The rationalization of redundant trackage...

[Otto Vondrak]

The Penn Central bankruptcy dragged down Northeastern railroading no matter how solvent you were... you lost money on every car switched to PC- it used to be that fees cancelled each other out- but since PC was not required to pay certain creditors during its bankruptcy proceedings, it was now absorbing the other half of all those charges. But I want to keep the conversation on the track rationalization and not on merger conditions.

I assume that EL's late entry into the planning of Conrail is what doomed most of its mainline routes into oblivion. Earlier plans had EL aligned with Chessie System, from what I recall, and there was no talk of EL in Conrail until 1975 or so. (USRA planning began in 1974, right?)

My 1978 map of Conrail shows the Poughkeepsie Bridge route intact, as a solid line over the Hudson River. I guess no one in Philly got the memo that the bridge was OOS?

What of the LV estate in New York? Did Conrail operate anything west of Sayre, or was that essentially shut down after April 1, 1976?

-otto-

[sodusbay]

Sayre - VanEtten Jc. - Ithaca - Ludlowville (Myers) - Lake Ridge was always planned for Conrail because of the salt and coal bulk loads. This was the original Ithaca & Athens (1869) plus about half of the Cayuga Lake RR (1872).

The heavy-duty, low-grade freight bypass via eastern Schuyler county (1890) was abandoned all the way to Buffalo. All the branch lines were abandoned; some were picked up by short lines but not for long. A spur from Geneva along the old Geneva & Ithaca and then into Seneca Army Depot was operated by the Army itself, I believe, until that depot was shut at the end of the cold war.

[Andyt293]

A friend of mine who is now an Industrial TM for NS was yardmaster out of Coxton and Hazleton during the Nineties right before Conrail sold the former LV mainline to the Reading and Northern. He told me there was a systematic approach to downgrade and eliminate the line between Sayre and Lehighton because it was TOO profitable! In the heyday of freight service to Proctor and Gamble's Mehoopany plant, it was common for 100 plus cars to be shipped almost daily. Only two problems. The traffic was mostly boxcars and did not fit into Conrail's Intermodel-based marketing strategies and it was short-haul traffic to the Hagerstown gateway. If you stand at the intersection of Routes 6 and 29 in Tunkhannock at any given part of the day, you can count at least 100 Tractor trailers go by in about an hour to two hour time span. Conversely, the RN may go by once a day with about 6 cars.

At the end, there were two through freights on the line. ALCG (Allentown-Corning/Gangs Mills) and CGAL. These two freights pretty much paid the expenses and the local traffic was gravy. Conrail sold the line between Lehighton and Mehoopany to the RN and kept the local traffic at Hazleton. There was probably as much traffic in the Crestwood/Wilkes-Barre/Scranton clusters as Hazleton but keeping that tackage was counterproductive to Conrail's goal of creating East-West "traffic lanes".

Conrail outidid itself when it came to ripping out sidings and branchlines it considered "marginal".

[LCJ]

Conrail outidid itself when it came to ripping out sidings and branchlines it considered "marginal".

Throughout the early years of Conrail, the way an operations manager got positive attention was to find more and more "stuff" to rationalize. Lots of it made sense, too, at the time.

As example, in Baltimore we figured out it made more sense (to the tune of about $300G/year) to close the old (like ancient!) PRR Canton coal tipple and redirect the Beth Steel Sparrows Pt coal to the modern Consol facility that was vastly under-utilized next door. We saved about 3 yard crews, a couple of locomotives, 2 yardmasters, closed a yard office -- and improved the turnaround time on hoppers so that they needed a heck of a lot fewer of them to move the same amount of coal. Beth Steel was happy, and so was Consol -- two very important customers.

However, the "always looking for cuts" trend continued on well into the '80s to the point where it actually started to cut into the capability of the system to support any kind of traffic growth -- should it ever come along, that is. It needed to come along, by the way, if CR were to reach goals for revenue growth put forth in the Continuous Quality Improvement push of the late '80s/early'90s.

In the '80s, there were squads of people whose job it was to travel around the system to look for yards to close and jobs to eliminate. Clerks were always the first target. People were assumed to be unnecessary unless proved otherwise. Many local managers couldn't stand up to the onslaught and would often capitulate easily. Once a yard or a job was gone, it was gone forever.

