RE: (erielack) Topics CLARIFIED

["Tupaczewski, Paul R (Paul)" <paultup_@_lucent.com>]

Schuyler and all,

I actually never remember saying it was restricted to strictly "historical
EL operations." I *DID* say, however, that the list is restricted to EL (and
predecessor) roads as well as current-day operations and items of interest
on former EL lines. Restoration of service through the Water Gap is
relevant, as is freight service over that section. The WNY&P operation of
the Erie in western NY and PA is also relevant. (Heck, the latter even runs
ex-EL C424s!)

Let me provide an analogy: The ELHS provides a newsletter, the "Extra
Board," that has an excellent column written by Mike Dodge entitled "Diamond
Rails Revisited." It covers news about EL lines and equipment *today.*  I am
following the ELHS' own guidelines about proper content to its members here!
If you're curious about what can and cannot be posted, please look at the
contents of the Diamond Rails Revisited column to get an idea.

I will say this: NJT fares have NOTHING to do with EL! We're getting into
the question of relevance here - just like we did with modern-day M&E
operations. M&E operations prior to 1976 are just fine. The M&E getting a
customer on its Chester Branch (ex-DL&W) is also OK, but getting tenuously
close to that edge of "non-relevant." Operations on the Whippany Line are,
frankly, completely irrelevant! Unless someone can point out a compelling
argument to this group as to why it is not, it will remain a
"not-on-this-list" topic.

It's obviously a slow news time, since the number of posts have been so
small lately... Must be getting harder to search for relevancy... ;)

	- Paul

	

> > Well said.  We wouldn't be taking about the Water Gap or Scranton 
> > service or any of the short line operating a small section of xEL 
> > track if the
> list
> > was restricted to historical EL operations.  Nothing 
> post-1976 would 
> > qualify.  So can we give it a rest?
> >
> > Dale
> 
> Well, no, I wouldn't like to "give it a rest."  The list is 
> NOT about Water Gap service, or service to Scranton, or fares 
> on the NJT in 2002, all of which I would like to see go away 
> from the erielack list.  It >>>IS<<< restricted to historical 
> EL operations.  That's what Paul has said.
> 
> Isn't there some other list about NJT?  Can't those messages go there?
> 
> I get a hundred or so emails a day related to trains in one 
> form or another. I'd like the lists to which I subscribe to 
> limit their traffic to the topics the list is set up for - 
> that's what I asked for when I joined in.
> 
> Now, can we >>get back to the EL,<< and give this topic a rest?

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