Re: (erielack) Erie Split Mains

["Michael Dye" <luxpan_@_hotmail.com>]

I beg to differ. Both the original Erie (NYLE&W, etc) and the A&GW (NYPANO) 
were built to the 6' gauge, and later converted to the standard gauge 
(1880s?) (Ref: "EL West End Vol. 1"-Sennstrom, "RRs of Indiana"-Simons & 
Parker). So, the 6' gauge would have run from NY through Marion to Dayton.

It would appear that the Chicago & Indiana/Chicago & Erie were built to the 
standard gauge from the beginning, as I've found nothing in either book that 
suggests a change in gauge (Other than converting the line from Markle to 
Huntington from narrow to standard gauge), nor that the CW&I was ever 
anything other than standard gauge.

Michael Dye ELHS #1516


>From: "Walt Fles" <eriewalt_@_hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: "Walt Fles" <eriewalt_@_hotmail.com>
>To: "Ken" <lackawanna_@_iname.com>, "A Samostie" <quahog@sprint.ca>,   
><erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
>Subject: Re: (erielack) Erie Split Mains
>Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:08:45 -0600
>
>The 6 foot guage time frame was really early on, before double tracking, 
>and
>only in the original NY and ERIE RR area.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ken" <lackawanna_@_iname.com>
>To: "A Samostie" <quahog_@_sprint.ca>; <erielack@lists.railfan.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 5:33 PM
>Subject: Re: (erielack) Erie Split Mains
>
>
> > 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>
> >
> >




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

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