Late 1950s passenger trains on Falls Road and Auburn Road

Hi Everyone-

I'm looking for some information on passenger service on the Falls Road and Auburn Road into the 1950s. I know towards the end service had been dramatically curtailed to a single train in each direction... What did these trains look like? Primarily mail and express with a rider coach? I'm trying to get an idea of typical consists and motive power for modeling purposes...

-otto-

The Auburn Road passenger service lasted into about 1957-58. My June, 1957 Official Guide shows a New York-Rochester 10/5 sleeper out of Grand Central on #35 10:35 p. m.to Syracuse and then via Auburn Road, due Rochester 11:15 a. m. Return from Rochester 7:25 p. m. and forwarded from Syracuse on #44 due GCT next morning. Sleeper ran except Saturday, both ways. Slightly faster time on the Sunday trains. Falls Road trains in this era were usually mail/express trains that bypassed Buffalo and went directly to the Canada Southern/Michigan Central route via Detroit to the Midwest. Auburn Road trains were probably powered by either Alco or EMD road-switchers in diesel days. Don't know what steam power would have been used. The Auburn Road passenger train handled a Rochester-Washington sleeper which was turned over to the Pennsylvania at Canandaigua until late 1940s anyway. Find June, 1947 TRAINS and read RAILROADS OF ROCHESTER, NY for quite an account of the railroad activity in the Rochester area right after WWII.

edbear wrote:Falls Road trains in this era were usually mail/express trains that bypassed Buffalo and went directly to the Canada Southern/Michigan Central route via Detroit to the Midwest.

Thanks! Primarily baggage cars and an RPO, maybe a rider coach?

Find June, 1947 TRAINS and read RAILROADS OF ROCHESTER, NY for quite an account of the railroad activity in the Rochester area right after WWII.

Thank you!

-otto-

Falls Road passenger service ended about the same time as that on the Auburn Road. Of course there'd be at least one rider coach as the schedules were listed in the public timetables. By the way, for a time during the late 1920s, the New England Wolverine (Boston-Detroit-Chicago) bypassed Buffalo and ran via the Falls Road to NFL & Suspension Bridge.

New York Central Passenger Train Offs:

Falls Road:

Train 42, Suspension Bridge-Rochester (except Sunday), 26 November 1957.

Train 49, Rochester-Suspension Bridge, 26 November 1957.

Auburn Road:

Train 3, Syracuse-Rochester (except Sunday), 19 May 1958.

Train 7 Syracuse-Rochester (Sunday), 19 May 1958.

Train 18 Rochester-Syracuse (except Sunday), 19 May 1958.

Train 8 Rochester-Syracuse (Sunday), 19 May 1958.

Though sleeper via PRR to and from Washington, D.C. & Philadelphia connecting at Canandaigua with NYC trains 3-7 & 18-8 for continuation to and origination at Rochester dropped 25 April 1955.

Was anything special about 1957/1958? Seems like those two years we had a lot of train-offs system wide. Did some policy change, either ICC, PSC, or NYC? Always been curious about finding the same dates over and over in NYC history, regardless of division.

Also, any consist information or pointers towards photo sources would be helpful.

-otto-

Otto,

You raise a very interesting question.

Passenger train discontinuances in those days were subject to state (NYPSC, for example), or Federal (ICC) jurisdiction, or both; depending upon circumstances, either or both could claim jurisdiction - in whole or in part. Litigation did not move quickly, so political solutions (subsidies, tax relief, etc.) were pursued, even in some hopeless cases.

The urgency of NYC's cash situation in the mid-1950s is a well known story, and many of the initiatives to reduce loss actually began in the White administration, but really gained traction with AEP & Co.

Reduction of passenger losses was a major quest. Few stones were left unturned. The process was slow, and service was in many cases progressively thinned over several years leading to the final discontinuances.

The targets were identified by 1955. The AEP management was fully in place by 1956-57 and they acted as quickly as they could in the face of a newly-opened NY Thruway.

I believe it was as simple as that, but will soon be seeing someone "who was there". If his recollection is any different, I'll let you know.

Paul.

A very rough time for US railroading, in general, and the NYCS, in particular. The Interstate Highway Act was passed in 1956. In Jan., 1958, Robert R. Young was forced to suspend dividend payments on the stock (he would commit suicide later that month). Then, in 1959, we have the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway; the beginning of the end of the Central was evident.

