How busy was Chatham, NY?

How busy of a place was Chatham NY being that, at one point and time, it was a junction point of three railroad lines.

I am missing a line: The Boston & Albany, east-west.
The Harlem Division, geographically north from GCT.
What is the third? Thanks. Joe McMahon

Okay, I realize that railroad #3 was the Rutland. I presume old timetables would give an idea of how many trains stopped there for passengers. One of my memories is the sign on the Kings Bridge (or Kingsbridge?) station of the Putnam Division, "Westbound to Chatham." But my memory could be fooling me.

The number of trains stopping at Chatham changed over the years. Did you have any particular era(s) in mind ? The Rutland (operating out of its own station) pulled out in 1931, and the B&A's Chatham - Hudson branch passenger trains were gone by early 1933. Also, Harlem Division service fluctuated seasonally and according to week day, Saturday, and Sunday frequency.

The Rutland line to Chatham continued in freight and milk service until 1953, when it was retired. After that, trains RC-4 and CR-3 continued serving Chatham via B&M / Troy / NYCRR / Rensselaer / B&A. They interchanged with the NYC at Chatham, and some if not all of that traffic moved on the Harlem Division toward New York on KN-2 and NK-1 until 1961.

Until the middle of 1960, those Rutland trains still carried a green and yellow wooden combination car on the rear, but carried no passengers. By the fall of 1960 it was replaced with a caboose.

RC-4 and CR-3 were vestiges of milk trains, Rutland 88 and 87, that also connected at Chatham with the NYC. KN-2 and NK-1 made that connection, and were known on the Harlem as the "Rut. Milk."

Did the NYC own or control the Rutland?

Did the NYC own or control the Rutland?

Yes.

I don't have the exact dates available right now, but the NYC gained control of the Rutland through partial stock ownership early in the 20th century. That continued until the Rutland went bankrupt during or just after the depression, and even then there was NYC influence. The Chief Engineer of the Rutland during NYC control was Luis G. Morphy, who became the trustee in bankruptcy. After the Rutland was reorganized, Morphy became Division Engineer on the Boston and Albany, which was definitely controlled by the NYC.

Some of the Rutland cars in various historical collections have NYCRR brands on the truck frames, and the Rutland motive power practices followed NYC very closely. The F2 class 4-6-0's on both railroads were practically the same design. The NYC's became F12 when they were superheated, but I think the Rutland kept at least some of them as saturated F2's. The details are in Jim Shaugnessy's book.

Regarding NYC control of the Rutland, the NYC gained absolute control of the Rutland in 1904. In 1912, the NYC gave up half of its interest in the Rutland to the New Haven in exchange for half of the New Haven's interest in the NYO&W. Apparently, the NYC greatly reduced or eliminated its remaining control in 1915 when the ICC found the Rutland (and its NYC affiliation) to be in violation of the Panama Canal Act because the Rutland operated steamships on the Great Lakes that were in competition with the NYC's rail routes.

The passenger service was quite extensive into the post-World War II days and on Holiday weekends, the return back to N Y City had regularly numbered trains plus Special A & D which really zipped back to the city in 3 hrs and a few minutes including the engine change at White Plains. (Special B came in from Lake Mahopac.)
As far as NYC control of the Rutland. Up into the World War I era, Rutland public timetables and travel material had the New York Central Lines oval herald the front covers.
As far as losing control of the Rutland. It was not the Panama Canal Act that did it. The Rutland with the NYC pulling the strings gave up its Great Lakes maritime operation without a whimper. In contrast, the New Haven, Seaboard Air Line, Southern Pacific and Southern/ACL had maritime operations which the Panama Canal Act would have required them to relinquish. However, they presented good enough cases so that they were exempted from the provisions of the Act.