Location of this LV line?

TB Diamond wrote:Is that not a signal on the extreme right hand side of the photo? Possibly I am the only one to notice it?

.

Actually WAS mentioned a page or two back. Since this site does not number the posts, I can't say "it was post 17" or whatever.

CPS, one problem I have with your pic is the amount of forest grown up on the left side (of YOUR pic). Assuming that was pre-Conrail, that's too much tree growth for only 10 years or so, since the area was wide open in the OP. Also, looking at your pic, there appears to be too much slope over there instead of flat.

Re the mention of the PRR, that PRR line has mileposts which were actual posts. The LV had some which were on a pole but square, set on end to look like a diamond. The mile numbers were cut out of the metal. Can't say whether they all were like that or not. The phone box is pure LV as well so I can't in any way think this is PRR.

I might have an answer. But I'm gonna to confirm with record plans tomorrow... hopefully it's in there..

Once confirmed, I'll post it here...

sd80mac wrote:looking at background of hill. I can see the crop or open space on the hill.

I looked at google earth.. I don't see that except for small area at lower part of hill. I placed myself on the trackbed of approximate location where photographer is.

yeah I know it's almost 50 years since then. But google earth shows full growth of forest on top part of hill.

I did the same in GE, but you also have to consider that the depth of field you're seeing in Earth is remarkably different from that in the photo, the photo appears to be a fairly shortened dof (ie, zoomed), but that's somewhat speculatory without digital cameras and EXIF data... The reason I say that though is that the telegraph poles in the distance don't get much smaller as they're going away from the viewer, which would indicate a shortened depth. Also consider how the engine appears "squished" - even though it's at a glancing angle it would still look "long" with a depth you'd see in GE. (Try as I might I've never been able to get GE to shorten the field). That crop you're seeing (I assume you mean to the right of your picture) could very likely be just off to the right of the photo. Unfortunate as it is, the depth of field can play mighty tricks on the eye.

CPSmith wrote:Not sure what you're looking at - the poles are on the outside of the curve in both photos. As for the "wrong" track being abandoned - you're making an assumption they did no track work or realignment for a newer bridge - not sure we can assume anything at this point. But hey, I guess your eyes are better than mine - I still can't make out the milepost.

You're right I am assuming that they didn't make any changes to it, but I don't think, in the downturn of events where they were abandoning a track already that they would've done enough work to switch the active track.. Call it a hunch. Also, two other points - I don't think the trees would've grown that much in under 10 years (from a dead nothing to full forest) on the inside of the curve, and while I guess there could be a small hill to the right in your photo I don't see it being enough for the photographer in the original photo to be at eye level with a signal head.
(BTW, the trick is to treat it like a Magic Eye image - if you zoom in at the milepost but then stare through it the 29 shows up, blurry but I'm confident enough to put a couple dollars on it) I tried cleaning it up enough to make it legible but I don't have the right software to do it... Picasa was good, but it wasn't that good.

BTW the reason I keep harping on the utility lines is because they appear to be in roughly the same spot on the curve following the old road (Beranek Rd) as they are now.

You scroll through his other pictures and he has what are suppoed to be PRR on the NYC Corning line. Similarly dark, winter era pictures. Could it be somewhere near Geneva?

Guy got around, RR pictures from all over plus more general ones from places as unrelated as Alfred, NY and various places in Japan and Korea.

BR&P wrote:

TB Diamond wrote:Is that not a signal on the extreme right hand side of the photo? Possibly I am the only one to notice it?

.

Actually WAS mentioned a page or two back. Since this site does not number the posts, I can't say "it was post 17" or whatever.

CPS, one problem I have with your pic is the amount of forest grown up on the left side (of YOUR pic). Assuming that was pre-Conrail, that's too much tree growth for only 10 years or so, since the area was wide open in the OP. Also, looking at your pic, there appears to be too much slope over there instead of flat.

Yeah, I don't think that's the spot either, but I wanted someone to comment. I'm somewhat convinced it's on the east side (perhaps because of the 2xx milepost and the presence of white elephants), but finding a distinct curve with signals and an overpass has been troublesome. Here's the follow-up photo (again pixelated because of the size restrictions). The milepost under the bridge is (or appears to be in a better rendition) 274.

I'll add my two cents worth to the discussion. The hills indicate a location in the Southern Tier, IMO. I have no basis other than my gut but that sure looks like the old footprint of the former NYC Baker Street yard in Corning with the bridge being Baker Street. Certainly possible that a LV freight was diverted up the E-L to the Corning Secondary. May be parked there waiting for a certified crew to arrive for the run to Geneva.

