[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: (erielack) Blairstown



Of course there are other conditions besides track occupancy, the question
is how is this info conveyed to crews. CTC installation is expensive, and
you help pay for it by employment reduction, including elimination of towers
and the folks who copy orders and hoop them up. I guess every RR is
different; in CTC operations I'm familiar with, train orders are conveyed to
crews directly via radio. Presumably the former DL&W territory didn't have
radio.

Re: New Loop: looking at the premerger map on the same page, I gather it
passed under the Susie-Q on the old Erie passenger alignment. Looks like
they had to shorten some storage tracks. So where was the intermodal area in
relation to this map? Did it take up the SE quadrant of the yard (CX is
aligned more or less north-south)?

Finally, I'm now thoroughly confused about the Hoboken link. Does anyone
know if the Society has a map(s) of this area in the final years, including
Croxton, Hoboken, Loops, ramps and Connections? Paul, thanks for all that
info.

Paul B
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tupaczewski, Paul R (Paul)" <paultup_@_lucent.com>
To: "'Paul Brezicki'" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>; "EL Mailing List"
<erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:18 AM
Subject: RE: (erielack) Blairstown


> Paul B. wrote:
>
>
> > The reason I ask is that E Stroudsburg is only a few miles
> > from Slateford
> > Jct and the Cutoff, and handing up orders is redundant with TCS.
>
> Why are orders redundant with TCS? TCS accounts for traffic flow, but how
do you handle unusual circumstances? For example, what if there was a speed
restriction in place? Or the signals are out? Even with a TCS system, there
will ALWAYS be circumstances where you need to hand off orders to take care
of certain items.
>
> We've discussed those PRR-style train order signals at Port Jervis and
Passaic Junction - both areas under TCS.
>
>
> > I've seen pictures of the "Old Loop"; where exactly was the
> > "New Loop" in
> > relation to old?
>
> If you've seen the photo in Larry DeYoung's EL Vol. 3 book of the "old
loop," the "new loop" curves off to the right, and makes a much wider radius
turn back to the left, allowing trains to access the east end of the yard
(the "old loop" brings the train into the west side of the yard). The reason
for the old loop? Intermodal traffic. The piggyback pads were on the east
end of the yard, and the new loop allowed trains to make one fluid movement
to get to the pads. Prior to the new loop, the piggyback cars had to be
switched back through the yard to get to the pads, a time-consuming and
operationally-clogging movement.
>
>
>
> > So a Hoboken-Croxton transfer would have to perform a back-up
> > move through
> > "Nave" on the Weehawken line before proceeding through the
> > Bergen Arches?
>
> There shouldn't have been a "backup move" - the Weehawken Branch was a
straight shot right out of the Erie tunnel. "CP Nave" was a Conrail
interlocking that was reconfigured, from what I understand.
>
> Now that Bob pointed out the connection, it's coming back to me. When I
was a student at Stevens Tech in Hoboken, one of my favorite dinnertime
activities was to go down to the west side of the town and do some railroad
archaology exploring. I always remember seeing the "two ramps", both
starting about 1000 feet east of the Bergen Tunnel portals. One came off the
south side of the tracks and went down a gradual ramp to the Weehawken
Branch, and hooked up to it facing south. This would give any traffic coming
out of Hoboken a straight shot to the Weehawken Branch and then Croxton.
When I saw this track (circa 1992), it was barely a pair of rails in the
dirt - I had thought it was a switching lead at the time. Today, it's all
obliterated with the construction of the Light Rail line there.
>
> The "other" ramp was the more intriguing one - it came off the north side
of the DL&W tracks, and made a steep, sharp curve down to the Weehawken
Branch, facing NORTH. What was THAT ramp used for?  I think the ramp is
still visible from the DL&W level, but there's a horrible vertical "kink"
due to settling of the ramp fill (I assume)
>
> - Paul


	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	Sponsored by the ELH&TS
	http://www.elhts.org

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