The rush to rip up track, and why keep the track they did...

I have to agree with Noel. Why would CR want the EL across NY? The NYC is flat, fast, and connects with the B&A. If CR had not improved the NYC for stacks, they would have no route to New England. If you were running a business, would you just turn it over to D&H/B&M? Lets face it, Selkirk is the hub! The Tier was an over flow route for Conrail. It was used with the LV as a short cut to the Allentown area.
We are really beating a dead horse. Hindsighet is 20/20. Maybe the CR execs. were over zealous, but I remember President Reagan was also ready to cut the purse strings too.

OK, what was the run time between Chicago and NYC on the Water Level route? EL was running on a 24 hour schedule (one way) on their lines. Those SDP45's and 45-2's had extra large fuel tanks to eliminate any power changes or refueling in route. All they had to do was change crews per operating district.

Fuel consumption and running times ... does anyone know how much fuel an SD45 used between Chicago and New Jersey running the EL versus the PC? I'd bet the PC was more fuel efficient, even if it was 4 hours slower. Doesn't make sense to have kept the entire EL mainline intact to burn an extra 2000 gallons of fuel AND pay the taxes on the land/facilities to save 4 hours running time. Spending a dollar to earn a dime. The EL mainline was a roller coaster; up and down and full of curves that was built "on the cheap" (and full of debt) by the Erie's predecessors. The only way track speeds were "high" was due to super-elevating curves, which required constant maintenance.

Conrail did the job they were supposed to do, and did it well.

The EL was never supposed to go to Conrail to begin with. It only went bankrupt because of Hurricane Agnes, and only went to Conrail because the unions felt that having virtually the entire railroad abandoned or sold was better than whatever labor issues there were with going into the Chessie System. Well, that's not exactly what they felt, it's just how it worked out. But ex-PC guys called the EL guys "boat people" right up until everyone retired.

So as an unwanted stepchild in Conrail, the PC guys abandoned the problem away. They got a bit of a bonus when stack trains started to become common, they could send them on the old Erie right off while adding clearances to other routes, but that's about it.

The west end never even went into Conrail, but instead struggled along for a few years under a couple different shortline operators before the estate scrapped it. One of them even ran part of the GR&I at the same time.

In retrospect, the government could have done a better job to reform the railroads and still maintain competition in the east, but they took the easiest way out and we have what we have. They probably should have allowed the D&H a shot at outright control of the same portions of the EL that Chessie was to get, and thrown in a connection to reach at least Chessie in Philadelphia. But until someone invents a machine that can travel to parallel universes and you can then find the one where that happened, there's no way to know if it would have been a better choice.

lvrr325 wrote:

In retrospect, the government could have done a better job to reform the railroads and still maintain competition in the east, but they took the easiest way out and we have what we have. They probably should have allowed the D&H a shot at outright control of the same portions of the EL that Chessie was to get, and thrown in a connection to reach at least Chessie in Philadelphia. But until someone invents a machine that can travel to parallel universes and you can then find the one where that happened, there's no way to know if it would have been a better choice.

That's a provocative statement; and bemoaning that the organization that can't move mail, or manage veterans' hospitals, or even run schools, "culd have done a better job" of running something as complex as that multiple-corporation bankruptcy web of railroads.

I'm not a fan of government. In fact, when asked, I say there's only TWO government programs I can think of that worked: One is the United States military; and the other...was CONRAIL.

I'll admit I'm prejudiced, as a veteran of both of these. But facts are facts; and Conrail's eventual return to health and phenomenal prosperity was more than even its creators had dared hope for. It could easily have been Milwaukee Road redux; or a repeat of the Illinois Central Gulf.

Instead, much of the Northeast rail network was saved and rehabilitated; the government was mostly paid back in the stock sale; and what was left generated healthy revenue for the reorganized company.

I agree it was a shame the EL was gutted; but given what could have happened and what usually happens when government gets involved...the industry and the Northeast got off easy.

There are many aspects to the story of the formation of Conrail but Government bears most of the blame for the problem (over-regulation and not caring about the loss of steelmaking and manufacturing to overseas competiton and onerous real-estate taxation) and the lousy free-market solution (let's take the total traffic of 6 RR's and ultimately carry it on 2.

As trucking sags under the weight of fuel cost and scarcity of drivers, what is left of the 6 RR's are near capacity. Conrail on April 1, 1976 was 20,000 miles. At the break-up it was 10,000 miles. However we got here and whomever was responsible, we as citizens of the Northeast are not in a good place and I can only hope that our kids may be able to find a spot to drive on the Interstate in between the solid line of 18 wheelers they will be faced with.

In terms of why rail was lifted rather than letting the lines rot with rail on them, property taxes are probably a huge issue: a line with rail on it is assessed as being much more valuable.

This was the main reason for de-electrification throughout the country, as well: the catenary added loads to the assessments.

An interesting comparison point is Pennsylvania, where land used for railroad tracks is tax-exempt as a matter of law (and I think it has been for a long time). There seem to be a lot more abandoned ROWs which still have track on them in Pennsylvania than in other states.... though that's anecdotal; I haven't counted.

nessman wrote:It's not uncommon for business execs to be unable to see outside the little bubbles in which they exist.

