Re: (erielack) H&M to GCT, was PATH question

["James R. Guthrie" <"jguthrie_@_pipeline.com">]

Mike asked:
>
> Wonder if this scheme has anything to do with why the Stillwells
look so much
> like the early H&M cars.  A "family" apperance of rolling stock was
quite the
> tradition in that era.  The Stillwells looked like a steam-road
version of
> the original H&M tubes cars.  Hmmmm.
>

Squeezing 'em around the Morton St tunnel would have been an
interesting feat in any case <g>.

Seriously, with all due respect to Schuyler's posting, it should be
noted that the H&M had similar agreements with everyone but the
Lackawanna.

The PRR made actual use of their agreement by operating "through"
service to Hudson Terminal, since there were exclusive PRR-owned
trains that ran Exchange Place- HT only offering checked baggage and
other amenities.  These would appear as "through" trains in some
timetables, but would be better classified as "dedicated,
connection-owned" trains.

As far as i can determine, that was the intention of the H&M witrh the
Erie as well -- Erie owned H&M-sized trains connecting exclusively
with Erie trains at the Pavonia terminal. If anyone has any evidence
that the Erie/H&M had anything more than that in the works, I'd love
to see it.

In short -- no prospect at any time for [Erie] Stillwells to GCT.

Cheers,
Jim


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

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

End of Erielack Digest V2 #754
******************************


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.