Railroad Forums 

  • Erie and EL traffic levels

  • Discussion relating to the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western, the Erie, and the resulting 1960 merger creating the Erie Lackawanna. Visit the Erie Lackawanna Historical Society at http://www.erielackhs.org/.
Discussion relating to the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western, the Erie, and the resulting 1960 merger creating the Erie Lackawanna. Visit the Erie Lackawanna Historical Society at http://www.erielackhs.org/.

Moderator: blockline4180

 #960597  by oibu
 
Just wondered if anyone can give an accurate, realistic assessment of the number of freight trains that would have run on a typical day between Susquehanna and Port Jervis both in ca. 1950s Erie days, and early 70s EL days before other pressures led to favoring the DL&W route. Public TTs show the clear picture for passenger, and freight schedules show how many -scheduled- freight trains per day, but that is not all that helpful since all the Ordinaries were unscheduled, locals were not included in the schedules, and advance or following sections of scheduled trains were commonplace (more like the normal everyday routine in at least some cases it seems).

Either first-hand recollections or documented paper sources would be equally appreciated!
 #961842  by erie2521
 
This is not exactly what you requested but I have the dispatcher's train sheet for the stretch between Sparrowbush (just west of Port Jervis) and Newburgh Jct. for Wednesday, July 23, 1958.
I would assume that the symbol freights listed would have come off the Delaware Division. This is a hard trainsheet to interpret because it included Maybrook and there are several freights that show up for just a few miles, maybe connections to and from Maybrook. Anyhow, here are the freights that I assume would have come from or gone to the Delaware Division:
Westbound:
#77. 35 loads, 45 empties.
#87. 33 loads, 58 empties.
#91. 56 loads, 63 empties.
#99. 88 loads, 1 empty.
One train just labeled "ORDY", I assume it means "ordinary", the Erie's expression for an extra. 4 loads, 67 empties.
One train labeled "XC". 91 loads, 75 empties.
One train labeled "RW" (I think). It appears to have terminated at Port Jervis. 2 loads, 7 empties.
The trainsheet lists two different numbers of cars, one at the top and one at the bottom. I listed the top. The bottom numbers were usually larger, some like RW were much larger (33 loads, 143 empties). Since the westbound trains proceeded up the sheet, I don't know which are starting and which are finishing numbers.

Eastbound:
#A74. (advanced?) 93 loads.
#NE74. Went to Maybrook. 81 loads.
#98. 118 loads.
#NE98. Went to Maybrook. 73 loads.
#100. 101 loads.
One train labeled "Drop" (I think). 95 loads. This one started at Port Jervis and somewhere along the line it split into two trains. One with 35 cars went to Maybrook, the other with 60 cars went on towards Jersey City.
One train labeled "MF." (I assume it meant manifest ) Also started at Port Jervis. 38 loads.

You will notice that the eastbound trains had no empties. The prevailing direction of traffic was east -as were the other railroads.
It is worth noting that 1958 was a recession year which may have curtailed this list somewhat - I don't know. Anyhow, here it is. Hope it will be of some use to you. If you have any question, let me know. Ted Jackson
 #963102  by oibu
 
thanks Ted, that gives a pretty interesting glimpse of a day's ops in that time period!

The number of trains is slightly less than I would have anticpated for that time, perhaps if there was a recession going on at the time that would explain a few less trains. I assume since this covers out to Sparrowbush that it must include all traffic via both the main and Graham lines, right?

And yes, as you stated at this time a very big proportion of Erie E-W traffic was moving to/from the NH at Maybrook.

One wonders how the traffic level changed post-EL merger, with the preferential use of the Erie side and the onset of dedicated piggyback trains etc. Despite losses of certain traffic, I would guess the Erie side was significantly busier in the 60s than in the late 50s.
 #963467  by erie2521
 
Sorry, I forgot to mention that it covered both the main and Graham lines but did not have separate parts for each -sort of mixed in together. Not being familiar with the tower and junction names in area, it was a hard trainsheet to read. Ted