This operational mode got in the way of success after a while. Customer service improvement wasn't nearly as important, on a day-to-day basis, as was saving crew starts or overtime (local budget items which tended to take precedence over even foreign car hire per diem expense).

This extreme focus on expense reduction rather than service improvement (as I saw it) was one of the reasons revenues never increased enough to allow CR to remain independent. By the time the management team got really serious about promoting growth, it was too late. A last-ditch effort to buy growth (SP-East) failed, as has been discussed in this forum.

The lesson to learn is you can't create growth by cutting expenses!

[jmp883]

Otto,

In the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, the federal government allowed the EL and the B&M to organize independently. EL had also investigated a merger with the N&W (Chessie System) but was unable to do so due to differences between the unions and management. So, by the end of the 1974 it had no other choice than to enter into Conrail.

In regard to the trackage elimination of most of the EL, yes, I would say that some of it did have to do with EL's late entry into Conrail. But, don't forget that most of Conrail's early management positions were held by former PC executives. Therefore, when it came to track reductions, non-PC routes were usually the first to go. This fact has been alluded to in several EL and Conrail history books I have in my library.

The amazing thing about the trackage reductions is that of all the lines in the northeast the EL had the best high/wide routing. An ideal Conrail routing would have been the NYC Water Level Route and the former DL&W route from Scranton east. Add the Lehigh Valley line from Allentown east and you have 3 excellent routes into and out of the NY metro area.

Oh well, just some rambling thoughts

[Noel Weaver]

Otto,

In the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, the federal government allowed the EL and the B&M to organize independently. EL had also investigated a merger with the N&W (Chessie System) but was unable to do so due to differences between the unions and management. So, by the end of the 1974 it had no other choice than to enter into Conrail.

In regard to the trackage elimination of most of the EL, yes, I would say that some of it did have to do with EL's late entry into Conrail. But, don't forget that most of Conrail's early management positions were held by former PC executives. Therefore, when it came to track reductions, non-PC routes were usually the first to go. This fact has been alluded to in several EL and Conrail history books I have in my library.

Superior this, better that - If the Erie, Lehigh Valley or whatever were so
successful, how come they are either gone or very secondary for the most
part? None of them can equal the physical plant of the former New York
Central mainline. No helper grades, a modern signal system thanks to
Pearlman in the 1950's and modern yard facilities. The New York Central
served many major sources of traffic which the Erie managed to bypass.
The Lehigh Valley went to hell after the coal and steel traffic dried up and
could not compete with the NYC for speed.
There was way more railroad physical plant in the northeast than was
really needed and it is called survival of the fitest.


The amazing thing about the trackage reductions is that of all the lines in the northeast the EL had the best high/wide routing. An ideal Conrail routing would have been the NYC Water Level Route and the former DL&W route from Scranton east. Add the Lehigh Valley line from Allentown east and you have 3 excellent routes into and out of the NY metro area.

Oh well, just some rambling thoughts

Oh yes, come off a good modern railroad with no major grades and a
network of modern facilities to a outmoded single and double track line
with A.B.S. at best, major grades and other operating problems. This
makes absolutely NO sense. I rode the former Lackawanna several times
and agree, it was a scenic and interesting ride but you can't keep a line
running on scenery.
Noel Weaver

[jmp883]

Noel,

I never once said anything about how scenic the lines were, nor were my choices based on scenery.

The choice of the NYC routing was because it was basically flat. That was one reason it was built, it followed an easier grade than other roads into and out of the NYC metro area. It also has a major yard, Selkirk, to handle traffic to/from New England. It is, however, a longer routing for both east and westbound NY metro area traffic.

On the EL route I do need to correct myself. The line kept should have the been the former Erie side from Buffalo all the way east with its ability to handle high/wides. It would also be an alternate routing to the NYC line, although more direct for NY metro area traffic.

The choice of the LV across NJ and into Allentown still stands. This would provide connections to/from the south while avoiding the Northeast Corridor.

In your post you wrote:

"Oh yes, come off a good modern railroad with no major grades and a
network of modern facilities to a outmoded single and double track line
with A.B.S. at best, major grades and other operating problems. This
makes absolutely NO sense. I rode the former Lackawanna several times
and agree, it was a scenic and interesting ride but you can't keep a line
running on scenery."


