(erielack) Re: Erielack Digest V2 #558

[Joel McEachen <"jmcea_@_earthlink.net">]

Since the "Erie Limited" carried thru diners, I would guess that in the
last days, Huntington-Chicago would produce the biggest losses so it was
dropped.  I also would guess that labor considerations also made the
Huntington destination/origin point more economical under the then
un-economic labor contracts.  

It is hard to imagine in 1999 that 40 years ago, a road crew got paid a
full day's pay for a mere 150 miles of travel.  Someone correct my
numbers but I think the yard crews got a day's pay for crossing the yard
boundaries, plus a mileage factor in there, too.  The road crew number
might have been 100 miles, but whatever it was, it was a number that did
not make sense by the 1950's. I don't even want to open the Pandora's
box of the full crew laws for our younger readers.  

Or that in New Jersey (with its huge amounts of railroad real estate,
especially around New York Harbor, and the approaches) taxed railroad
property at 100% of assessed value, when >everything< else in the state
was taxed on 30% OR LESS of assessed value.  In the late 1950's one
railroad (I think it was one) took the issue of per cent of assessed
value to court and eventually won, after a long court battle with the
state and the Hudson County communities.  However, as I remember, it was
seen that to reduce railroad property to the prevailing per cent of
assessed value would have caused so much financial chaos in 11 Hudson
County communities that implementation of the court decision was either
delayed 5 years, or implemented in stages to give the communities a
chance to adjust their finances.  Which continued the "screwing" of the
railroads.  
One example I remember vividly was a building in Jersey City owned by
the Jersey Central, it looked like a warehouse.  It was assessed at
$3,400,000 and they paid taxes on 100% of assessed value (if you or I
owned it, it would be taxed on 30% of assessed value.)  The Jersey
Central finally declared the building surplus; at sale, they could only
get $320,000 for it.  This was reported in the press during the law
suit, so it would be in the mid 1960's.  One can only imagine the tax
burden borne by the railroads in northern and central New Jersey, not
only on their land and buildings but also on their ROW's, which were/are
also taxed - while Newark Airport was not, nor the NJ Turnpike which
carried autos, trucks, and Greyhound and Trailways merrily on their way,
competing with rail service.

Ok, soapbox mode over.  But New Jersey taxing policies certainly
hastened the demise of the Erie and DL&W, not to mention all the other
"Fallen Flags."  Can anyone add some labor restrictions or unfair taxing
policies that brought P/C and Conrail about?  And I doubt if the lack of
a commissary at Dearborn Terminal was an issue - I can't imagine the
Santa Fe, which also used Dearborn Terminal, waiting for Kansas City to
hook up a diner on the "Super Chief," so there must have been a
commissary (which E-L could have contracted with if necessary, or would
their labor agreements have allowed it?) !!!  I would say using the
diner Hoboken-Huntington had a lot to do with maintenance, labor
restrictions, and economics.
Joel McEachen   

> Erielack Digest      Thursday, December 30 1999      Volume 02 : Number 558
>
> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 22:15:29 EST
> From: "Michael Dye" <"luxpan_@_hotmail.com">
> Subject: Re: (erielack) dining cars
> 
> Possibly, although I seem to recall hearing that conventional wisdom
> dictated that it be dropped in Huntington as there was no need for it
> between Chicago and Huntington. I would imagine that they did it so it 
> could be serviced and so they didn't have to switch it at Dearborn.
> Michael Dye
> 
> >From: "Donald E. Kern jr" <"doubletrack_@_home.com">
> >
> >Could it be that thats where the commisary was and no commisary at 
> >Dearborn Terminal?

 ------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the erielack photopage at http://el-list.railfan.net

------------------------------