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

This is something that was touched on over in the Amtrak forum, but since this is the more topical place to ask, I will. What was the motivation for ripping up track on lines that Conrail abandoned? I can understand that they would abandon lines (as I understand, it was one of the important things Conrail was allowed to do), but why go through the trouble and expense to go over a line and tear up the track?
It seems like a waste of time and money, and it throws up an obstacle to restoration of service on that line in the future, if need be. For example, the Lackawanna Cutoff in NJ/PA; NJT is looking into restoring service along there (and it's been studied for years), but not having track there certainly makes it harder to start running trains (even though the track would most likely need to be replaced anyway).

pgengler wrote:This is something that was touched on over in the Amtrak forum, but since this is the more topical place to ask, I will. What was the motivation for ripping up track on lines that Conrail abandoned? I can understand that they would abandon lines (as I understand, it was one of the important things Conrail was allowed to do), but why go through the trouble and expense to go over a line and tear up the track?
It seems like a waste of time and money, and it throws up an obstacle to restoration of service on that line in the future, if need be. For example, the Lackawanna Cutoff in NJ/PA; NJT is looking into restoring service along there (and it's been studied for years), but not having track there certainly makes it harder to start running trains (even though the track would most likely need to be replaced anyway).

First off, there was no real need for the cutoff with Conrail's operation,
had better and more efficient routes with former Penn Central lines.
Secondly, the rail was fairly decent and could be cut, welded and reused
on branch lines that were viable and part of Conrail's future.
Thirdly, the State of New Jersey had a very high property tax structure for
railroads operating in that state and they did nothing to help save the line
for possible future use.
If the cutoff ever gets track back and restored to use, it will cost plenty
and I say "if" because I do not think it is a given that it will happen
anytime soon.
As for the lines that were not kept or taken over by Conrail at the onset in
1976, these lines for the most part remained property of the estate of the
former railroad and it was the estate of the former railroad that in most
cases tore up the tracks on these particular lines, in a few cases they were
sold to states and others for continued operation or other uses.
Conrail did not remove lines that did not belong to them.
Noel Weaver

While some lines were doomed from the onset of CR (Hojack, LV west of Van Etten, etc.), CR did abandon some lines that may have had futrue viability. For example, they tore up the Cut-Off despite a court order forbidding them to do so! Big Blue tried to do that again 1995 with the ex-Erie/EL mainline at Corry, PA, but the courts successfully stepped in to prevent that from happening. In both cases, there were concerns that other RRs (CP/D&H, CSX, NYSW) were going to make a viable alternate route to the vital NY/NJ market. CR's management never liked competition, and they made sure that wouldn't happen, whenever possible.

It's just my opinion, but EL should have been kept separate from CR. Indeed, ATSF actually commissioned a study in 1974- stating EL could generate $28 million per year, after a 6 year track improvement project. Too bad that never happenned...

Now, CR did not always abandon lines that had no immediate use. They did railbank an ex-Reading line in eastern PA, in case changing traffic patterns warranted future use. However, that scenario was rare and tended to happen later in the CR era.

Matt Langworthy wrote:While some lines were doomed from the onset of CR (Hojack, LV west of Van Etten, etc.), CR did abandon some lines that may have had futrue viability. For example, they tore up the Cut-Off despite a court order forbidding them to do so! Big Blue tried to do that again 1995 with the ex-Erie/EL mainline at Corry, PA, but the courts successfully stepped in to prevent that from happening. In both cases, there were concerns that other RRs (CP/D&H, CSX, NYSW) were going to make a viable alternate route to the vital NY/NJ market. CR's management never liked competition, and they made sure that wouldn't happen, whenever possible.

If there had been a legitimate court order in effect, Conrail would not have
removed the track from the cutoff. NW

It's just my opinion, but EL should have been kept separate from CR. Indeed, ATSF actually commissioned a study in 1974- stating EL could generate $28 million per year, after a 6 year track improvement project. Too bad that never happenned... :

EL was broke like all of the rest of the railroads that together made up
Conrail, if they hadn't been broke, they could have stayed on their own.
As for other railroads, it was considered but nobody ended up wanting the
EL, It just wasn't worth it to any other major railroads. NW

Now, CR did not always abandon lines that had no immediate use. They did railbank an ex-Reading line in eastern PA, in case changing traffic patterns warranted future use. However, that scenario was rare and tended to happen later in the CR era.

The need for most of the EL was diminishing month by month through the
ending of its operations and the beginning of Conrail. Local business was
drying up in many locations and again, there were better routes.
The former New York Central line across New York State was and is a far
better freight line than the former EL lone.
Noel Weaver

Alleviation of taxes on idle property was a big one. Connecticut has a rail-banking law that allows tracks to be left in place in the custody of the state once abandoned. In New York State, no such statute exists, hence the rush to remove rails. Property is taxed at a greatly reduced rate if the rails are removed.

Number two, Conrail was out to preserve its own markets- they did not want a competitor coming in on some alternate route recently abandoned. Remember that Conrail's goal was survival at any rate, so many obvious "helpful" connections and branchlines were eliminated.

