Erie Lackawanna
Railfan.net 'erielack' E-Mail List Photo Archive

770504_NJM_to_raise_grade_3_ft_RRG_p206.jpg   Original: 364 by 175 pixels - Current: 364 by 175 - 100%
                          Try your mouse wheel too!

Previous Image - 761201_NJM_refuses_to_raise_track_at_Ber_Jct_RRG_p528.jpg (No Next Image)

From: tommy meehan tmeehan0421 AT gmail DOT com
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 10:01:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Question About DL&W Bergen Jct
"770504_NJM_to_raise_grade_3_ft_RRG_p206.jpg" - image/jpeg, 364x175 (24bit)

I sent a thank you to Jim for posting the link to an interesting court
case involving all of these roads. A word search of *Railroad Gazette* from
the late 1870s produced three interesting articles, one of which referenced
a case referred to in Jim's link. They also provided some information on
the timeline on the crossing of Erie and New Jersey Midland/New York,
Susquehanna & Western at Bergen Jct.

As was either mentioned or referred to here, the route M&E used east of the
Hackensack River to access the Erie tunnel was a different one than the
route they later used (built) to reach their own tunnel. The route to the
Erie tunnel was further north. This connection was established in 1862 and
predated NJM building through the area by about ten years. This all began
to change when the Lackawanna decided to begin building its own Bergen Hill
tunnel in 1873.

The first article I found in *Gazette* (I'm attaching screen caps of all
three) was from the June 13, 1874 issue. It reports that NJM and Erie were
seeking to prevent Lackawanna's tunnel contractor from laying track across
NJM and Erie at what became Bergen Jct.. The contractor wanted to use work
trains to haul away rock and dirt from the tunnel project rather than use
horse drawn teams. Interestingly, Erie and NJM conceded that Lackawanna had
a legal right, granted by the state of New Jersey, to cross their lines at
(what became) Bergen Jct. What they were objecting to was the tunnel
contractor building the line citing the "law under which the tunnel is
being built provides for the line being built west of the tunnel only after
the tunnel shall be completed." I didn't find a disposition of the case but
I got the impression that the court allowed the contractor to build the
crossing.

The second news article was from the Dec. 1, 1876 issue of *Gazette*.
Lackawanna's crossing of the NJM was to be three feet higher than the NJM
right-of-way and New Jersey Midland was refusing to raise their grade.
(This case is also referred to in the case summary Jim linked.) The third
article is from the May 4, 1877 issue. The New Jersey Chancery Court ruled
that 1) NJM's grade should be raised, but 2) Lackawanna had to pay the cost.

All three issues are available on line at HathiTrust Digital Library.
Volumes are linked by year and the screen caps include the page number.

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000677833?type%5B%5D=title&lookfor%5B%5D=%22Railroad%20gazette%22&ft

Thanks again, I really have enjoyed this discussion and learned some
interesting history, too.

tommy meehan


770504_NJM_to_raise_grade_3_ft_RRG_p206.jpg

Click Here or on the corner X to close this window.


    All photos are the property of the original photographer unless otherwise noted and are to be used for personal viewing purposes only.

    The use of these photos on any website or other distribution media is strictly forbidden without the express consent of the image copyright holder.

    Linking directly to this page is permitted as long as "Railfan.net Erie Lackawanna Email List Photo Archive" is creditted on the linking page.