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

Re: (erielack) CNJ...how about others?

The problem with the B&O Haulage beyond Dayton and the operation over the 
NYC to Newberry Junction was the the B&O and the NYC each got to look at the 
EL's waybills and thus this traffic was easy to target.  The Newberry 
Junction traffic IIRC had some big time geographic restrictions (no traffic 
from, to, or via west of Salamanca/Buffalo?).  It was not as good as an 
unrestricted EL-RDG direct interchange which is why after 17 Oc 60 
EL-Rupert-RDG ultimately prevailed.
M J Connor


>From: "Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>
>Reply-To: "Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>
>To: "Tupaczewski, Paul R (Paul)" <paultup_@_lucent.com>,        "EL Mailing 
>List" <erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
>Subject: Re: (erielack) CNJ...how about others?
>Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:41:22 -0500
>
>The latter. In a haulage agreement, using this case as an example, EL cars
>were handled beyond Dayton by B&O trains with the latter's power and crews,
>but on EL's waybill. So the shipper dealt only with EL and it was not an
>interline move, same as trackage rights.
>
>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: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:26 AM
>Subject: RE: (erielack) CNJ...how about others?
>
>
> > Paul B. wrote:
> >
> > > Finally, EL had haulage rights over B&O from Dayton to Cincinnati and
> > > Indianapolis, an arrangement dating back to the ninteenth
> > > century and A&GW.
> >
> >
> > Now THAT's interesting - so,it only EL's cars that were forwarded over 
>the B&O?
> >
> > - Paul
>
>
>	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

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