Gardenville line is clear. 12-20

Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New York State.

Moderator: Otto Vondrak

sd80mac
Posts: 1916
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:28 am
Location: Rochester, ny

Re: Gardenville line is clear. 12-20

Post by sd80mac » Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:28 pm

I forget which one is which one.


Is this 100% completely abandonmentioned that will never see train again. Or nyc abandoned the line with right to reverse back into action?

ctclark1
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:46 am

Re: Gardenville line is clear. 12-20

Post by ctclark1 » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:23 pm

sd80mac wrote:I cant understand why cant they just remove the Gardenville yard and keep the the mainline which they can use to bypass the traffic down that line that does not required to be working in any of these Buffalo yards.
<snip>
I looked at the map, the ROW still is intact except for one home development which they can run track around. They still have bridges at all creeks/river. some roads over/underpass bridges are still there.
Let's explore this a little bit in depth. (For the record, I'mm assuming any bridges that do still exist would probably need to be rebuilt given how long they've been dormant and for new weight requirements) Ignoring other logistics and whether it's even worth it to have an active bypass...
Starting in Lackawanna, at the current CP5 - You have the bridge over NS/BSOR that would need to be re-tracked, probably rebuilt for as long as it's been vacant/unmaintained. Heading TT West of that you would have to rebuild the old flyover to meet with current track 3 and/or the ramp to meet with current track 2. Both of these involve rather tight curvatures and steep grades to meet with the track at what would probably end up having to be a new CP6, but in order to have a relevant bypass you would need both, one off T3, one off T2, with crossovers between both and T1 beforehand, or another set of crossovers just after the bridge over NS, so that either bypass track could access either main line without too much interference with other tracks, or you just create another bottleneck.
Moving TT East to Electric Ave, the "active" bridge there is occupied by the NS Buffalo Line, but I believe this is also the bridge which is Out of Service and is what has essentially closed that section of the line, so besides kicking NS out of the right-of-way, you'd have to build a new bridge there. Continuing east, build a new 2-track crossing at Willet Ave... a new 2 track bridge over Smoke Creek (currently only one of the old NYC bridges exists there)... And then decide, whether to continue on the old NYC alignment or follow the current Buffalo Line over to the PRR alignment, even though they meet up anyway... Let's for sake of argument say we stick with the NYC alignment, and allow B&P to use the Buffalo Line to access the B&O main via a currently non-existent connection, just because I really think that needs to happen.
Problem 1 is the ROW is occupied by high voltage lines now... but we'll ignore those for the moment, assume those could be moved or weaved around by the rails. Could probably still get 2 tracks under the B&O main, but whether those are high enough for today's railcars??? Then build new bridges at Abbott Road...
But now we come to another fairly major obstacle. The original NYS Thruway was built over both the PRR and NYC alignments, yes... However by the time the 219 was built, they only had to go over the PRR alignment, and didn't leave space open for the NYC alignment. In fact part of the Thruway overpass was filled in when building the 219. That's a fairly major undertaking.
Continuing TT East, probably some major rehab work on the bridges over the Northern branch of Smoke Creek... and then we come to five in a row... Ridge Road, Orchard Park Rd (240), Seneca St, Center Rd (16), and the 400 have all either been rebuilt overpasses or were filled in underneath the overpasses where the NYC alignment was, (400 didn't even exist at the time, much like 219) only allowing space for the PRR alignment. Definitely no room for more than one track under any of these, so rebuild all of those overpasses. Add to that a major rehab of the Cazenovia Creek bridges...
Now we come to what would have to be a grade crossing with the Buffalo Line at GJ, something I don't think railroads really like building anymore. Moving on, new crossing at Indian Church road, rebuild the bridges over Buffalo Creek, new crossing at Clinton (354). Take over a portion of a business property just south of Union (277) to remake the ROW, zig-zag around some other parcels between Union and Losson. Losson was completely rebuilt once the yards were removed, so who knows what the gradient would be like there... So either grade crossing, over turn Losson back into an overpass.
Zag right to avoid some housing and add crossings or rebuild the overpasses at Como Park and Rowley roads (both roads went over the yards but were rebuilt level after the yards left much like Losson). New bridge over Cayuga Creek (especially since one track is completely missing), buy back property from Twin Village Scrap, carve the ROW back out from under Broadway (130), the Southern Tier Line, and DLW's line; and finally build two new ramps similar to CP "6" above - one connecting to track 2 and one to track 4, but again tight curves and steep grades prevail to make it to the track in the right spot at CP 429.

