiring minds want to know!

  7. Joe says:

    The platforms at GCT, though, were high-level from day one (Day one of the 1913 terminal, that is). I was under the impression the A designation (and forced loading on one side only) was due to platform gaps between car and platform (resulting from longer cars one the lower level platforms).

  8. Ocala Mike says:

    The Pittsfield train alluded to on the archway was, undoubtedly, a New Haven train. If I’m not mistaken, the entire east side of the station back in the day was given over to the “yankee railroad,” the NH.

    • Emily says:

      Shh… I like to talk about the Harlem Division whenever I can. Pittsfield and North Adams still showed up on our form 112’s until the early 50’s ;)

  9. Walter says:

    It never occurred to me that there was a logical sequence of numbers starting on the lower level and moving to the upper. I just figured they announced “track 15, upper level” or “track 15, lower level” whenever there was a conflict.

    The building of the Graybar Building and its passage is key, though. Tracks 1-17 on the lower level; tracks 18 to 42 on the upper. The Graybar tracks just seem too haphazard to have been planned for passenger use from the start. Take a look at today’s platform between tracks 16 and 17, the westernmost in the passage: it has terrible visibility (you can’t see your train on track 17 until you’re next to it) because of the huge supports on the platform, which, I imagine, support either the Terminal itself or the Graybar building.

    The other tracks in the Graybar passage are just as bad. Track 15 is lower than the others, and it’s platform-mate track 14 is still used for garbage loading, never for passengers. Tracks 13 and 11 don’t even have a ramp (I suppose 12 never existed or is under the 13/11 platform).

    This makes the planning involved in the terminal even more incredible. Somehow the track numbers lined up so that tracks 1-17 on the upper level wouldn’t have public platforms, while tracks 101-117 on the lower level would, so that the platforms could be numbered from 1 to 42. This is quite an amazing thing you’ve found here.

    • William Hays says:

      Whilst working in the Terminal (1963-’68) as an “Air-Rights” construction superintendent and NYCS coordinator, I remember tracks 11-13. There was no track 12, as the space was taken up by mail handling chutes-and-ladders. No passenger tracks east of 11, just storage. The express company service was long gone. Lots of NYNH&H mail trains. A few NYC, too. “Famed” (FDR) track 61 was a dirty mess and used to lay-over FL9s, etc.. Tower “C” handled all of this.

      • i am not sure everybody knows,that there are only 22 FL-9’s left,38 were cut up for scrap including the FL-9 a/c,models that were test beds for the Long Island,DM 30 a/c dual modes.it is a shame when a railroad or an agency who owns a railroad cares more about money then history,which will bite them in the pants.i am lucky i own 3 FL-9’s in HO-scale.1,brass,from The caboose,in conn.and 2 others by Mark Castaglione.of Branford Hobbies,in Branford,Ct.i hope that the people in power have the compassion to keep the other FL-9’s from being scrapped.maybe some one should have their cars scrapped,let them know how other’s feel.The maybe no snap judgements.Thanks,have a great weekend,and God bless.

  10. peter van aken says:

    Great work! Please keep posting your Blog; your efforts and interesting style is appreciated.

  11. Al Cyone says:

    You’re all likely to already know about it but I just came across this site which has links to the track plans (which are actually “leverman’s diagrams” showing where all the switches are). Very cool. And complex!

  12. Ted Weitz says:

    Just came across your great site. One minor correction. You note the reference to the Express agency as “(American) Express.” I am certain this is wrong. All the railroads partiicpated in the Railway Express Agency, noted in its very last years as REA Express. Most passenger trains had some combination of baggage, mail and express cars immediately after the locomotive and before the passenger cars. You can find its whole story on Wikipedia. American Express was in the travel and banking business, but had no need for railroad platforms.

    • Ed Waugh says:

      There was an American Railway Express Company. I don’t know if it became the American Express of today. Old depot photos sometimes have a sign on them with this name.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *