The Wye to Calendonia

[the1jp]

Back to the original topic! The West leg of the Wye out to Farmers Road is a great place for an early morning walk.
Yes, I probably am trespassing, but I have never seen anyone else up there and it is a great place to walk and spend some quality time with your kids.

[Otto Vondrak]

Guys, I think we've long strayed from the topic at hand. If you want to argue about the viability of Conrail, try the Conrail forum.

The topic at hand is the wye at Avon, which I think I read was removed along with the route to Caledonia around 1981.

-otto-

[railwatcher]

The topic was still the part of the discussion even though it branched into Conrails political thinking of those days. If it had strayed much further I would have said something to it's effect. We can learn by the opinions of our fellow writers how the actions of Conrail were taken on a local perspective concerning the wye and line west. This is why I fealt it not necessary to neuter the comments of those who have written. "...opinion isnt always fact, but it is the opinion that tells us about how actions are taken."


Greg Graves, and I am the moderator here.

[Matt Langworthy]

Thanks, Greg. Disucssing the history of the wye should be just as valid as discussing its characterisitics. Otto does bring up a good point about relevance so I will limit this post strictly to how it relates to LAL.

With all due respect to their considerable knowledge, I think Les and BR&P are missing the point of my post. Conrail was supposed to dispose of Category III trackage by A. not including it in the ystem or 2. going thru abandonment proceedings with the ICC if the track in question was downgraded to Category III status.

Under scenario A, the Attica Branch between Caledonia and Avon would remained in the EL estate. No doubt the trustees in Cleveland would have gladly sold it to LAL because the line would obviously more have value being sold intact than being torn up and sold for scrap. Conrail did not let that happen.

Under Scanario B, Conrail was supposed to go thru formal abandonment proceedings for lines it wished to abandon. It did not do so, thus denying LAL an alternative (read: competitve) outlet for a freight connection with B&O. As LAL President Bill Burt related in the Conrail forum, Big Blue's management was all too happy to tear up former EL lines to prevent competition. This was the case with the Caledonia-Avon segment and it was wrong.

[Otto Vondrak]

Greg, Matt: There is nothing wrong with discussing Conrail as it directly relates to the development of the LAL.

-otto-

[BR&P]

Matt - I guess what you are saying is that Conrail did not allow LA&L to use CR's trackage in Avon, in order to get from the LA&L to the EL line from Avon to Caledonia and thereby connect with Chessie. Looking it it from Conrail's perspective that makes sense. Why inconvenience yourself to allow somebody to do business with the competition?

The Avon-Caledonia trackage was NOT conveyed to Conrail so they never controlled it or had a say in its disposition. Unlike other lines which went to CR and subsequently were abandoned and torn up to prevent competition, this line was never theirs to start with.

[Matt Langworthy]

Matt - I guess what you are saying is that Conrail did not allow LA&L to use CR's trackage in Avon, in order to get from the LA&L to the EL line from Avon to Caledonia and thereby connect with Chessie. Looking it it from Conrail's perspective that makes sense. Why inconvenience yourself to allow somebody to do business with the competition?

I understand why CR did it- I just don't agree with the ethics. And if EL didn't convey the trackage to Big Blue, then why was LAL prevented from buying it? The EL estate had to pay its shareholders so selling the line intact would have made more sense than scrapiing it.

[nessman]

I understand why CR did it- I just don't agree with the ethics. And if EL didn't convey the trackage to Big Blue, then why was LAL prevented from buying it? The EL estate had to pay its shareholders so selling the line intact would have made more sense than scrapiing it.

I think the point is that if EL sold the track to the LAL, the LAL couldn't access it because of the paper barrier that Conrail put across it - which could mean expensive interchange fees and all that good stuff.

Conrail was basically a bankrupt railroad from day one - and it needed all the revenue it could get... why give it away to a solvent railroad?

Unethical? Not really... would be like Tops building a store adjacent to the rear of Wegmans, and the only way for people to get in and out of Tops would be to walk through Wegmans. Wegmans is under no obligation to allow it to happen. It's how businesses work.