It would be astronomical to reacquire all of this ROW, rebuild all of the bridges, build all new crossings, run all the communication fiber and signalize it, then deal with tight curves with today's longer rolling stock. It wouldn't come close to being worth it for bypassing what few trains don't stop at Frontier for crew changes and such. For probably half of what this would cost, or less, they could rebuild and reconfigure the ROW at CP DRAW and have a new bridge all to themselves (plus still having the Compromise branch at CP1) and let NS have the southern bridge, which would benefit both roads as far as that bottleneck goes.

BR&P
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:58 pm

Re: Gardenville line is clear. 12-20

Post by BR&P » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:11 pm

And the cost of ALL OF THE ABOVE TOGETHER would be less than the legal fees to fight all the NIMBY's who would scream bloody murder at the thought of big noisy dangerous trains going through their neighborhoods.

Matt Langworthy
Posts: 3384
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:02 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: Gardenville line is clear. 12-20

Post by Matt Langworthy » Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:36 am

Given the quiet zones at a couple of crossings in Hamburg, NIMBYs are pretty much a given in the suburbs of Buffalo.

If the NIMBY hurdle is eventually cleared, how long would this theoretical project take? After nearly a decade of planning, NS is finally starting to build a new bridge at Letchworth and expects it to be completed in a couple of years. Rebuilding the Gardenville bypass could take many years for CSX to complete. Again, they would be better off coordinating with NS to rehab CP Draw and replace/rehab the NKP bridge.
Matt Langworthy

"It is highly likely that the 1990s were an overrated decade."

johnpbarlow
Posts: 2153
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:50 pm

Re: Gardenville line is clear. 12-20

Post by johnpbarlow » Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:53 am

Q: maybe this has been discussed previously but how often does the CP-Draw drawbridge open? From Google Maps aerial views, it doesn't seem like there would be much commercial river traffic on the Buffalo River between CP-Draw and the Bailey Ave Rd fixed bridge. Do barges go to/from the tank farm near Bailey Ave? If there is no barge traffic then maybe the drawbridge at CP-Draw could be replaced with a fixed bridge?

lvrr325
Posts: 4634
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: New York State

Re: Gardenville line is clear. 12-20

Post by lvrr325 » Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:42 am

Some strange things here.

BSOR crosses NS at grade near Lake Ave. New connections for interchange are easy.

NS doesn't even have to build a separate connector. There's an existing connector to CSX a ways further west and plenty of room for a 4th track to use to reach the west leg Gardenville bridge with a rebuilt, non-flyover connection.

The rest is all already there except one connection to let CSX trains enter the former PRR, which would require a diamond and one switch be moved. The connection from former PRR belt to PRR Buffalo Line could be rebuilt and made a wider curve if needed. None of the remaining bridges are particularly complicated structures, most are two separate structures side by side, one is missing a side, but that's if they even want to double-track the line. The B&O underpass could easily be undercut if necessary. Sure it's roundabout, westbound trains would make a jog southeast, but so what? Now you can close the drawbridge entirely if you need to to rebuild the thing. Put the whole works under the label of Conrail Shared Assets and call it a day.



Also worth noting NYS&W and CSX have no issue running long trains around tight curves in Syracuse, CSX at CP291, NYS&W via the old Salt Land Spur, which makes almost a 180' curve and then rises some 25, 30 feet in a short distance; I've seen stacks and autoracks go around it and have never seen them dump any. The mainly used leg at CP291 is flat but makes about a 100'-110' degree turn. It has a 10 MPH restriction.

