[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: (erielack) Feb. 67 Suburban Timetable
Ed,
I'm sure that the sell off or scrapping of cars was a business decision
unlike abandoning service or track. Perhaps it was difficult to get rid of
rolling stock quickly. Perhaps someone else can speak to the issues of
depreciation and whether, say, a Stillwell car in 1967 had any residual
value (probably not much). Also, there may have been a lingering concern
of the future need for the cars. Certainly it was no secret that the EL
wanted out of commuter service, but maybe the EL had heard scuttlebutt that
NJ was not going to let service go completely and that the cars might need
to be pressed into service.
Chuck
"Montgomery, Edward
T"
<Edward.Montgomery@ To: "JG at graytrainpix" <graytrainpix_@_hotmail.com>
fcps.edu> <erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
Sent by: cc:
erielack-owner_@_list Subject:
s.elhts.org RE: (erielack) Feb. 67 Suburban Timetable
08/23/2005 08:39 AM
Please respond to
"Montgomery, Edward
T"
The thing that amazed me about these cuts is why EL management didn't
rid itself of extra equipment at the point of cutting back all of the
trains because after New Jersey say the effects, and increased the
subsidies the cars were there to reinstate the service. Was there some
law that required a railroad to store passenger cars for a certain time
before scrapping began?
Ed Montgomery
- -----Original Message-----
From: erielack-owner_@_lists.elhts.org
[mailto:erielack-owner_@_lists.elhts.org] On Behalf Of JG at graytrainpix
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 9:26 PM
To: erielack_@_lists.railfan.net
Subject: (erielack) Feb. 67 Suburban Timetable
NOTE: This message had contained at least one image attachment.
To view or download the image(s), click on or cut and paste the
following URL into your web browser:
http://lists.railfan.net/listthumb.cgi?erielack-08-21-05
Feb_6_67_MainBCL.jpg (image/jpeg, 850x1224 224854 bytes, BF: 4.63 ppb)
I was looking at some suburban timetables today and I came across a Main
/
Bergen County Line timetable from Feb. 6, 1967; see attached scan of
weekday
trains. EL suburban service had been cut back in October, 1966, but
would
start to expand again in April, 67.
I forgot just how bad the initial cuts were; there was very little
service
other than during the rush hour, except on the M&E. Compare this with
today's Main Line schedule, where I count about 54 trains each way on
weekdays. There is also a lot more service now on Saturdays and there's
Sunday service, which didn't exist in 1967. If you were railfanning
back in
early '67, you could catch train 53 out to Port Jervis and then come
back
mid-afternoon on 58 (and probably see 3 or 4 freights on a good day).
But
that pre-dawn schedule was tough; if any of you did ride 53, my hat is
off
to you. Wish I could have, but I was 14 at the time and my mom didn't
want
me walking the streets from East Rutherford to Lyndhurst at 4:30 am.
Parents were stricter back then, and maybe that was good. Anyway, I had
to
wait another year until I could ride the trains in search of freight
action,
and then only to Suffern (as 53 and 58 were gone by mid-68). But at
least I
had a few more choices as to what Suffern trains to catch by then.
I wonder what we would have said if we could have glimpsed the future in
1967 and could have seen what exists and what doesn't exist today. As
to
the EL being gone, that wouldn't have been too surprising in 1967; we
knew
it just wasn't making any money. We'd probably be pleasantly surprised
that
passenger service made such a big comeback, but would be very dismayed
about
what happened to freight service. Passenger service over Moodna Viaduct
would make us smile, but only until we realized that the Main Line thru
Goshen and Monroe was gone. It wouldn't be too surprising to learn that
a
combination of the Norfolk and Western and the Southern ran what little
freight service was left (we knew back then that they were powerful
lines),
but the concept of NYS&W through freights would astonish us. NJ Transit
and
Metro North wouldn't be all that surprising, since in 1967 we already
knew
that the government was involved with the CN, the LIRR, and the Alaska
RR.
The GP40 variations wouldn't surprise us too much either, as they were
being
delivered to the CNJ in '67. The PL42s would be pretty hard to swallow,
though (passenger engine design has really been on a downward trend
since
the E-8). It would be comforting to know that Hoboken was still where
the
trains ran to (and that some sort of ferry service had returned to the
Hudson River), but Secaucus Junction would seem very futuristic.
As to what you young folk will see over the next 30 to 40 years -- maybe
electrification in a decade or two, if world oil production starts
leveling
off and prices skyrocket. Perhaps freight traffic will then surge to
the
point that the Southern Tier Line will be relevant once more (and they
will
put the double track back between Port Jervis and Otisville Tunnel).
But
those freights - or even passenger trains -- may be running with one-man
or
(arg) no-man crews; the locomotives will instead have cameras and
sensors
monitored by someone in India or Madagascar. Will the homeland security
issues lighten up so that you could go out and enjoy watching trains
again,
or are we heading for barbed wire and armed guards stationed along the
tracks? Will all cameras used outside the home need to be registered
with
the government? Enough speculation -- for now, let's just be glad that
we
still do have passenger trains to Suffern and Port Jervis in 2005.
Jim Gerofsky
The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
Sponsored by the ELH&TS
http://www.elhts.org
The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
Sponsored by the ELH&TS
http://www.elhts.org
The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
Sponsored by the ELH&TS
http://www.elhts.org
------------------------------