-otto-

I didn't realize that the taxes were cheaper without the track down ... I don't know if I understand why though. I'm guessing it's probably for the same reason that property taxes go up when there's a house on a lot instead of letting it sit vacant, but really, how much more is a ROW worth with track than without, when it's still owned by the railroad?

Noel Weaver wrote:If there had been a legitimate court order in effect, Conrail would not have
removed the track from the cutoff. NW

EL was broke like all of the rest of the railroads that together made up
Conrail, if they hadn't been broke, they could have stayed on their own.
As for other railroads, it was considered but nobody ended up wanting the
EL, It just wasn't worth it to any other major railroads. NW

The need for most of the EL was diminishing month by month through the
ending of its operations and the beginning of Conrail. Local business was
drying up in many locations and again, there were better routes.
The former New York Central line across New York State was and is a far
better freight line than the former EL lone.
Noel Weaver

1. There was a legitimate court order in effect but Conrail ignored it. This has been published in several sources, and I vaguely remember it from the news at the time. CR was still a gov't agency then so prosecuting the management involved would have been alot harder than going after a corporate CEO like Ken Lay or Martha Stewart. There is no way the Reagan administration, which was putting alot of pressure on Crane to privatize the entire CR operation, would have initiated a court case that might have slowed the process down.

2. Not every bankrupt RR in the Northeast entered Conrail, nor did they need to. Boston & Maine, which went bankrupt under similar conditions to EL, opted for an independant course and wound up in Guilford. I'm not saying that EL could have survived intact on its own- rather it would have had to become a prt of a larger system, whther by merger or becoming a Dereco-esque subsidiary. And this would have happened with Chessie if labor had been willing to make concessions (as they later did under CR) or if ATSF's president John Reed had listened to his subordinates instead of launching the ill-fated attempt at merger with Southern Pacific.

3. Sure, EL's local traffic was declining in the mid-'70s but this was true for nearly every RR in the Rust Belt. Remeber, EL had been just a hair's breadth away from survival, not once but thrice. (Don't forget MARC/EL!)
If any of these scenarios had allowed the El mainline to survive for even a few years longer, the RR scene inthe Northeast would be vastly different today. Author H. Roger Grant discusses the question in his book Erie Lackawanna: Death f An American Railroad 1938-1992:

"Could the railroad, or at least its mainline, have lived on? Evidence can be marshalled to suggest a positive answer if certain events had occurred earlier. The company's entry into Conrail occurred several years before the impact of a monumental piece of federal legislation, the Staggers Act. This 1980 measure... created a better regulatory environment for rail carrier. Indeed, Conrail's losses ended almost immediately. Erie Lackawanna would have benefiited from this statute as well. Surely, too, the firm would have benefitted from a recent technological development of sorts, containerization of shipments. This railroad, with its wide clearances and lack of major points of congestion, was wonderfully suited for such traffic. In fact, it was initially the only line with double-stack clearances... Since the advent of Conrail there has been a dramtic change in labor work rules. One trend has been toward smaller work crews, often only two people operating freight trains. This phenomenon would have been a boon to the balance sheet.... increased instance of gridlock, especially on roadways, would likewise portend well for an Erie Lackawanna". What Grant means is to say the the former EL mainline, especially the east end of it, had strategic value and that CR did everything in its power to cripple it.

Even more damning to CR's management are these comments in Grant's book: "Conceivably, an independant Erie Lackawanna could have improved transportation in the East. Demise of the Friendly Service Route meant the region may have lost a major catalyst for innovation. 'There is no doubt that EL, with its clearance would have been the first to put on stack trains,' contended William D. Burt, an intermodal expert and longtime student of the Erie. 'I can testify from personal experience that UPS was in the late 1970s and early 1980s extremely interested in finding a way to operate a New York-Chicago train consisting of RoadRailer equipment... but was denied the opportunity to do so by Conrail." If stacks and Roadrailers had appeared on an independant EL, it would have been very hard for CR to compete. Remember, CR had to use stack revenues to improve clearances on the Water Level Route so it could bolster traffic level there. CR could have survived without that revenue, but it would have been much slower to enter the stack business.

Otto, this is exactly why CR wanted to dismantle EL. The latter's mainline didn't necessarily have the high volume of local traffic it needed to be profitable but certainly it would have made an excellent bridge route if had been rehabilitated. Not so useless after all...

All I can say is what I have said previously, if the Erie Lackawanna was so
great, how come it is not the one still in operation. It had nowhere near
the physical plant that the former New York Central had and it had grades
too so the cost of operation was higher than the former NYC.
The former NYC had better sources of traffic, served larger cities, had
double track CTC vs ABS and some single track on the EL with some
severe grades too and had moden yards to work with.
Two things really doomed the former EL, the closing of the Ford plant at
Mahwah and the fire on the Poughkeepsie Bridge which ended their best
route to New England.
Other railroads looked at the EL and for one reason or another decided
that they did not want it. One, Chessie, used work rules as an excuse but
I don't think they really wanted it anyway.
As I have said before, there just was not enough freight business in the
north east and in New England for the existing railroads and the Erie
Lackawanna was not really needed.
Noel Weaver

While I'm not a railroad man, and have no experience with a rail road, I'm on Noel's side on this one.

