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

Re: (erielack) Re: CNJ Interchange

Yes, this is why I used the qualifier "significant", since this short-haul 
traffic was certainly low volume, and dwarfed by the volume of traffic 
to/from the west. I believe traffic between Erie's North Jersey lines and 
northern New England (B&M-NH-Erie) was generally routed via Maybrook .

Paul B

From: "Janet & Randy Brown" <jananran_@_mymailstation.com>
Subject: Re:Re: (erielack) Re: CNJ Interchange

Perhaps the thought was that anything between Erie's northern New Jersey 
industrial or consumer base and the New Haven's southern Connecticut 
consumer or industrial base could as easily go by float instead of going 
halfway to Port Jervis and then halfway to Albany just to come back or 
vice-versa.  Besides, any such rate might have been based on the shorter 
mileage, making Maybrook the less economical alternative.

Randy Brown
- - --------------------------------------------------------------
> Erie/EL had no need for significant interchange with NYNH&H via NY Harbor
> float because of the direct interchange at Maybrook. PRR, CNJ, LV and DL&W

PaulB - -

What I'm interested in learning is why the Erie did any float business with 
the NH at all, given the Maybrook Gateway (at least 1908-1960). . .

Cheers,
Jim Guthrie
ELHS #1296


	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	http://EL-List.railfan.net/
	To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html

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