[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: (erielack) Erie Split Mains
The reason that the Erie had these "split mains" (which isn't really a
correct term) is because they were separately-built lines. I have been
doing research in the Corporate records (Executive committee and Board
minutes) and during the '00s one of the common listings is "grade
reductions." I also know from conversations with Bill Burt that the Erie
built new alignments at lower grades in many locations. Not only the DL&W
did this, you know.
The lines east from Meadville are the original NYP&O alignment (more or
less) and a new alignment built, IIRC, around 1905 (?? I could be off by 10
years there . . . ) The new line was, in fact, built with abutments for a
second track at the bridges, and in some cases the fills and cuts were
pre-cut for a second track . . . never to be installed. They kept the
original line because the traffic warranted two tracks, and because there
was no grade advantage to the downhill side of traffic. IOW, a long,
gradual slope uphill was better than several short steep stretches if you're
ascending, but short steep downhill runs are not a (really huge) problem if
you're headed down.
Last spring, I toured the back country of NW PA in the company of my
ever-so-patient wife and my, well, not-quite-so-patient-then-7-year-old
daughter, east from Meadville through almost to Niobe, RRwest of Jamestown.
It is the >>boondocks<< out there (no offense if you live there, actually
quite pretty country, but when you live in Metro Boston, it IS the sticks)
and you can find the lines quite easily. Sometimes they are MILES apart
through there. Conrail, in its efforts to be certain that this would never
be a competing line, ripped up the LOWER grade line instead of the older,
steeper route. How dumb is that? So the newer line is in some places just
a bump across the fields, where the older line has the track and all. Now
that WNY&P is in charge, I understand that these rails are getting pretty
well polished again, at least in some areas.
So, to recap, the "split mains" arose from the future-oriented
administrations, mostly under EH Harriman's control, that were looking to
improve the line so that it could handle more traffic at lower expense.
Building an entire new alignment was a fair thing to do. Once you have read
EHH's bio ( I recommend the one written by Maury Klein, published by U of N
Carolina Press, 2000) you understand where he was headed with this
reconstruction. He wanted first class railroads, and understood the notion,
even then, "if you build it, they will come."
When EHH took over the UP, he asked the Chief Engineer to prepare a plan for
improvements, everything he thought would improve the road. When the list,
which came to Truly Significant Money, was completed, EHH told him: "Do
it." The CE asked what his budget would be per year. EHH said "No, I mean
do it now . . . all of it . . . don't waste our time." (that's not an exact
quote, but you get the idea.)
SGL
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Will <alcoman_@_net.bluemoon.net>
To: Michael Dye <luxpan_@_hotmail.com>
Cc: <erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: (erielack) Erie Split Mains
You also had the "split mains" on the Erie on the Southern Tier, dont
remember what point east of Meadville they started but they came back
together in Meadville.
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Michael Dye wrote:
>>From my reading, it appears that the reasoning behind the split mains was
in
>order to reduce the prevailing grades for each direction, in order to ease
>the passage of trains. I don't know of any structures (other than signal
>masts) located between the mains. Still, I seem to recall reading that
there
>was a section near Akron, Indiana, where the east and westbound mains
>switched sides, crossing over each other by a bridge (I've not been able to
>confirm this by track plan). The grade separations were at:
>
>MP: Location:
>808-811 Between Wren, OH and Decatur, IN
>866-876 Between Laketon, IN and Akron, IN
>951-957 Between Crown Point, IN and Griffith, IN
>
>
>The counties in question were Wabash and Pulaski counties, in Indiana.
Their
>RR property taxes were rather...predatory, and the Erie decided to reduce
>the property that was contained in those areas. So, single track and closed
>depots followed.
>
>Michael Dye ELHS #1516
>
>
>
>>From: Richard Young <ryoungceo_@_yahoo.com>
>> Not only were there split mains but they were also at
>>different elevations in many spots. At the extreme end
>>there was 42 feet of vertical elevation differences
>>between the two Mains in Indiana. I don't know of any
>>structures between the split mains but there were a
>>few road bridges over the eastbound main going into a
>>standard grade cossing of the west bound main.
>>
>> The mains did not keep equal distance apart as the
>>tangents between the two varied. ( some times only 5
>>feet of extra distance over the standard double track
>>separation and up to 110' in a few spots on my
>>charts). I have never seen anything that stated why
>>and what fors as to the split multi level mains. Any
>>help there would be appreciated.
>>
>> Taxes in Two of the indana counties were so high
>>after a reforendum that precipitated the removal of
>>the double track in 54 or 55.
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
>http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
Will Semanchuk-Enser Blue Moon General Manager
alcoman_@_bluemoon.net www.bluemoon.net - Blue Moon Internet Corp.
V.90, X2 & K56flex www.railfan.net - The Railfan Network
------------------------------