On April 1, 1976 six Railroads became one super road. Now allot of these roads serviced and ran through the same towns. Phillipsburg is the perfect example. 5 Railroads ran through town, and all five were turned over to CR. For example LV and CNJ shared allot of parallel track, so it made sense to tear out one in favor of the other.

With Conrail choosing to make Allentown a major hub, roads such as the cut off made little sense. Think about it this way: Allentown to Slateford via the cutoff would mean going east on the LV/CNJ then switching over to the Washington Secondary all the way to Port Morris then swinging onto the cut-off. By contrast they could come east out of A-Town on the LV/CNJ and switch over to the LHR/Bel-Del bridge in Phillipsburg and take the Bel-Del north to slateford and resume on the DL&W to Scranton and beyond.

washingtonsecondary wrote:For example LV and CNJ shared allot of parallel track, so it made sense to tear out one in favor of the other.

Abandoning the line I can understand, but ripping up the track just seems shortsighted. I don't know what the tax savings are for not having track down, and so if those savings ended up being more than the cost of ripping up the track, then I suppose it makes short-term financial success (which I do recognize as what Conrail was looking for when it was formed). Like I said, though, it just seems shortsighted. Leaving track down but unused at least reminds people living near the ROW that trains ran there, and they might run there again. I imagine it's a lot harder to reactivate an old line when you need to relay track than when it's already there.

Conrail's mentality was that these tracks were to NEVER be used again.

Noel Weaver wrote:All I can say is what I have said previously, if the Erie Lackawanna was so great, how come it is not the one still in operation. Other railroads looked at the EL and for one reason or another decided that they did not want it. One, Chessie, used work rules as an excuse but I don't think they really wanted it anyway.

I really recommend that you read Grant's book- it really makes a great argument for EL as a TOFC/COFC corridor. I have never made any negative remarks about the need for the Water Level Route. Regardless of what happened., there would still be a need for the ex-NYC because (and I agree with you on this) it served major cities that EL missed (e.g. Albany, Toledo) or served by minor branchlines (Cleveland, Rochester, Syracuse).

According to Grant's book, Chessie made some serious inquiries sbout EL, and I have a number of pictures of inspection trains to support this point. Chessie backed away because federal law required a labor agreement before the transfer took place. By contrast, CR did not have to negotiate with labor until after C-Day.

I don't want you to think that I'm some hopeless dreamer who romanticizes about what could have been. I'm a major LV fan, too, but I can't see any justification for keeping the tracks that were removed- especially when they ran parallel to CNJ tracks that were as close as a few feet away. Nor did LV's trickle of traffic to Buffalo justify retaining the line west of Van Etten.

Having said that, Conrail could have rejected most of EL- if it was so useless. Considering that they did keep and use about 2/3 (at least initially), there was at least some value to running trains on ex-EL tracks. I will gladly admit Allentown made sense for operations involving CNJ, LV and RDG lines. However, DL&W explored that possibility and even started to build a line but they ultimately cancelled the project because it was unnecessary to the flow of their traffic.

My main thrust is this: EL was downgraded and sytematically dismantled under CR because it was a threat to traffic levels on their other routes (both ex-NYC and -PRR). It could have been rehabilitated asnd made profitable, as per the ATSF study. I doubt there is anybody who could change my mind on this.

The former New York Central route has substantial stretches of solid 60
MPH running on a moden double track ctc controlled route with very few
places that a slow down is necessary. Even the River Line between north
Jersey and Selkirk is a better route in and out of north Jersey than either
the former Erie or DL&W had. DL&W had a decent route but the EL chose
to cut it up and destroy part of it to build I-80 in New Jersey.
EL routes east of Binghamton were beset with curves, heavy grades and
passenger train interference which would prevent the running of van trains
in the same time frame as permitted on the former NYC. Both routes had
their good stretches but both routes also had their problem areas.
A lot of people thought that when Conrail was sold off to CSX and NS that
the NS would really make use of the Southern Tier but this again has not
been the case, they already have a much better route with the former
PRR, RDG and LV routes into the north Jersey area.
Luckily, the NYS&W has stepped in to keep the Southern Tier in full
operation otherwise it probably would have suffered further downgrading.
Noel Weaver

Steering back towards the original question of why track was ripped up so quickly....?

Around 1978 the former SP man I think his name was Jordan resigned or got canned. He was the Conrail President or maybe VP of Operation ? It's been a long time so my dates may be off. IIRC the jist of it, he wanted to keep too many alternate routes and got into with his superiors. Now this may of happened just before Cranes tenure but around this period Hasselman took over as VP of Operation and the line chopping started in earnest. Otto, it was do or die for Conrail in those days, management was under tremendous pressure to make it work and they did not have the best and brightest in those posistions. Stan Crane really saved the place but he was a hard nosed Southern Railway man and a real penny pincher.