Matt Langworthy
Posts: 3384
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:02 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: Gardenville line is clear. 12-20

Post by Matt Langworthy » Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:01 pm

johnpbarlow wrote:Q: maybe this has been discussed previously but how often does the CP-Draw drawbridge open? From Google Maps aerial views, it doesn't seem like there would be much commercial river traffic on the Buffalo River between CP-Draw and the Bailey Ave Rd fixed bridge. Do barges go to/from the tank farm near Bailey Ave? If there is no barge traffic then maybe the drawbridge at CP-Draw could be replaced with a fixed bridge?
Both CP-1 and CP Draw are raised occasionally for boat/shipping traffic. Railroaded could probably give a frequency since he's a keen observer of Buffalo's maritime shipping, and even has a Facebook page on the subject.
Last edited by Matt Langworthy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Matt Langworthy

"It is highly likely that the 1990s were an overrated decade."

Matt Langworthy
Posts: 3384
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:02 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: Gardenville line is clear. 12-20

Post by Matt Langworthy » Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:18 pm

lvrr325 wrote:BSOR crosses NS at grade near Lake Ave. New connections for interchange are easy.
There is a crossover connecting NS and BSOR maybe a mile or two east of GB Diamond, but that's not the issue. BS and BSOR have a reciprocal switching arrangement- they can drop off cars in each other's yards right now. NS local H42 can cross CP Draw very quickly right under current conditions. Ditto for the BSOR local. Your arrangement would involve a long runaround by H42, or else BSOR would have to travel a distance on NS for interchange. This would increase the cost of operation substantially.
lvrr325 wrote:NS doesn't even have to build a separate connector. There's an existing connector to CSX a ways further west and plenty of room for a 4th track to use to reach the west leg Gardenville bridge with a rebuilt, non-flyover connection.
Yes, there is a connecting track just west of the Bayview Road crossing, but it is in poor shape. Who pays to fix it? Also, NS would have to pay CSX for trackage rights on the Lake Erie Sub between the connector and the former PRR.
lvrr325 wrote:The rest is all already there except one connection to let CSX trains enter the former PRR, which would require a diamond and one switch be moved. The connection from former PRR belt to PRR Buffalo Line could be rebuilt and made a wider curve if needed. None of the remaining bridges are particularly complicated structures, most are two separate structures side by side, one is missing a side, but that's if they even want to double-track the line. The B&O underpass could easily be undercut if necessary. Sure it's roundabout, westbound trains would make a jog southeast, but so what? Now you can close the drawbridge entirely if you need to to rebuild the thing. Put the whole works under the label of Conrail Shared Assets and call it a day.
The faster and easier way is to replace/rehab the NKP bridge and then work on CP Draw afterward. There would be no downtime, delays or additional costs. Your scenario is only useful for emergencies.
Matt Langworthy

"It is highly likely that the 1990s were an overrated decade."

ctclark1
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:46 am

Re: Gardenville line is clear. 12-20

Post by ctclark1 » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:45 pm

Matt Langworthy wrote:
lvrr325 wrote:NS doesn't even have to build a separate connector. There's an existing connector to CSX a ways further west and plenty of room for a 4th track to use to reach the west leg Gardenville bridge with a rebuilt, non-flyover connection.
Yes, there is a connecting track just west of the Bayview Road crossing, but it is in poor shape. Who pays to fix it? Also, NS would have to pay CSX for trackage rights on the Lake Erie Sub between the connector and the former PRR.
There remains that you'd probably still have to replace the bridge flying over the NS line on what would be that south/east leg of the Y you're envisioning...
The Bayview Connector is also in need of repair, I for the life of me cannot find it now, but it was marked as Spiked for Main and OOS by NS in one of their ETTs many years ago. Then you're also looking at upgrading it to a control point for both NS and CSX as well (both sides are hand switches currently), which would have to include dispatcher control from one of the two in order to be feasible for any kind of traffic that would use the PRR Buffalo Line.

It's not going to work for NS or CSX to rehab and start using the Buffalo line. It worked for Conrail, and a portion of it could work for B&P, but that's about it.

sd80mac
Posts: 1916
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:28 am
Location: Rochester, ny

Re: Gardenville line is clear. 12-20

Post by sd80mac » Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:36 am

I was speaking of at that time when NYC/PC abandoned Gardenville Line, which I cant understand why they just close the yard, pull up yard tracks, except for 2-3 tracks for sidings or maybe few more for overflow traffic or backed up, such as these crude trains and autoracks.

