Re: (erielack) NYO&W - Erie Connection

[Gary R.Kazin <"gkazin_@_netscape.net">]

"MONTGOMERY| ED" <"emontgom_@_lan.tjhsst.edu"> wrote:
> There has been some discussion about whether the old Erie =

> Graham Line could, in some way be connected to the River Line via =

> the abandoned NYO&W roadbed.  Well, there is probably enough =

> old right-of-way to make that happen.  But, when you look at the =

> actual map of this line, the connection would probably not be =

> practical.  As soon as the O&W left the NYC at Cornwall it =

> encountered a steep grade and what appears to be a very tight S-
> curve.  If you could make 40 mph on it, it would be a stretch.  The =

> O&W wasn't built for speed.  Unless there was some major =

> engineering to straighten out the line, the possibility of opening it u=
p =

> for commuter service is slim.  These are my opinions based on =

> looking at old avaition maps and employee timetables.
> =

> Any other comments?


Why would you WANT to connect these lines that way?  Take the Port Jervis=

trains onto the West Shore, where there's no capacity?  So they can't get=
 to
Hoboken terminal or Allied Junction?   Is there a long term plan to get t=
rains
from the West Shore across the Hudson?  It would be much more practical t=
o
revive the Piermont Branch between Suffern and Nyack, with some trains us=
ing
the Pascack Valley line.  Others could connect to the proposed Tappan Zee=
 rail
crossing...

 Gary Kazin
 DL&W milepost R35.7
 Rockaway, New Jersey

 New Jersey Transit - THE WAY TO GO!!!

 (I have no affiliation with New Jersey Transit.)

____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://home=
=2Enetscape.com/webmail

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

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