EL Commuter Traffic- Suffern, NY

Thank for the links. I always get a kick out of seeing a PA and an E unit operating together.

That second train, with the GP7 and the RPO, might be 58.

Thanks Tommy for the info. My opinion is that the connection between Spring Valley and Suffern should be used, strictly for flexibility, etc. Plus, if the TZ project ever happens, that seems to me the logical choice. You brought up the Northern Branch; was the EL operated? Was everything WOH EL? Not sure about that. You mention quite a few branches (including the one to Newburgh, Nyack, and so on); just curious.

And thanks again for the replies.

Jeff Smith wrote:You brought up the Northern Branch; was the EL operated? Was everything WOH EL? Not sure about that. You mention quite a few branches (including the one to Newburgh, Nyack, and so on); just curious.

All the branches I mentioned were Erie / EL. The River Line was NY Central. Some of the Orange County lines were O&W or L&HR but none of those operated suburban passenger service.

It's not 22-- the sun couldn't be that high at 1852 EDT (and certainly not at 1852 EST). Offhand I'm guessing it's not 1509 EDT; 1509 EST might be possible.

I'm not saying it's not possible but the problem is the train pictured doesn't look like 58. No.58 was the eastbound side of 53, the mail train to Port Jervis. Here's the consist from a day in 1958:

GP-7 1402
1 express car
1 mail-baggage car
1 mail car
2 coaches

When I saw 58 in 1967 it had basically the same consist except it was operating with a single E8.

Further, if you look at the shadow on the platform cast by the "Funny Girl" advertising display it's a pretty long shadow. From the bright green foilage on the hillsides I would say it's definitely May-September.

Welcome to forensic foaming, er, railfanning.....



...edit: just to be clear, I mean that in a positive way. I enjoy the discussion on trying to identify the exact train in the photograph.

Jeff Smith wrote:Welcome to forensic foaming...

Hahaha

Jeff just a second! I prefer "data recovery mode."

I used to ride a six-something train out of Suffern (with Uncle Earl as conductor) three times a week in the mid-1970s yet I can't look at those shadows and know definitely what time the photo was taken. Three o'clock in June and I don't think the whole platform would be in deep shadow as in the photo, but who knows?

Again, the train just doesn't look like 58. Below I'm reposting a link first put up by Frank754 of what I'm certain is 58, taken in January 1965. Now that train looks like 58!

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... 28&nseq=18

Perhaps the train arriving at Suffern was one of the Suffern-Hoboken locals scheduled between 58 and 22. Maybe they had gotten stuck running an E8 and they deadheaded it up to Harriman to turn it on the wye there (as a former Conrail guy told me he 'heard' the EL used to do if needed).

Jeff Smith wrote:Thanks Tommy for the info. My opinion is that the connection between Spring Valley and Suffern should be used, strictly for flexibility, etc. Plus, if the TZ project ever happens, that seems to me the logical choice. You brought up the Northern Branch; was the EL operated? Was everything WOH EL? Not sure about that. You mention quite a few branches (including the one to Newburgh, Nyack, and so on); just curious.

And thanks again for the replies.

There hasn't been a passenger train since 1938. Even though the Metro-North idea exists, reading it, it ain't rational. NIMBYs in Monsey and Tallmans will never allow it. Even if you were to rebuild the Piermont Branch, you'd never get past Orangeburg.

Before this thread gets sidetracked into a discussion about how or if Metro-North should rebuild the Piermont Branch for suburban train service, I contacted the member who posted the photo of the E unit leading the train into Suffern.

He doesn't remember the approximate date or time but he does think it was a Saturday. My April 1966 timetable is home (I'm at my girlfriend's) but later in the week I'll look to see what the schedules were on Saturday.

Maybe we can figure this out yet.

Btw, I looked at a document relating to an accident on the Erie, hopeful it might have a diagram that would answer the question that began this thread -How did EL get terminating westbound trains into the yard at Suffern? It didn't have a diagram but I do know some people who worked there during the 1960s. I'll ask around.

Try http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/celnavtable.php with latitude 41-07 and longitude 74-09. The train is pointed about 158 degrees true. 1852 EDT is clearly out of the question, and 1509 EDT looks unlikely too. Most likely one of those in-between locals.

SecaucusJunction wrote:How did westbound EL commuter trains used to access Suffern yard before the current track alignment? I know now (since there are only 2 tracks) they have a crossover just west of Suffern station to the Rockland running track to access the yard...

I asked a gentleman who worked SF Tower ("the leaning tower of Suffern") in the 1970s under EL how this was done. He said what is currently called the Rockland Running Track was known as the Extension Track back then. Both Tracks 1 and 3 had crossover switches onto it west of the the station. Trains would enter the extension track off 1 or 3, pull to the west end of the yard and then back into the storage tracks.

Thanks for the info. Here is what I think happened but none of these pictures are mine and I can't take credit for them. Currently, there is a crossover just west of the Suffern station known as the west end of SF that leads to the Rockland running track as seen here.

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPictur ... id=1478013

But before the new configuration and track reduction that happened in the mid-1980's, there were no such crossovers:

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=974366

The 4 tracks went into 2 tracks at the east end of the yard but from the East, there was still no real way to get into the yard...

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=872596

My guess is that trains used this particular crossover that is past the yard lead:

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPictur ... id=2590181

Or I guess they could have used the Hillburn crossovers under the next bridge. Those still exist today as far as I know. Then they would have had to turn for the yard lead from the west using this hand throw switch that is currently still in use and used for the freight yard:

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPictur ... id=1630327

And run over what is now the first track of the freight yard:

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=766387

There is now a connection to track 2 of the main line that didnt seem to be in existance back then:

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPictur ... id=2040077


If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=872596

The above photo seems to me to illustrate what the former EL towerman told me. I think.

Doesn't this photo show track 3 crossing over to merge with track 1? Then a little further along (out of photo range), I would presume there's a second crossover to the "extension track." The operator said the trains then went to the west end of the yard and then backed into the storage yard.

Hello,
Im a new member but this will be very helpful because I used to live in Sloatsburg, next to Suffern and my grandparents live in Suffern and I model that line