Re: (erielack) CNJ...how about others?

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

The other problem with haulage, of course, is entrusting the expeditious
handling of your traffic to a potential competitor. EL had trackage, not
haulage rights over the Central to Newberry Jct; EL in Color V2 has a shot
of the Newberry train with EL power on this line. I think the main incentive
for rerouting via Rupert was the trackage rights payments to PC; evidently
EL management felt the savings more than offset the costs of adding further
circuity to an already circuitous route to southeast PA. Are you sure about
the traffic territory restrictions? The ICC certainly did create some
bizarre exclusions over the decades, but traffic restricted to
Salamanca/Buffalo and east wouldn't have amounted to much.

Paul B

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Connor" <mjconnor_rr_@_hotmail.com>
To: <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>; <paultup@lucent.com>;
<erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: (erielack) CNJ...how about others?


> The problem with the B&O Haulage beyond Dayton and the operation over the
> NYC to Newberry Junction was the the B&O and the NYC each got to look at
the
> EL's waybills and thus this traffic was easy to target.  The Newberry
> Junction traffic IIRC had some big time geographic restrictions (no
traffic
> from, to, or via west of Salamanca/Buffalo?).  It was not as good as an
> unrestricted EL-RDG direct interchange which is why after 17 Oc 60
> EL-Rupert-RDG ultimately prevailed.
> M J Connor
>
>
> >From: "Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>
> >Reply-To: "Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>
> >To: "Tupaczewski, Paul R (Paul)" <paultup_@_lucent.com>,        "EL Mailing
> >List" <erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
> >Subject: Re: (erielack) CNJ...how about others?
> >Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:41:22 -0500
> >
> >The latter. In a haulage agreement, using this case as an example, EL
cars
> >were handled beyond Dayton by B&O trains with the latter's power and
crews,
> >but on EL's waybill. So the shipper dealt only with EL and it was not an
> >interline move, same as trackage rights.
> >
> >Paul B
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Tupaczewski, Paul R (Paul)" <paultup_@_lucent.com>
> >To: "'Paul Brezicki'" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>; "EL Mailing List"
> ><erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
> >Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:26 AM
> >Subject: RE: (erielack) CNJ...how about others?
> >
> >
> > > Paul B. wrote:
> > >
> > > > Finally, EL had haulage rights over B&O from Dayton to Cincinnati
and
> > > > Indianapolis, an arrangement dating back to the ninteenth
> > > > century and A&GW.
> > >
> > >
> > > Now THAT's interesting - so,it only EL's cars that were forwarded over
> >the B&O?
> > >
> > > - Paul
> >
> >
> > The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
> > Sponsored by the ELH&TS
> > http://www.elhts.org
>
>


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

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