Yes, another form of corporate vandalism.

scottychaos wrote:It could be argued that all these things Conrail did that were considered "bad" by some, could also be considered just good business practices! If I worked for Conrail at the time, I would be glad they took a tough stance on competition. Fighting off the competition, no matter how small = more money Conrail makes = less layoffs = I keep my job. Corporations don't have to be "nice" to the competition, actually, they shouldnt be, if money is at stake.

And when corporations fall, they had better not look for help from the same people they stomped on, simply because they could. Yes, you have your job, but you can always get another one. Corporate harshness and cut-throat business practices---particularly in an industry that had major competitors all going belly-up in the 1970s---does not bode well on any level. While competition can be healthy, it can also be ruthless, blinding and ignorant.

In retrospect, Conrail should have done what it took to clean up the mess they inherited but also work with regional railroads and develop partnerships. It is the same old story: every man for himself, at the expense of those around him. The EL should have been used as a backup line, a shared line, a useful local line. Instead, it was desecrated. Same old story. I call Conrail the second coming of American Railroading Corporate Greed.

And sadly, CSX is carrying on the tradition.

The demise of the E-L began long before Conrail. As soon as the New Haven was forced into the Penn Central, interchange traffic through Maybrook, NY dropped drastically. (traffic had been declining before that, but PC basically dynamited the Maybrook connection) The E-L tried to fight the loss of traffic through the ICC, but had very limited sucess, and the Poughkeepsie bridge fire in 1974 put the icing on the cake. I worked for the E-L from '68 thru '72, and in '68 there were sometimes 4 trains a day each way between Port Jervis to Maybrook....by 1972 there was 1.

Yes, it is true that PC basically destroyed the Poughkeepsie bridge. If I recall, the bridge needed substantial repairs by 1974, and PC was in no position to address them---so they bombed it.

I guess it helps if you read a little to know what was actually going on. The EL was solvent and not going to be a part of Conrail until the damage it suffered from Hurricane Agnes in late 1972 wiped out their cash reserves (money that was planned in part to use to modernize the Marion, OH yard). Even then some plans had it combined with the RDG, LV, and CNJ and only Penn Central becoming part of Conrail.

The ICC forced the PC to work with the EL which created one train that interchanged the former Maybrook traffic at Utica NY. They also had the option of a D&H-B&M routing for some traffic, although apparently most of the perishables that went this way were bound for points on the New Haven anyways.

If anything it's an example of short-sighted regulation in the forcing of the New Haven onto the Penn Central.

The damage to the bridge was caused by a fire, not a bomb, and it's never been proven conclusively to have been a deliberate act on anyone's part.

lvrr325 wrote:I guess it helps if you read a little to know what was actually going on. The EL was solvent and not going to be a part of Conrail until the damage it suffered from Hurricane Agnes in late 1972 wiped out their cash reserves (money that was planned in part to use to modernize the Marion, OH yard). Even then some plans had it combined with the RDG, LV, and CNJ and only Penn Central becoming part of Conrail.

The ICC forced the PC to work with the EL which created one train that interchanged the former Maybrook traffic at Utica NY. They also had the option of a D&H-B&M routing for some traffic, although apparently most of the perishables that went this way were bound for points on the New Haven anyways.

If anything it's an example of short-sighted regulation in the forcing of the New Haven onto the Penn Central.

The damage to the bridge was caused by a fire, not a bomb, and it's never been proven conclusively to have been a deliberate act on anyone's part.

I think its safe to say that the books written on this period do not have ALL the information of what was really going on, and I bet some of it is wrong, and not even CLOSE to being correct. Any kind of "tell all book" or "real life account" type book is taken by a point of view, and not all is known really by anyone, except those who were there behind the closed doors, and you can bet that 1) even they didn't know everything and 2) they didn't spill ALL the beans.......

If I had to bet, the damage done to the bridge somehow could be traced to the railroad. could it ever be proven? Highly doubtful, but it sure is convenient isn't it?

There sure were a lot burnt/lost/destroyed structures of various kinds on the railroad (not just during the PC period, and on the PCRR itself) but in the 60s and 70s when the industry especially in the Northeast were on the verge of collapse.

It is a shame, especially now looking back on what was lost, but the results of this short sighted thinking of the time, necessary or not, is what we are left with today. In fairness though, you can't plan 15 to 20 years in advance when you can't make next weeks payroll............some of that short sighted thinking was the only kind of thinking they could do, becuase they had no choice.

And yet, Penn Central took the time to move tons of New Haven RR engineering department documents from who knows where to a building in Selkirk, documents in some cases dating back to the 1900-1910 period, before the Maybrook line was even a part OF the New Haven RR, only to be forgotten and disposed of by Conrail years later. There were even huge steam locomotive construction prints among the document files. Paper that was so old and dry it would have been a major fire hazard even without the help of an arsonist.

lvrr325 wrote: The damage to the bridge was caused by a fire, not a bomb, and it's never been proven conclusively to have been a deliberate act on anyone's part.

Oh, I know it was not an actual bomb: that was just my way of saying the PC allegedy felt the Poughkeepsie Bridge was something of an albatross, so they sent a train over it to purposely burn the bridge down. I know nothing has been proven, but after reading all the details over the years, I would not put it past the financially put-upon PC to literally "burn their own bridges."