Conrail Route Abandonment Regrets?

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:00 am I think that by that time the bridge had reached the either-rehab-or-condemn stage, and given the contemporary and probable future state of the New England economy traffic was unlikely to increase sufficiently to repay the cost of rehabbing. A local group hired a consultant to do an independent study, which reached the same conclusion.

I have never heard that before. In fact, I attended a local meeting in Poughkeepsie sometime in the mid 1980s where an independent engineering study showed the bridge as it then was could support most freight traffic, and with the replacement of ONE structural member, could be restored to maximum load rating. But Conrail had no use for the route and Dutchess County had pipe dreams for building a parkway between Poughkeepsie and Hopewell Jct.

JBlaisdell wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 4:50 pm

PC was obligated to route some traffic from New England over the former NYNH&H to Maybrook and on to the EL. This meant PC got the lesser share of revenue on long haul traffic. Losing the Poughkeepsie Bridge meant it all stayed on PC rails.

The Bridge fire was really very minor, only burning ties and warping rail. It was very feasible to repair, and under any other circumstances would have been, but PC never wanted the route and Conrail saw no need for it.[/quote]
I don't see how PC could have been obligated to allocate traffic between different routes; the "shipper's right to route" was absolute under the regulations of that time, and a railroad could not override the shipper's stated choice. A shipper could decide to leave the decision up to the railroad, and many did, but it was the shipper's decision to do so. In merger cases the ICC often required that specific routes and gateways remain in effect, or new ones established , but shippers could not be obligated to use them. A railroad might "adjust" its service to favor its long haul, but I don't think that was the case here; the traffic continued to move between Maybrook and Cedar Hill as before when so routed by the shipper.

As to the condition of the bridge, a speed restriction of 5 (five) mph in one direction and 8 (eight) mph in the other had been in effect for many years; that would surely have had to be addressed before long, and there was no apparent prospect of sufficient future traffic to support the expense of improving it.

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 12:07 am

JBlaisdell wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 4:50 pm

PC was obligated to route some traffic from New England over the former NYNH&H to Maybrook and on to the EL. This meant PC got the lesser share of revenue on long haul traffic. Losing the Poughkeepsie Bridge meant it all stayed on PC rails.

The Bridge fire was really very minor, only burning ties and warping rail. It was very feasible to repair, and under any other circumstances would have been, but PC never wanted the route and Conrail saw no need for it.

I don't see how PC could have been obligated to allocate traffic between different routes; the "shipper's right to route" was absolute under the regulations of that time, and a railroad could not override the shipper's stated choice. A shipper could decide to leave the decision up to the railroad, and many did, but it was the shipper's decision to do so. In merger cases the ICC often required that specific routes and gateways remain in effect, or new ones established , but shippers could not be obligated to use them. A railroad might "adjust" its service to favor its long haul, but I don't think that was the case here; the traffic continued to move between Maybrook and Cedar Hill as before when so routed by the shipper.

As to the condition of the bridge, a speed restriction of 5 (five) mph in one direction and 8 (eight) mph in the other had been in effect for many years; that would surely have had to be addressed before long, and there was no apparent prospect of sufficient future traffic to support the expense of improving it.
[/quote]

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 12:07 am

JBlaisdell wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 4:50 pm

PC was obligated to route some traffic from New England over the former NYNH&H to Maybrook and on to the EL. This meant PC got the lesser share of revenue on long haul traffic. Losing the Poughkeepsie Bridge meant it all stayed on PC rails.

The Bridge fire was really very minor, only burning ties and warping rail. It was very feasible to repair, and under any other circumstances would have been, but PC never wanted the route and Conrail saw no need for it.

I don't see how PC could have been obligated to allocate traffic between different routes; the "shipper's right to route" was absolute under the regulations of that time, and a railroad could not override the shipper's stated choice. A shipper could decide to leave the decision up to the railroad, and many did, but it was the shipper's decision to do so. In merger cases the ICC often required that specific routes and gateways remain in effect, or new ones established , but shippers could not be obligated to use them. A railroad might "adjust" its service to favor its long haul, but I don't think that was the case here; the traffic continued to move between Maybrook and Cedar Hill as before when so routed by the shipper.

As to the condition of the bridge, a speed restriction of 5 (five) mph in one direction and 8 (eight) mph in the other had been in effect for many years; that would surely have had to be addressed before long, and there was no apparent prospect of sufficient future traffic to support the expense of improving it.
[/quote]

It was a condition of the PC merger to take the NH and keep the route open. PC wanted neither. With the bridge closed, shippers had no choice.

As for the speed limits, the Poughkeepsie Bridge always had restrictions in place.

Poughkeepsie bridge info, from NYNH&H RR ETT, ca 1931
A uniform speed of 12 mph must not be exceeded, not less than
7 minutes in passing over...

Trains must be handled to avoid starting and stopping on the
bridge.

brakes must not be applied unless absolutely necessary, and then
in the most careful manner.

Doubleheading is prohibited... If more than one engine, they must
be seperated by 15 cars.

Emergency application of air brakes must not be made on bridge.