Re: (erielack) The Piermont Branch/Erie Gauging

["Schuyler G Larrabee" <"sgl2_@_ix.netcom.com">]

Michael Dye, in an excellent post, stated:

While the Erie was spending it's money
> regauging the track and the rolling stock, the competition was spending
it's
> money on reducing grades. This was something that the Erie never was able
to
> do.

Point taken, Michael, but not quite 100% true.  The River Line was a grade
reduction program, and there is a lot of dual line between Meadville and,
um, I think it went as far as the NY Line, or maybe a little farther east,
with the second track being a low-grade alternative to the original
alignment built, IIRC, in the '00's and the 'teens.  Most, if not all, of
the bridges on the new line were built with double track abutments, but only
single track spans, so you can see that they were planning ahead for a
double track low-grade line through there.  William Burt, who has studied
this section of the Erie _extensively_, has gone out in the woods (and the
poison ivy) to look at this stuff and it is from him that I know this.  As I
understand it, for some reason, when this area was single tracked, the
low-grade line is the one that was ripped up (thanks, Conrail) and they not
only ripped up the track and removed the spans, but also actually pulled out
abutments and fills, as if they never wanted ANYBODY to have the advantage
that might be gained by that line.

You also have to remember the Graham Line, and the tunnel through the hill
under Otisville, both of which substantially reduced grades as well as
curvature.

It is too bad that they were never able to attack the problems in Eastern
Ohio, where the roller coaster alignment required cutting some trains in
half so that the power could continue eastbound without threat of stalling.

SGL


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

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