Re: (erielack) Boonton Line freight train analysis

["Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>]

Quite possible, although the limited clearance at Kingsland tunnel would
still have presented a problem. I think it was ten years too late when EL
management finally realized they should make use of Lackawanna's superb
engineering on the cutoff and between Hallstead and Clark's Summit, vs the
Erie's (except for the Graham Line) mid-ninteenth century alignment.

Paul B

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Charles_Walsh_@_berlex.com>
To: "Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>
Cc: "EL Mailing List" <erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>;
<erielack-owner_@_lists.elhts.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: (erielack) Boonton Line freight train analysis


>
> Dear Paul,
>
> It may be a red herring, but I've read that Conrail might have retained
the
> Scranton route had it not been for the severing of the original Boonton
> Line around Garret Mountain in Paterson (now part of Route 80) back in the
> early 1960s.  Conrail apparently didn't want anything to do with the use
of
> the routing of trains over the Greenwood Lake Branch, which was always a
> potential operational headache even without heavy commuter traffic.  It
> makes for interesting speculation about what might have happened if the EL
> had retained one track around Garret Mountain, as NJDOT had originally
> proposed.
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>
>                       "Paul Brezicki"
>                       <doctorpb_@_bellsouth
>                       .net>               To:     "EL Mailing List"
<erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
>                       Sent by:            cc:
>                       erielack-owner_@_list Subject:
>                       s.elhts.org                 (erielack) Boonton Line
freight train analysis
>
>
>                       10/04/2005 06:17 AM
>                       Please respond to
>                       "Paul Brezicki"
>
>
>
>
>
> I think you're on the right track, Chuck. While most of the funding for
> reconstruction came from the federal 3R program, some states were also
> involved, and the various beaurocracies didn't always spend the money
> wisely. Some of the decisions were more political than pragmatic. Maybe
> that's how a crafty NJ pol got some work for his underemployed
> constituents.
> It was small potatoes compared with, say, rehabbing the multiple track
PRR
> main across PA. In the early going there was also still some uncertainty
> about how much traffic would go where. So it doesn't surprise me that the
> cutoff had a tie program in '76, and then in a year later they were
> dragging
> recently installed cwr off the Poconos and relaying it on the Delaware
> Div'n. I think that early on, the CR operating folks determined they
wanted
> no part of muscling heavy freights over the Boonton line rollercoaster. So
> the shift back to the Erie side was pretty rapid, and after that the
> Scranton route saw online traffic and detours.
>
> Paul B
>
> Dear Paul B. and all,
>
> So what remained on the Scranton side once the shift to the Erie side was
> completed?  There were definitely CR freights that operated over the
> Cut-Off, at least during 1976.  Whether this continued in 1977, I don't
> know.  By 1978, Port Morris to Slateford Jct. had been placed out of
> service.  Once again, I'm curious why there was significant tie
replacement
> on the Cut-Off after CR took over.  Maybe they had all that federal money
> to spend, or maybe it was something else?  It doesn't make any sense.  Any
> speculation?
>
> Chuck
>
>
>              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

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