Obviously it's too late to do this. it's just wishful thinking that CSX or even joint owned by CSX and NS (I wouldnt count NS as they're not that hurry to get to anywhere up here) to bring Gardenville line out of grave. There's a lot of intermodels that has to go thru quickly but often get stuck behind slower trains and/or had to wait until dispatchers clear out the jam. It wont be doubletracks. It would be single track with couple of tracks in old yard. Yes, big headaches at both end of lines as they would have improve the area a lot to eliminate the sharp curve and ramp. They can come up with something anyway. It wont cost a lot since track bed, majority of them, are still there. They just need get rid of anything that had grown since then.. reconstruction the old trackbed. It would cost a lot more if you're building brand new trackbed from original ground...

yeah.. these damn NIMBY.... that's why i asked if NYC/PC had abandoned the track and property for good or still have right to reverse them back into live track?

For me, back in old days, I wold rather to downsize Froniter for local service and exchange with canadian RR (they can do that at Seneca yard) and keep Gardenville since its straightway and can run trains at 50-60 mph. They cant do that between Seneca yard and CP Fork. it took train forever to snake through maze of buffalo. At that time during CR years, CR would not had to deal with NS getting their train to ... UHH I forget the NS yard name right next to CP Draw..

Gardnerville line would had eliminated many complex stuffs.. CP Draw, wye/connection to SK yard, amtrak station, etc... That their hot trains can run through bypass these.

Matt Langworthy
Posts: 3384
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:02 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: Gardenville line is clear. 12-20

Post by Matt Langworthy » Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:39 pm

Frontier was much more important to NYC's long term plans than Gardenville when the hump yard was completed in 1962. Let's not forget they moved a substantial amount of traffic via the Michigan Central (ex-Canadian Southern). The Gardenville bypass would not have relieved any congestion from the freight moving through Black Rock. Buffalo still had a strong industrial base in the 1960s, so NYC needed Frontier and Seneca yards for that traffic.

NS has 2 yards- Buffalo Junction and Buffalo Creek Junction/Tifft (not sure of the latter's name). And even though NS had little local traffic in the '80s, they were still running the joint stack trains with the D&H.

CP Draw is a bottleneck now because 5 RRs are trying to use just 2 tracks. Once the NKP bridge returns to service or is replaced, alot of the congestion will ease. I also expect to see NS increase the traffic to/from/through Buffalo after the Letchworth viaduct is replaced.

Gardenville served its purpose back in the day, but CTC rendered it unnecessary.
Last edited by Matt Langworthy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Matt Langworthy

"It is highly likely that the 1990s were an overrated decade."

ctclark1
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:46 am

Re: Gardenville line is clear. 12-20

Post by ctclark1 » Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:03 pm

sd80mac wrote:I was speaking of at that time when NYC/PC abandoned Gardenville Line, which I cant understand why they just close the yard, pull up yard tracks, except for 2-3 tracks for sidings or maybe few more for overflow traffic or backed up, such as these crude trains and autoracks.
At the time, as Matt said, their priorities changed... Gardenville was built around 1900, practically overnight, nearly abandoning Frontier's predecessor. As time wore on and traffic patterns changed through the years, obviously someone somewhere thought it was better to focus on Frontier as a class yard, vs Gardenville which, as I said earlier, I suspect was more of a crew/equipment change yard than anything. The long straight shot and layout of the yard tracks doesn't seem to lend itself to classification of trains, but more pull in, disconnect the locos, pull them to the shops, bring serviced locos from the shops, connect up, and head out. Sure, you could probably split some trains, but the long narrow layout and lack of much resembling drill tracks makes me think it wasn't a priority. As Matt points out, Buffalo was a major industrial base so there were tons of local jobs coming into Frontier needing to be compiled into trains and trains with cars destined for Buffalo that needed to be split into locals. In the 50's and 60's I'm guessing NYC and PC were looking to downsize so Gardenville was an ancillary yard that didn't meet the current needs. Why have two yards with two sets of shops when one yard is for dwindling thru-traffic? Don't forget, TOFC/containers were not nearly the power force for railroads that they are now, so thru traffic was less. Additionally, bottlenecks at the drawbridges were limited to more or less the individual railroads - trackage rights were not what they are today either. NYC had a perfectly fine double track over what is now the Compromise branch (ie, CP1) which suited them just fine when CTC came about and they downsized to 2 mains.* There were some grade diamons to deal with, sure, but NYC, NKP, and Buffalo Creek all had their own 2 track crossings over the river. It wasn't until Conrail that CP1 and the Compromise were downed to 1 track and CR took over the BC bridge, reconfiguring the mains to their liking in the area, thus reintroducing the bottleneck. It was then that NKP abandoned their bridge, struck a deal with CR, and eliminated the diamonds on the southwest side of CP Draw, creating a bigger bottleneck, but as we've said, NKP had little relatively traffic running to Buffalo Junction, so it worked out for the time being. Then the CR split happened, NS ended up with the Southern Tier & Buffalo Line and the associated yards, and things got that much more hectic.

