[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: (erielack) Feb. 67 Suburban Timetable
Considering the ages of the Stillwell coaches, it probably made more
sense to keep them as "parts cars" rather than to scrap them and then
have to buy new parts (or even have them machined) when repairs were
necessary.
Ken Bush
Charles_Walsh_@_Berlex.com wrote:
>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
>
>
The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
Sponsored by the ELH&TS
http://www.elhts.org
------------------------------