Which pre-Conrail railroad are we talking about that was a "good modern railroad"? No railroad in the northeast, especially in the early 70's pre-Conrail era, was even close to operating efficiently. Locomotive/rolling stock maintenance, trackwork, and signaling was all deferred to the minimum level necessary to keep trains running while still trying to meet financial obligations. And the trains didn't always run. If they did, they didn't always make it without some type of mechanical or other breakdown. After Conrail, locomotives, rolling stock, and facilities were modernized and updated as money became available, but Conrail's first years were not much different than they were before 4/1/76.

Now, as I'm sitting here writing this, it occured to me that these are the lines that Conrail DID keep! Granted, the Southern Tier has been progressively downgraded west of Port Jervis, but all 3 lines were in the original Conrail plan, and all 3 lines are still in daily use.

Don't let the benefit of hindsight twist things out of perspective. As railfans we have to remember that, ideally, the railroad companies make their operating decisions on what is best for the railroad, not for the railfan. Like you said at the end of your post: "it was a scenic and interesting ride but you can't keep a line running on scenery."

These are just my thoughts.
Remember, it's just a hobby!

[Noel Weaver]

Noel,

I never once said anything about how scenic the lines were, nor were my choices based on scenery.

The choice of the NYC routing was because it was basically flat. That was one reason it was built, it followed an easier grade than other roads into and out of the NYC metro area. It also has a major yard, Selkirk, to handle traffic to/from New England. It is, however, a longer routing for both east and westbound NY metro area traffic.

On the EL route I do need to correct myself. The line kept should have the been the former Erie side from Buffalo all the way east with its ability to handle high/wides. It would also be an alternate routing to the NYC line, although more direct for NY metro area traffic.

The choice of the LV across NJ and into Allentown still stands. This would provide connections to/from the south while avoiding the Northeast Corridor.

In your post you wrote:

"Oh yes, come off a good modern railroad with no major grades and a
network of modern facilities to a outmoded single and double track line
with A.B.S. at best, major grades and other operating problems. This
makes absolutely NO sense. I rode the former Lackawanna several times
and agree, it was a scenic and interesting ride but you can't keep a line
running on scenery."


Which pre-Conrail railroad are we talking about that was a "good modern railroad"? No railroad in the northeast, especially in the early 70's pre-Conrail era, was even close to operating efficiently. Locomotive/rolling stock maintenance, trackwork, and signaling was all deferred to the minimum level necessary to keep trains running while still trying to meet financial obligations. And the trains didn't always run. If they did, they didn't always make it without some type of mechanical or other breakdown. After Conrail, locomotives, rolling stock, and facilities were modernized and updated as money became available, but Conrail's first years were not much different than they were before 4/1/76.

Now, as I'm sitting here writing this, it occured to me that these are the lines that Conrail DID keep! Granted, the Southern Tier has been progressively downgraded west of Port Jervis, but all 3 lines were in the original Conrail plan, and all 3 lines are still in daily use.

Don't let the benefit of hindsight twist things out of perspective. As railfans we have to remember that, ideally, the railroad companies make their operating decisions on what is best for the railroad, not for the railfan. Like you said at the end of your post: "it was a scenic and interesting ride but you can't keep a line running on scenery."

These are just my thoughts.
Remember, it's just a hobby!

The operating efficiencies of the former New York Central could not be
matched by the difference in mileage between the former Erie and the
former New York Central. Even in the Penn Central days, it was especially
west of Albany/Selkirk a superb piece of railroad.
Secondly, for you it might be "just a hobby" but I spent 41 years working
on the railroad, maybe today it is a hobby but in the years past, it was
much, much more than that.
Noel Weaver

[LI Loco]

As a student at Syracuse University in the early 1970s, I had plenty of opportunities to ride and observe Penn Central west of Albany. There was plenty of traffic, but based on my rides and the shimmy of some of the locomotives I saw in freight service I would hardly describe the line as "superb." It did, however, get much better during Conrail's later years.

[LCJ]

Yes -- there were plenty of slow orders on the PC main west of Albany in those years. Many of the CPs were 30 mph much of the time.

HOWEVER -- it was all CTC, while the EL route was ABS. We could still move a lot more trains over it than the EL Southern Tier could during the same period.

I'm certain that if New York State hadn't invested in rehabilitation of the the Tier route, Conrail would've tried to get away from it somehow. Except for the D&H trackage rights traffic (set up to provide competition for CR), only one CR scheduled train was operated over it -- BUOI/OIBU -- and it was just a glorified local switcher much of the time.

