[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: (erielack) Concordance Map, rationale for track structure work etc. (add'l comments)

In Corry they left the eastbound main because most of the industry was
on this track. Going west we run on the eastbound until about 1/2 way to
Union City where we go onto the westbound main. The reason for the
westbound I agree is mostly bridge maintenance, but also all the
industry in Union City is on this track.

Christopher Thurner wrote:
> 
> Kevin DeGroff's comments below, adds some valid and interesting insight into
> the 'why's' of track rationalization and elimination in the early Conrail
> years.
> 
> He concludes with the following paragraph:
> 
> 'It seems that deep down there was some short-term cost-savings reason
> responsible for most of this, but it does sound kinda dumb to compromise
> smooth long-term operations to save a few pennies.  Classic example
> of cherry-picking assets, thus yielding inconsistent future operations.'
> 
> I agree with Kevin's conclusion for the most part, however, I believe one
> must reflect on obstacles to be confronted and the operating environment
> that the Ruling Fathers of Conrail at the time had to exist under.  It is
> easy 24 years after CR founding to sit back and be a 'Monday morning
> quarterback', especially in light of its superb operations and the
> profitability it had from the mid to late 80's and afterward.
> 
> No doubt that these odd track alignments, compromises on track, bridge and
> signal structures present today an impediment to smooth efficient
> operations.  However, things were quite different from 4/1/76 until the mid
> 80's in the following ways:
> 
> 1.) NE railroading operated under excess capacity for decades.  I remember a
> lecture in an economics class in college regarding predatory pricing by
> competitors regarding the RR industry in the NE.  The professor discussed
> that since the 20's there were five routes in existence to ship via rail
> between NY and Chicago and only enough volume to allow two, and under the
> best economic conditions, three to operate profitably.  (PRR, NYC, Erie,
> DL&W/NKP, CNJ/Reading/B&O);
> 2.) Operating conditions and the overall health of the RR industry in the
> 70's / early 80's was abysmal (some were even writing the industry's
> obituary at that time);
> 3.) Regulatory environment was very oppressive and contributed significantly
> to #2.);
> 4.) A number of smokestack industries were on the decline or had gone out of
> business (i.e. steel, metals, etc.), again another significant contributor
> to #2.);
> 5.) Regulators (i.e. ICC) were not receptive to mergers, rate structure
> overhaul, and other improvements to operating conditions.  There was a
> thread in the list about 3 months or so ago that discussed an annual report
> of the Erie's from the late 50's (posted on G. Elwood's site).  In it,
> management discussed that a proposed merger with the DL&W was being
> considered by the ICC and had been drawn out and how they felt it was in the
> best interests of the long term prospects of the corporation.  Also, it
> discussed the potential impact of the proposed PRR / NYC merger that had
> been presented to the Commission (10 years before it occurred!);
> 6.) Meaningful regulatory reform was not effected until the early 80's (i.e.
> Staggers Act);
> 
> In short, the future for the industry was bleak and CR's was especially
> bleak.  No one knew if it could make a viable entity out of the mess it
> inherited.   Continued support by the USRA and other gov't agencies was very
> uncertain.  Remember, it was the efforts of Stanley Crane and others in the
> early CR management team to keep CR both out of the hands of other RR and
> investment $ coming to it from gov't agencies.  One can only speculate, but
> w/o the continued stewardship of the USRA, CR would have been bought by
> other RR's and IMHO, it is likely that under the control of other private
> roads, a number of CR lines still in existence, would have been sold off or
> abandoned.
> 
> When you are trying to keep your ship afloat in uncertain waters, you can
> only focus on keeping the holes plugged and completing the voyage at hand.
> It is almost impossible under those conditions to worry about future
> voyages, what they would bring about and how well one can navigate a future
> that may likely not even come about. (In other words: We'll cross that
> bridge (no pun intended) when we get to it.).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Chris Thurner
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   "erielack-owner_@_internexus.net" [mailto:erielack-owner@internexus.net]
> On Behalf Of Kevin DeGroff
> Sent:   Wednesday, May 31, 2000 2:31 PM
> To:     "erielack_@_internexus.net"
> Subject:        Re: (erielack) Concordance Map
> 
> Conspiracy theories aside, I think this practice had alot to do with TCS
> availability, and/or the condition of track and bridges.
> 
> There is no doubt that CR deemed alot of these afflicted lines as not
> important to its core system, and on those lines cost analysis and penny
> pinching took on a whole new meaning.  If you were a Division Supt.,
> your mantra was 'If you got it, you made sure you kept it, because
> you weren't getting any more.'
> 
> Anrie Morscher has a picture on his website of a straight-railed crossover
> at Steamburg NY (between Salamanca and Jamestown)
> 
> http://www.morscher.com/rr/1978/19780805_09.jpg
> 
> The view looks east.  The alignment shifts from track 2 to track 1 in an
> eastward direction.  Bi-directional TCS was installed on both tracks from
> RH Randolph to Steamburg, but it was installed only on track 1 from
> Steamburg to Salamanca.  Track 1 from Steamburg to Randolph was
> in worse shape than track 2, and since track 1 was the 'diverging route'
> coming off the single track at RH,  they used the better track and straight
> alignment at RH, until the crossover at Steamburg, where they jumped
> over to use the TCS on track 1 (and which didn't exist on track 2 to
