RE: (erielack) Bingo East, etc.

["Tupaczewski, Paul R (Paul)" <paultup_@_lucent.com>]

Bill K. wrote:


> I thought that in the 1970's the EL was using the DL&W east 
> of Binghamton as
> the "main line" into Jersey, and using the Erie side much 
> less.   Reason
> being there was more industry on that side as a whole.  Then 
> they had a
> tunnel on the DL&W side catch fire and make a mess, pushing 
> it all onto the
> Erie side or through a circutous detour via the D&H and an 
> Erie branch line.
> Plus I seem to recall some questionable abandonments and 
> reroutes of line in
> Jersey, some of which would amount to similar problems as 
> mentioned with
> using the commuter-served lines today.  But either way the EL 
> was leaning to
> the Lackawanna side as the preferred mainline of the two.  I 
> suppose the
> local traffic in the Scranton area might have negated some of 
> the added
> costs associated with the grades in and out, as opposed to 
> much less local
> traffic on the Erie side over Gulf Summit.

From what I've always understood, most freight traffic went over the Erie side until the early 1970s, when some traffic started being shifted to the DL&W side, and then by 1975, a LOT of traffic was running on the Lackawanna side. But the primary reasons I've heard for the switch was that the Erie side was pretty beat up after being the primary freight route for a decade. Remember at this point, the EL was in bankruptcy, and didn't have the money to spend on major track repairs. Solution? Run the trains over the side that has better track conditions. Simple economics. The DL&W grades were tougher, but the road didn't have much of a choice. The Erie had little interchange traffic once the bridge burned. The DL&W side (via the B&P and Bloom) had connections with several roads, and therefore was desirable to keep running.

I don't know if I buy the "more local traffic" argument here, however.  I think both DL&W and Erie sides had comparable local traffic. One of the main reasons the Erie side lost its importance was the loss of the New England gateway at Maybrook in 1974 when the Poughkeepsie Bridge burned. What other compelling reason was there to run trains via the Erie side?  I think this is about the time a flood of traffic started appearing on the DL&W side (Ed Montgomery, you had mentioned to me some dates...?)

The "questionable abandonments and reroutes" in NJ involve the ex-DL&W Boonton Line. (if anyone's really interested in all this, I'll be doing a presentation on the Boonton Line and its reroutings at this year's ELHS Convention at Matamoras, PA). The DL&W's Boonton Line was a great freight line, but the rerouted line over the New York & Greenwood Lake was... shall we say, "less than optimal" for major freight trains. But as I said, when you're broke, you go with what you have, and the EL did a pretty good job of running huge freights in the middle of northern NJ suburbia. They also did have their share of operational problems due to the line configuration and the local "NIMBY" neighbors (of course, derailing a piggyback train into someone's backyard didn't help any ;)


 
> After Conrail, the Erie side became the favored route because 
> New York State
> would subsidize maintenance to keep traffic on it.  It also 
> would seem as
> though Conrail had no interest in serving the Scranton area, 
> preferring
> instead to abandon away business to the D&H, shortlines, or trucks and
> hacking up both mainline routes through the area (LV/CNJ and DL&W).


Which came first: The Cut-off abandonment, or NY's decision to subsidize the Erie side? I thought New York was being reactive to the Cut-off abandonment, and wanted to ensure their state didn't lose rail freight service?

I think that Scranton didn't fit into CR's "overall" plans. I'm fairly sure that the operational problems that the EL had to deal with in Northern NJ were too much for CR, who had plenty of alternate routes to run freight traffic into that same area, and therefore, the Cut-Off (basically a 26+ mile section of mainline with little-to-no-business) was superfluous.

	- Paul

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