Erie Main Line vs Graham Line

I was looking at the NJ railroad map from 1980 and I was wondering why they chose to close down the ex-Erie Main Line and kept the Graham Line open. It seems that the ex-Erie line went through more populated areas. Was this because of height clearances/grades for freight trains? If the same amount of traffic was running today, would they have changed their minds on which route to keep?

Two "Cs"--- Curves and Congestion. Many sharp curves on the old main, and it went through all the old town centers-- Middletown, Goshen, etc. with the attendent multiple grade crossings, etc.

That said, I doubt the explosive growth that has happened over the last 25 years was forseen, and perhaps the old main would not have been ripped out today.

I recall going to some meeting someplace back when and the same
answer was given, the Graham line had better track, better engineering
and was a better way to run their trains.
I do not see anything today that would alter the decision that was made
some years ago. They simply did not and still do not need two routes
when I does the job just fine.
Noel Weaver

Some threads that may be interesting:

http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.ph ... raham+line

http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.ph ... raham+line

http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.ph ... raham+line

http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.ph ... raham+line

I searched for "graham line" and "match all terms."

-otto-

Noel, I disagree on which route would have survived today. The old main line passed right through the downtowns of Monroe, Goshen and Middletown. Those areas have seen tremendous rebirth of late. Real estate values have risen with the influx of former NY City folk and Jersey-ites. Can you imagine what apartments would be worth in Middletown if the old depot were still the hub? Nowadays, if you live in any of these towns, you have to drive several miles out just to get aboard a train.

Back when the decision was made, there was still some regular freight traffic (4 a day, I think...) and the towns on the old main were dying. Passenger interest was minimal. Choosing the Graham Line made sense then- better rail, better grades, no downtowns (good from a freight point of view).

You could be right, but the downtown cores have a drawback for every benefit. Think about how difficult parking lot expansions are for many of the station locations throughout the metropolitan area. Further, as was previously mentioned, you don't have the crossing blocking issues that the NIMBY's love to argue about. Also, it's really the suburban expansion, like it or not, that's fueling the longer distance communting patterns.

So while there may be an inconvenience driving a few miles, having station locations that can support larger commuter parking lots I would think provides a larger potential customer base.

Depends on which traffic you're talking about. For passenger traffic, yes, the line through Middletown makes a lot of sense to have been kept. But congestion was getting bad. As for freight, the Graham Line had to be the choice. So when the determination was made freight was king, taxes were killing, one line had to go, so it was the passenger line that got the axe. Even so, with the evolved highway and road system in the area, the Graham line isn't that much out of the way as compared to even 30 or 40 years ago.

According to my old Erie timetables, there is no difference in travel time between the Graham line and the old Main Line. Unless, of course, one lived close to the depots at Goshen, Monroe, or Chester.

Getting to downtown Middletwon is a real pain in the neck. It is also becomming more crime-ridden. I would hate to have to catch a train from the old station or leave my car there all day and get back at night.

Besides, one needs a car to get anywhere in Orange County - a single track railroad, configured for 40 minute opposing headways, does not a public transportation network make. I do not lament the current situation.

There would not have to be only one station in Middletown. One in downtown, for the city dwellers, one further out. Or build a parking deck like in Poughkeepsie.

As for crime, that has as much to do with the economic and population shift- crime tends to follow poverty, regardless of the ethnicity, in any city.

No doubt planners are aware of the situation. And with the need for "alternate" forms of public transportation (as opposed to highway) I am sure double tracking the Graham Line is in the long range future. It may be 10, or 20, or more, years away, but it will have to happen. As for rerelocating to the old Erie, no, probably not.

Was the Graham Line double tracked originally? I think it was but I'm not positive.
At the time the old main line was abandoned, the villages wanted it out of their downtowns. That's probably still true today. The Graham Line stations do have room for large parking lots.

Yes, the Graham was double-track (including the Otisville tunnel, and the Woodbury viaduct; I believe the Moodna was gantlet). The current Middletown (sorry- Town of Walkill) Metro-North station sits on the second track.

Goshen and Middletown were the only two 'cut in half' by the old main (it skirted Chester, and Monroe had the 'chinese wall'). And Middletown, at least, had wanted the Erie out of downtown since at least the 40's.

These days, despite municipal leader's rose colored glasses (or blinders), downtown Middletown is NOT the place anyone would want to commute from...

If this project with the PA and Stewart Airport goes through, that could be the catalyst that causes the Graham Line to be double tracked again. I am guessing that service would have to be far more frequent than it is now to make the project work. I'm guessing hourly service off peak for most times. In that case, they should replace the 3rd track south of SF

Graham line had better grades for freight handling even though the milage was the same; it also avoided downtowns thus eliminating grade crossings; it was build with fewer curves so speeds (for freight) would be greater. And, oh, yes it was double tracked. At least. But I am not sure Newburg/Stewart service would necessitate double tracking except for maybe somewhere closer to Suffern. But there are those who would love to see it double tracked all the way to Port Jervis. It would help develop the service to PJ more, it would allow better freight handling for NYS&W and NS. But that is all up to MNRR to decide.

I had never heard that Moodna Viaduct was gauntleted. The bridge piers were built to hold two tracks but the stringers between the piers are only there for one track. To double track it would be a pretty major feat.

The Otisville tunnel is also single tracked now, having been built for two tracks. It would be a huge expense to double track that and maintain clearances for the excess height freight cars running today. These two bottlenecks could be "worked around" if double track is warranted at some point in the future.

I too am interested to see what the P/A has planned for the conversion of Stewart into a major hub.