by RailKevin
BR&P wrote:TO Conductor & Engineman of 197 at Otis NYWas "Otis" the name of the yard near Browns' Square?
Railroad Forums
Moderator: Otto Vondrak
BR&P wrote:TO Conductor & Engineman of 197 at Otis NYWas "Otis" the name of the yard near Browns' Square?
Matt Langworthy wrote:I was referring to the former Lackawanna main, not the Erie. CR kept the segment to Groveland until the mid '80s, so I'm puzzled as to why they didn't use the line for the salt traffic. (Yes, I know the D&H used it.)The overwhelming majority of the salt traffic moved east. Ballpark average, if the job came to Rochester with 100 cars, 95 of them went east. (Well, to be honest, all 100 of them went east, and the 5 westbounds went over the hump at Selkirk and came west a couple days later). It was quicker and less costly to bring it to Rochester than over the EL to Buffalo and then east. Back in those days, it was deemed sensible to minimize out-of-route backhauls. Today it's all part of "the plan" and cars are sent hundreds of miles extra in the name of following that plan. But they seem to be making it work, so what do I know?
Matt Langworthy wrote:I was referring to the former Lackawanna main, not the Erie. CR kept the segment to Groveland until the mid '80s, so I'm puzzled as to why they didn't use the line for the salt traffic. (Yes, I know the D&H used it.)So in the long run what you're referring to is the old Lackawanna to where it met the Erie/NYC lines north of Alexander (I know they ran within feet of each other, honestly I don't know which one was the "kept" one for that connection) and then down to the Erie line in Attica, then back up the Erie to Buffalo? That's probably a bit slower and longer, and particularly as BR&P mentioned, if most of the salt was destined for destinations east, taxing an already busy single-main line from Attica to Buffalo, especially with no real yard anywhere between (Attica's "yard" barely counted IMO), was probably out of the question. Not to mention, B&O was upkeeping the line, why would CR work to keep more traffic on the longer (probably worse-shape) line in the wrong direction?
ctclark1 wrote:So in the long run what you're referring to is the old Lackawanna to where it met the Erie/NYC lines north of Alexander (I know they ran within feet of each other, honestly I don't know which one was the "kept" one for that connection) and then down to the Erie line in Attica, then back up the Erie to Buffalo? That's probably a bit slower and longer, and particularly as BR&P mentioned, if most of the salt was destined for destinations east, taxing an already busy single-main line from Attica to Buffalo, especially with no real yard anywhere between (Attica's "yard" barely counted IMO), was probably out of the question. Not to mention, B&O was upkeeping the line, why would CR work to keep more traffic on the longer (probably worse-shape) line in the wrong direction?The DL&W met the Erie north of Alexander, but it didn't reach Attica or the NYC. The Tier was averaging about 15-20 trains per day in the '70s, so adding a pair of salt trains wouldn't have hurt. In fact, the D&H did that very thing... but I digress. It is rendered moot by:
BR&P wrote:The overwhelming majority of the salt traffic moved east. Ballpark average, if the job came to Rochester with 100 cars, 95 of them went east. (Well, to be honest, all 100 of them went east, and the 5 westbounds went over the hump at Selkirk and came west a couple days later). It was quicker and less costly to bring it to Rochester than over the EL to Buffalo and then east.That makes perfect sense and now I understand the reasoning for CR using trackage rights on the B&O. I hadn't known most of the salt traffic went east in the '70s. Thanx.