Poppyl

BR&P wrote:

dj_paige wrote:What is it about this photo that makes people convinced we are looking east?

It's somewhat conflicting. Milepost is on the right so that would suggest looking west. However when the line was single tracked, most often the eastbound was removed because the bridges were in worst shape than on the westbound track. Right hand track in the pic is under maintained or could be out of service. So you pays your money and you takes your choice!

Why would eastbound bridges have been worse? Salt falling from salt traffic going to the New York City or Philadelphia region? I would have expected westbound coal loads to have stressed bridges more.

Great thread, too bad the fun will probably be over in a day or so. Jim S

pumpers wrote:

BR&P wrote:

dj_paige wrote:What is it about this photo that makes people convinced we are looking east?

It's somewhat conflicting. Milepost is on the right so that would suggest looking west. However when the line was single tracked, most often the eastbound was removed because the bridges were in worst shape than on the westbound track. Right hand track in the pic is under maintained or could be out of service. So you pays your money and you takes your choice!

Why would eastbound bridges have been worse? Salt falling from salt traffic going to the New York City or Philadelphia region? I would have expected westbound coal loads to have stressed bridges more.

Great thread, too bad the fun will probably be over in a day or so. Jim S

That salt... and other thing. Some kind of chemical or something that leaks from cars which eat up the metal bridges. I forget what it was. This was mentioned in this nys forum few years ago

pumpers wrote:[
Why would eastbound bridges have been worse? Salt falling from salt traffic going to the New York City or Philadelphia region?

You're VERY close! Change the second "salt" to "perishable" and you've got it.

Before mechanical reefers, the old ice reefers had blocks of ice in the bunkers and salt was thrown in to.....crap, I forgot the science but it helped cool it even more. If you ever see an old ice reefer at a museum, you'll note a small drip chute or drain at each corner. When loaded, the cars constantly dripped a small trickle of salt water. Over time this had a corrosive effect on bridges. Since the cars came west empty, most often the westbound tracks stayed in much better shape. LV, Erie, DLW - generally speaking, all the east-west lines had problems with their eastbound track bridges more so than westbound.

Ok. The mystery has been solved... we are way off the base.. sorry to disappoint you guys. ..


It's on ithaca secondary at Spencer. The train is most likely salt train and heading toward to Van Etten going under rt 34

I'm going to check out the record plans tomorrow to see if it would show the same bridge. I'll let u know tnw...

BR&P and others... thanks for getting involved and throw in possible locations. That was enjoyable to read...

Btw.. rt 224 would not be possible. Record plans shows that there's track spurs on left side of picture and we don't see any signs of former trackbed of spurs...

Well. That was fun....

BR&P wrote:

pumpers wrote:[
Why would eastbound bridges have been worse? Salt falling from salt traffic going to the New York City or Philadelphia region?

You're VERY close! Change the second "salt" to "perishable" and you've got it.

Before mechanical reefers, the old ice reefers had blocks of ice in the bunkers and salt was thrown in to.....crap, I forgot the science but it helped cool it even more. If you ever see an old ice reefer at a museum, you'll note a small drip chute or drain at each corner. When loaded, the cars constantly dripped a small trickle of salt water. Over time this had a corrosive effect on bridges. Since the cars came west empty, most often the westbound tracks stayed in much better shape. LV, Erie, DLW - generally speaking, all the east-west lines had problems with their eastbound track bridges more so than westbound.

That was what I was trying to remember what it was... thanks for mentioning that again... hopefully it'll stay in my memory bank this time

Not Spencer. I mentioned that earlier. The photo is dated 1967. If you look at the 1968 aerial at historicaerials.com, the Rt 34 bridge is wingwalls, not the columns like the photo with an embankment. Also no white building.

sd80mac wrote:Ok. The mystery has been solved... we are way off the base.. sorry to disappoint you guys. ..


It's on ithaca secondary at Spencer. The train is most likely salt train and heading toward to Van Etten going under rt 34

I'm going to check out the record plans tomorrow to see if it would show the same bridge. I'll let u know tnw...

BR&P and others... thanks for getting involved and throw in possible locations. That was enjoyable to read...

Btw.. rt 224 would not be possible. Record plans shows that there's track spurs on left side of picture and we don't see any signs of former trackbed of spurs...

Well. That was fun....

The question that has 9 lives!

nydepot wrote:Not Spencer. I mentioned that earlier. The photo is dated 1967. If you look at the 1968 aerial at historicaerials.com, the Rt 34 bridge is wingwalls, not the columns like the photo with an embankment. Also no white building.

one of the engineer who ran on that line had response and said it's the place. Like I said, I will check with the record plan to confirm.