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

RE: (erielack) Map Placement on EL Pullman Standard Cars



As far as the locomotives, that's what the railroads asked for!  EL wanted
six-axle units to use on freight service over the weekend.  CNJ didn't.

As to the coaches, the CNJ adapted some of its coaches for push-pull
operation and continued to use them that way.  The E-L cars, especially
those in use on the Boonton Line, were not suitable for push-pull
operation.  Used cars were also bought from the Burlington Northern (of
both Great Northern and CBQ ancestry), Union Pacific, and even Penn
Central (of Pennsylvania ancestry).

- --- "Paul R. Tupaczewski" <paultup_@_optonline.net> wrote:
> Ken Bush wrote:
> > In answer to Michael's question, the operator was the E-L 
> > using equipment and, probably, subsidy money provided by 
> > NJDOT.  After the first Comets & U34CH's were purchased by 
> > NJDOT, the Lackawanna electric MU cars remained in service on 
> > the M & E Division, and a few trains made up of ex-Santa Fe 
> > stainless steel coaches ran on the Pascack Valley Line, 
> > pulled by E-L locomotives.
> 
> Here's a question I hope someone can answer: Is there a reason why the
> EL seemed to get a better deal than the CNJ with respect to what NJDOT
> helped to subsidize? The CNJ got 13 EMD GP40P's (new) and a whole bunch
> of cheap ex-GN and UP coaches. The EL got 31 U34CHs (new), the
> aforementioned ATSF cars (used), and a big fleet of Comet I coaches/bar
> cars/cab cars (all new).  Was the EL commuter service perceived as
> "more valuable" to the state than the CNJ service?

Gary R. Kazin
DL&W Milepost R35.7
Rockaway, New Jersey

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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

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