• St. J & LC trains and length

  • Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England
Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England

Moderators: MEC407, NHN503

  by nydepot
 
When you see the old photos of St. J&LC trains with several GE 70 tonners on the front, what was the typical train length back then?
  by jaymac
 
Can't comment on train lengths, but gradients, tight curves, and friction bearings would all be significant consumers of tractive effort.
  by rhallock
 
I can't say for sure about the length of trains. However I remember reading that it formed an important connection for the Maine Central's Mountain division for many years. That bridge line routing was most of their traffic. Not much local business.
  by Cowford
 
Here's a SWAG at maximum train length, at least: The line had a ruling grade of 2% (?), so I'm guessing the tonnage rating on a 70-tonner would probably have been in the neighborhood of 5-600 tons, or about 8-12 1950s-era cars max per unit. The 70-tonners had MU; I can't imagine they typically ran more than three-unit lash-ups.
  by nydepot
 
I got a reply elsewhere. Average was 10 cars early in week through to 20 towards the end of the week. 35 cars at times during the 1950s. That traffic was gone by the 60s. 3 GEs with sometimes 4.
  by TomNelligan
 
You asked about the 70-Tonner era on the StJ&LC, but to jump ahead a bit, traffic briefly picked up again after the line was purchased by Samuel Pinsly in 1967, meaning 20-25 car trains. The Pinsly ownership put some money into track and bridge improvements, bought new "big" power in the form of a couple secondhand GP9s and an RS3, and promoted the bridge traffic between the MEC and the CV/CN. Unfortunately it didn't last long, and as I'm sure you know after a couple successive attempts at revival under different ownerships and names the StJ was eventually abandoned.

http://www.railpictures.net/photo/623250/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  by b&m 1566
 
This line was supposed to be part of the P&O correct back in the 1870's correct?
  by S1f3432
 
b&m 1566 wrote:This line was supposed to be part of the P&O correct back in the 1870's correct?
That was the plan but the usual money problems got in the way. The Vermont section of the P&O got built by three
shortlines- Essex County RR from the Connecticut River to St. Johnsbury, the Montpelier & St. Johnsbury RR from StJ
to Danville and the Lamoille Valley RR from Danville to Swanton. These were all controlled by the same interests who
combined them into the Portland & Ogdensburg- Vermont Division. Plans to combine this with P&O RR fell thru and it
came under the control of the Boston & Lowell in 1885, which in turn came under the control of the B&M. The western
portion of the P&O scheme in New York was built by the Ogdensburg & Lake Champlain, which became part of the
Rutland RR. Under B&L/B&M control the name was changed to St. Johnsbury & Lake Champlain RR until B&M sold it.
The Maine Central RR leased the Lunenburg to St. Johnsbury section in 1912 and purchased it in 1955. Hope this helps.