> the east).
> 
> I remember a time back in the days when the second main was still in place,
> but not used, when on account of bridge conditions near Red House
> (where the two tracks ran on a separate alignment and used two separate
> bridges), I was surprised when scouting around Sawmill Run Rd west
> of Salamanca one day to find that CR had temporarily put track 2 back
> in service in order to work on the bridge for track 1, the track that was
> eventually kept.. Near Sawmill Run Rd, they had temporarily kinked the
> alignment from track 1 to track 2 westbound, and they also temporarily
> removed the kink at Steamburg.  Later, when I went back to the area,
> everything was back to 'normal' (track 1 was continuous at Sawmill Run,
> and Steamburg kinked again (and still does today.)
> 
> Elsewhere, on the ABS section between Cuba and Salamanca, track 2 was
> kept over the entire distance, with the exception of where a small stretch
> (~ 5 miles) of welded rail existed on track 1 between Olean and Hinsdale.
> The alignment was altered there to take advantage of  it.  I believe it was
> just west of the track 2-only hotbox detector at Hinsdale.  By jogging the
> alignment there, they were able to keep track 2 through the detector and
> still use the welded rail.  They did all that just to keep 5 miles of ribbon
> rail.
> 
> West of Union City PA where the tracks run on a separate alignment, the
> newer (easier graded) eastbound main that bridged over the original 1800s
> westbound main and ran left-handed was abandoned in order to use the
> welded rail on the westbound, and more importantly avoid all that bridge
> maintenance associated with the newer eastbound track.
> 
> Even on the PRR Buffalo line, the segment of double track from South Olean
> to the Erie crossing at CP-Olean was single-tracked, with the main being
> removed rather than the siding since the siding had previously been upgraded
> to welded rail during early CR times (since the siding was falling apart in
> the
> PC era). Today, the tracks still kink at the former location of CP-South
> Olean.
> While they kept the double track in place from CP-Olean to CP-North Olean,
> trains northbound on the 'main' end up on what was the siding, where they
> must slow down at North Olean to go through the reversed switch.
> Southbound trains also must 'diverge' at North Olean to stay on the main.
> 
> It seems that deep down there was some short-term cost-savings reason
> responsible for most of this, but it does sound kinda dumb to compromise
> smooth long-term operations to save a few pennies.  Classic example
> of cherry-picking assets, thus yielding inconsistent future operations.
> 
> Michael Dye wrote:
> 
> > I've wondered about that. I can understand why Conrail would be pulling up
> > rails, to be used on fixing up the @#$@#$%$#!!! PC lines that they decided
> > to keep, but why alternate sides in double track territory? To slow trains
> > down so they could more easily justify abandonment?
> >
> > Michael Dye ELHS #1516
> >
> > >From: "Bill K." <"pontiac_@_dreamscape.com">
> > >To: "gelwood" <"gelwood_@_dnaco.net">, "Michael Dye" <luxpan@hotmail.com>
> > >CC: <"erielack_@_internexus.net">
> > >Subject: Re: (erielack) Concordance Map (was re: Further Query-EL West
> End)
> > >Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 21:14:55 -0400
> > >
> > >I think this was standard procedure on lines they wanted to get rid of.
> > >Reason I say so is the LV west end, also abandoned, does the same switch
> of
> > >track alignments in the middle of Manchester (NY) Yard where a shortline
> > >still runs a few miles of the mainline.   Also, Finger Lakes' portion of
> > >the LV does some sharp alignment moves where the connecting track from
> the
> > >lower-level yards joins the remaining mainline track.   Makes me wonder
> if
> > >any other lines that ended up surplus, do the same thing -
> > >
> > >Bill K.
> > >
> > >----------
> > > > From: gelwood <"gelwood_@_dnaco.net">
> > > > To: Michael Dye <"luxpan_@_hotmail.com">
> > > > Cc: "erielack_@_internexus.net"
> > > > Subject: Re: (erielack) Concordance Map (was re: Further Query-EL West
> > >End)
> > > > Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 6:23 PM
> > > >
> > > > I have the book and thought the same thing.  If I knew Cook I would
> > > > ask.  I do have the maps generated by the EL on what both B&O/C&O
> would
> > > > keep when that purchase was discussed (everything east of Sterling)
> and
> > >CR
> > > > (everything east of MArion).  It was interesting to see how CR removed
> > >the
> > > > CR line between Marion and Akron. They would take out alternate
> section
> > > > between crossover. This made operating the EL difficult.  You would
> run
> > > > down the eastbound main for a few miles then over to the westbound
> main
> > > > for a few miles.
> > > >
> > > > George Elwood
> > > > http://www.dnaco.net/~gelwood
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 30 May 2000, Michael Dye wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >  ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >Visit the erielack photopage at http://el-list.railfan.net
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
> >
> >  ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Visit the erielack photopage at http://el-list.railfan.net
> 
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit the erielack photopage at http://el-list.railfan.net
> 
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit the erielack photopage at http://el-list.railfan.net

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

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

End of Erielack Digest V2 #727
******************************


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to "majordomo_@_internexus.net" with the
command unsubscribe erielack-digest in the BODY of the message.
To switch to the regular version of the list, include the command
subscribe erielack as the second line in the e-mail described above.