They came close to selling it to CN at one point, mostly because it didn't make sense to hold onto such a huge property tax burden that didn't provide much in the way of revenue. Conrail backed out at the last minute -- probably for fear of some real competition for the New York market.

[wdburt1]

Think of it as a pendulum that swung too far each way.

Referring to the Jordan years, a Conrail executive--I believe it was L. Stanley Crane--was once quoted in print as saying (I paraphrase), "We spent a lot of money rebuilding yards and secondary lines that we ended up not needing." USRA reported pretty much the same thing. Certainly, some of this was due to the need to eliminate slow orders and safety issues, and most of the plant had to be operated until it could be rationalized. But both Crane and USRA emphasized that Conrail rebuilt its system for a freight traffic volume that never materialized after the decline of the Rust Belt.

So along comes Crane with his philosophy of resizing the infrastructure to fit the traffic they had, aided by the Northeast Rail Service Act of 1981 which permitted expedited abandonment.

It was only four years later that the stack train boom began.

In the late 1980s, Conrail was still tearing up double track on key intermodal routes.

In any effort as heroic as Conrail's rebuilding of the Northeast railroads, some miscalculation was inevitable. The persistence of such miscalculation, however, testifies to Conrail's insulation from market forces. Competitors learn from each other--they learn what works and what fails. It was the Susquehanna, after all, that taught Conrail that Sea-Land really did need to have its own terminal in order to wring the true potential out of the stack train, that it wouldn't work unless the stack train operator could control the loading and unloading process, which containers got through the gate first, and all the rest. And it was Norfolk Southern, confined to its upper Midwest markets, that taught Conrail how to use RoadRailer profitably in short/medium haul lanes. In both cases, Conrail "adopted" these technologies only after initially giving them grudging cooperation at best, largely because Conrail's first priority was to defend the massive piggyback traffic it handled. The lack of appropriate market incentives caused Conrail to underestimate the potential that is now being realized.

WDB

[Otto Vondrak]

You mean that EL was going to merge with Chessie, not N&W?

-otto-

[charlie6017]

Otto,
Basicly, they were controlled by N&W, sort of. They were at one point going to be owned partly by Chessie. This may help clear it up:


This according to "Life and death of Erie Lackawanna", Trains Magazine, February 1992

Page 33: (RE: N&W)
"As a condition of Norfolk and Western's merger with Nickel Plate and Wabash in 1964, the Interstate Commerce Commision provided for inclusion of EL in an expanded N&W"..............
........"Norfolk & Western control began on April 1, 1968. Rather than absorbing Erie Lackawanna, the N&W used a holding company, Dereco, to protect itself in case of EL failure"..........

Page 37-38: (RE: Chessie)
"...........While the company (EL) got crucial public monies, the USRA moved toward formation of it's "Final System Plan". This document appeared on July 26, 1975, and included sale of a major segment of Erie Lackawanna to Chessie System, about 1200 miles of mainline from Northeast Ohio to New Jersey. Conrail would acquire the bulk of EL's remaining trackage. Acquisition of the eastern half of EL would have preserved rail competition in the Northeast, but Chessie did not buy. Chessie could not reach agreement with labor unions over employee protection and so withdrew from the scheme in February, 1976. This led to the force-fed expansion of Delaware & Hudson over Conrail trackage rights"...................

[Otto Vondrak]

You're right, I forgot that N&W controlled D&H and EL though holding company Dereco. If you look on N&W maps of the period, they show EL and D&H as if they were one integrated system! As a model railroader, I begin thinking of making some Chessie System GP40's sublettered "EL" (and "CNJ" and "RDG" too)... certainly if you pick up a Conrail map from 1978 and one from 1986, you see some drastic removals and other lines you can say, "hey, that's a shortline today."

-otto=

[charlie6017]

As a model railroader, I begin thinking of making some Chessie System GP40's sublettered "EL" (and "CNJ" and "RDG" too)... certainly if you pick up a Conrail map from 1978 and one from 1986, you see some drastic removals and other lines you can say, "hey, that's a shortline today."

-otto=

Good points Otto,
That's the fun part of model railroading.......you can "invent" different things.

I have a 1978 Northeast Region timetable and I have looked at different lines and I find it fascinating.........Falls Road Branch where I grew up, Conrail sold it....Ontario Secondary (Hojack), Conrail had just taken it OOS when the timetable was issued.