Re: (erielack) Erie Split Mains

[Ken <lackawanna_@_iname.com>]

Isn't the reason that the Erie had such good clearances the fact that it 
was originally a 6-foot gauge line?  That would leave a lot of clearance if 
2 6' tracks were reduced to 2 standard gauge tracks.


Ken B.

At 02:52 PM 1/9/02 -0800, A Samostie wrote:
>Dear Group,
>
>We've discussed clearances and Erie/EL's reputation as the "high and
>wide" route quite a bit.  However, I'm only familiar with the standard
>width right-of-way east of Akron.
>
>My question is, at what point did the widely-separated "split mains"
>begin?  Were there places where the two mains came close together
>(through towns, at grade crossings, etc.), then split apart again
>through the countryside?
>
>The Erie must have gotten a really cheap deal on land when building the
>West End... but given present-day property tax rates, I can see why
>Conrail would try to get rid of it, even if it had higher traffic
>levels.  Too bad, really... I imagine property tax rates in Indiana pale
>in comparison to those in New York State (even rural Upstate).
>
>It was really neat to see a tower *between* the split mains on the
>inside back cover of the recent issue of The Diamond... something you
>aren't likely to see on any other railroad, even in the wide-open west!
>Were there any other major structures (e.g. grain elevators) between the
>split mains?
>
>Cheers,
>Alan <quahog_@_sprint.ca>

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