Re: (erielack) Run-throughs - formal process or "winging it?"

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

Paul and List,

Runthrough arrangements were designed to increase efficiency: the freight was being interchanged, why not the locomotives also instead of having them hang around the interchange point for 12 hours waiting on the next train? This increased loco utilization and was made possible by diesels, which unlike steam, were generally off-the-shelf items familiar to off-line as well as on-line crews. The first passenger locomotive runthrus I think involved the Overland Route: C&NW-UP-SP. It took longer for the concept to catch on for freight; the first was CB&Q-PRR train "GI" between Grand Island and Conway via Chicago in 1961. The first EL runthrus were with CRI&P between Silvis IL and Marion, and with N&W on the ECE/WCE (East and West Coast Expediters) via Huntington; both began in 1968 and the latter obviously Dereco-inspired. It's my impression that even though the Dereco power is probably over-represented in photos from that era, it was actually a common occurrence. 

The CB&Q (later BN)-EL runthrus began in '69. The schedule says "Locomotives operate between Croxton and St Paul" but that wasn't necessarily the case in practice. Railroads had power pooling agreements between specific points and usually for specific trains as in this example but actual practice was influenced by locomotive availability and late trains. If BN was short locomotives  its power may have been turned back at Marion or even 51st St in Chicago.

Pool arrangements could accomodate variable operating practice because locomotive usage over the participating RR's was tracked on the basis of mileage and horsepower. Thus an SD45 would "count" for more than a GP35 over the same mileage. The initial pool arrangement would attempt to roughly equalize miles as well as turn power at convenient locations. However, account imbalances could be equalized by locomotive operation. Thus, a road "owed miles" could retain the lococmotives of the road that owed miles; "running off the miles" could even take foreign power beyond the limits of the pool arrangement if necessary.

While power pooling increased locomotive utilization, it was the accompanying preblocking of trains that was primarily responsible for increasing the efficiency of interchange. During the 1970's after the closing of Hammond yard, Marion increasingly preblocked cars for all western connections. Thus, cars were delivered to connections without handling at the interchange, whether or not the locomotives actually ran through.

Steve asked about PC RDG and LV power. LV and EL were primarily competitors and thus did not have runthrough trains. RDG and EL interchanged trains first at Newberry Jct, then Rupert PA, but this did not involve power runthru. EL-PC power pooling was used on New England interchange for former NH territory. Prior to May 8,1974 the pool district was Port Jervis-Cedar Hill. After the Maybrook route was severed the roads interchanged at Utica. PC power operated as far west as Gang Mills and possibly further.

I hope this answers your questions.

Paul B

From: "Tupaczewski, Paul R \(Paul\)" <paultup_@_alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: (erielack) Run-throughs - formal process or "winging it?"

Hi all,

The recent discussions of EL over former NH lines and PC over the EL to
Port Jervis got me thinking - were all these run-throughs part of a
formal agreement, or was it an example of railroads doing their own
deals (i.e., "we'll let you take our SD45s to New Haven if you let us
take your U33Cs to Port Jervis for these two trips")?

What made me wonder is that you hear a lot about "power sharing under
Dereco ownership," yet you don't see that many photos of D&H or N&W
units on EL trains in those years. I almost think that the reason you
see these photos in books and such is because it was such an uncommon
occurrence, and it's good "eye candy" for reader.  More common, it would
appear, was the appearance of BN (and predecessor) and MILW power on EL
trains. Again, was there a formal pooling agreement? All these were
fairly short-term (it appears the BN runthroughs lasted around 2 years)
- - - why did they start in the first place? I've heard that it was to make
up for even power usage, but you don't see that many photos of EL units
on BN lines - at least not as many as BN units on the EL.


	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	Sponsored by the ELH&TS
	http://www.elhts.org
	To Unsubscribe: http://lists.elhts.org/erielackunsub.html

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