[wdburt1]

It was the United States Railway Association, not Conrail, that refused to let LAL buy the Avon-Caledonia line.

USRA was the quasi-governmental agency (read: a governmental agency that thinks it is a private sector organization and is given some freedom from being accountable to Congress and believes it has even more freedom than it was given) created by the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 ("3R Act") to plan the restructuring of the bankrupt Northeastern railroads.

The fact that some key USRA executives migrated to Conrail has led many to confuse the two, and along about 1975 USRA did indeed begin to conflate Conrail's interest with the public interest, but it was USRA's Final System Plan, not Conrail, that made LAL captive to Big Blue.

When LAL petitioned to gain access to Rochester & Southern during the Conrail split, we argued that it was governmental action that had made LAL captive, and governmental action was required to set it right. CSX's emissary summarized his company's position by telling me that "We consider you part of the franchise we acquired," and their responsive filings before the STB accused LAL of "relitigating the Final System Plan." They lost.

LAL has never questioned the legitimacy of arms length traffic agreements voluntarily entered into between carriers. They are an essential mechanism for Class I railroads and short lines to jointly rebuild business on light density lines.

William D. Burt
President and Chief Operating Officer
Livonia, Avon & Lakeville Railroad
Lakeville, New York

[nessman]

Did the USRA ever give its rationale for not granting the LAL the Avon-Caledonia line?

Is there a copy of the Final System Plan anywhere online?

[wdburt1]

So far as I know, USRA's rationale for refusing to sell EL's Avon-Caledonia line to LAL was never published, but LAL management were advised that the line would be abandoned, and the Avon-Rochester line retained, because Conrail needed the revenue generated by LAL's traffic and the still-significant traffic at Avon.

In other words, the interest of LAL and its local industries was to be subordinated by government planners to Conrail's interests.

This situation, and the way in which it was handled by USRA, was not at all uncommon, by the way. The smaller railroads in the region such as D&H, P&LE, DT&I, which usually were going to lose some of their existing connections and find themselves at Conrail's mercy unless they fought their way out of a corner, all reported similar experiences with USRA.

Regrettably, LAL's position was undercut by a lack of support by NYSDOT, whose rail freight director at the time was well known for pushing a theory that the Class I railroads could make branch lines work with traditional manning and work rules if only they would reconsider how they allocated costs between main line and branch line operations. Many branch lines that remained with the estates of the bankrupt railroads were operated by Conrail under federal subsidy arrangements for a couple of years, giving his theory a test of sorts. When the subsidy ran out, NYS picked up some of these lines and subsequently transferred them to the counties for short line operation. Ontario Central and B&H's Kanona-Wayland line are two examples.

WDB

[Luther Brefo]

Thank you very much Mr. Burt.

[Matt Langworthy]

So far as I know, USRA's rationale for refusing to sell EL's Avon-Caledonia line to LAL was never published, but LAL management were advised that the line would be abandoned, and the Avon-Rochester line retained, because Conrail needed the revenue generated by LAL's traffic and the still-significant traffic at Avon.

In other words, the interest of LAL and its local industries was to be subordinated by government planners to Conrail's interests.

This situation, and the way in which it was handled by USRA, was not at all uncommon, by the way. The smaller railroads in the region such as D&H, P&LE, DT&I, which usually were going to lose some of their existing connections and find themselves at Conrail's mercy unless they fought their way out of a corner, all reported similar experiences with USRA.

That's how I understood it. Thanks again, Mr. Burt.

[railwatcher]

WDB thanks for your input and glad to have you joining our conversations.

Greg Graves, moderator

[the1jp]

avonrailfan62:
You said in another post of this forum that we might pick your brain!
Do you remember a concrete mile marker part way out to the Genesee river bridge?
My kids and I were on the fill again last evening (Fri. 23) and thought we saw a concrete marker down on the north side of the ROW in amongst the wood and brush that is being cleared for the Barilla plant?
Any memory?
JP