R Paul Carey wrote:...Passenger train discontinuances in those days were subject to state (NYPSC, for example), or Federal (ICC) jurisdiction, or both; depending upon circumstances, either or both could claim jurisdiction - in whole or in part. Litigation did not move quickly, so political solutions (subsidies, tax relief, etc.) were pursued, even in some hopeless cases.

Paul a big factor was the Transportation Act of 1958. This act made it possible for the first time for railroads to ask the ICC for permission to drop passenger trains even if state regulators refused. This was one of the issues raised at the hearings in Washington leading up to the Act's passage. The railroads argued that losses operating passenger services were effecting their ability to provide interstate transportation. That too often state regulatory bodies were yielding to pressures by home state forces to order trains continued long after there was any real need for them. There were some real horror stories related at the hearings of state commissions denying petitions to drop trains carrying as few as ten or twelve riders largely because of local pressure brought to bear. Under the Transportation Act of 1958 the railroads could appeal these cases to the ICC.

For one thing, the railroads felt the ICC was fairer than state commissions because the Commission had more expertise and was largely insulated from local politics. Below is an excerpt from a book, "Railroads, Freight and Public Policy" by business professor Ted Keeler, that describes the 1958 Transportation Act's effects on railroads. Keeler identified first, greater freedom in rate-making, second a provision for the ICC to administer low-interest loans and-

Tommy, you have hit the bulls-eye!

I had somehow "forgotten" about the Transportation Act of 1958 and the chilling effect it brought against state agencies and the excessive, self-serving interference against proposed intrastate passenger discontinuances.

Thanks for the research and for bringing this very important point to the forum!

Paul.

Tommy Meehan wrote:Paul a big factor was the Transportation Act of 1958.

Wasn't there something about facilities in this act as well? I seem to recall the passage of some law finally allowed the railroads to dump passenger stations en masse as a way to reduce the tax rolls. In other words, they were no longer required to maintain passenger station buildings and could sell them off to private owners if wanted. Notice a lot of stations sold off starting in 1958, along with many others meeting suspicious ends due to fire.

Apologies for taking this conversation on a tangent. It seemed related to the branch line railroading of the Falls Road and Auburn Road. Interesting to note that these branches retained some sort of passenger service into the 1950s, while the main line local trains and Ontario Branch (Hojack) service was greatly curtailed or cancelled as early as the 1930s.

-otto-

I'm not aware of anything in the Transportation Act of 1958 related to the sale of facilities. There could have been some changes in the tax laws that made it more attractive. At least in Central's case the company had announced after the Young-Perlman team tookover in 1954 that the company held valuable real estate -- some of it surplus -- and Central intended to maximize it's return on this valuable asset. Below is an excerpt copied from the 1958 Annual Report:

CUTTING PASSENGER LOSSES
Acceleration of the program to sell or lease passengers stations is generating cash, producing annual savings and results in the modernization of facilities at no expense to the railroad [by leasing back space in an upgraded building].
In 1958 we sold an additional 27 passenger stations bringing the total to date up to 100. We expect to dispose of approximately 25 more in 1959, including those at Cleveland, Buffalo, Syracuse and Rochester. An option to buy or lease the latter group has been granted this year.

Otto, as I'm sure you know, most NYC passenger terminals and stations were hugely out-of-scale in relation to the available business in the mid-1950s.

Worst of all, in NY State, NYC's properties were taxed on the basis of replacement costs for all in-place improvements, including structures, so - in effect - NYC was paying a premium in property taxes that reflected cumulative facility investments of prior generations. Over the years, a very few initiatives have brought limited relief, but on balance the problem remains to the present.

I have heard the same folklore accounts of structure immolation. I know that it was not unusual to offer a structure to a local fire department, for use as a training exercise, which reduced the cost of demolition.

By the 1980s, when I was a Division Superintendent / GM, the fire training exercise had become a hard sell, but tax (in NY especially) and property management issues remained. We tried, with some success, to give them away (Chatham). Others were more of a problem because they were too close to active trackage but they were donated and moved (Chester, MA). We offered others that found no takers (Huntingdon, PQ) and - with regrets - these were the "unsaved".

The NY tax effects cannot be understated. In the 1990s we had a certain branch line in Upstate NY where the property taxes exceeded the GROSS revenue (on-branch + off-branch) of the line, resulting in a decision to sell the line for a token amount (we did not favor the conventional abandonment/salvage approach on active branches, as such rail was rarely suitable or needed for our reuse).

Paul.