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

Re: (erielack) Concordance Map, rationale for track structure work

etc.
 (add'l comments)
Sender: "erielack-owner_@_internexus.net"
Precedence: bulk

Perhaps the condition of the rail and/or roadbed had something to do with
what
was kept and what was ripped up.  It might have been less costly to
single-track  a line with the best parts of the two tracks rather than to
bring
one complete track up to acceptable standards.  If the freight rolled at
10-20
m.p.h. because of the movement from one track to another, so what?  At least
it
moved!


KenB.



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

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