*In the 4 main days this was a bottleneck because freight and passenger had to share those two tracks over CP1 drawbridge, creating confusion. When passenger was king at the turn of the century, Gardenville was a convenient answer to reduce freight traffic over CP1, which is why the trackage to access it came from the north side of the main in Sloan (3 and 4, the freight tracks) and why it was done as a non-intrusive underpass, so as not to interfere with the passenger traffic on 1 and 2, destined for initially the smaller stations, and later on the BCT. (3 and 4 went directly into Frontier, if my comprehension of early maps is correct, which meant 1 and 2 were more or less uninterrupted into the terminal without crossing freight traffic, otherwise you likely would've seen the Terminal built on the south side of the main.)


I understand what you're saying, that it would be a convenient bypass if it still existed. We're telling you that making it re-exist would be railroad suicide at this point, just from a cost standpoint. Add to that the arguably limited use, and limited speed.... Say you traverse the CPs at each end with a 1.5 mile long train at 15mph... By the time your ass-end clears the CP and you can get up to what would in all honesty probably be a 30-35 mph limit, you basically have to start slowing down to traverse the CP at the other end... This equation gets even worse if you even think about putting the speed up to 40 or 50, you'd never hit it with a long stack train, which is what you say would be primarily using this bypass. There's basically no way in the world it's even worth making a bypass, and the fact of the matter is, CR had no use for it and got rid of it. No turning back. Your choice was basically CR abandoning it, or CR was never formed and the railroading we know today would only be a remnant of your memory anyway, because PC was never going to come back from the grave.
Obviously it's too late to do this. it's just wishful thinking that CSX or even joint owned by CSX and NS (I wouldnt count NS as they're not that hurry to get to anywhere up here) to bring Gardenville line out of grave. There's a lot of intermodels that has to go thru quickly but often get stuck behind slower trains and/or had to wait until dispatchers clear out the jam. It wont be doubletracks. It would be single track with couple of tracks in old yard. Yes, big headaches at both end of lines as they would have improve the area a lot to eliminate the sharp curve and ramp. They can come up with something anyway. It wont cost a lot since track bed, majority of them, are still there. They just need get rid of anything that had grown since then.. reconstruction the old trackbed. It would cost a lot more if you're building brand new trackbed from original ground...
Still not even worth it. They'd be better off extending the 3 & 4 leads into Frontier down another couple miles if they are that concerned about stacking trains into Frontier while keeping the mains clear, so more trains can sit on 3 & 4 while intermodals run unencumbered down 1 & 2 (except when Amtrak is on 2 at Depew). They could easily relay track to the Autos just west of Cemetery Rd without any reacquiring ROW, and the bridge the bridge over Central Ave is still there for 4 tracks and probably in better shape than any bridge in Gardenville. That'd get them at least space to stack two more trains if they so desired. But they probably don't.
yeah.. these damn NIMBY.... that's why i asked if NYC/PC had abandoned the track and property for good or still have right to reverse them back into live track?
Pretty sure it was CR who officially abandoned the ROW... pesky ICC rules during NYC/PC times, dontcha know? So it's probably gone for good.
For me, back in old days, I wold rather to downsize Froniter for local service and exchange with canadian RR (they can do that at Seneca yard) and keep Gardenville since its straightway and can run trains at 50-60 mph. They cant do that between Seneca yard and CP Fork. it took train forever to snake through maze of buffalo. At that time during CR years, CR would not had to deal with NS getting their train to ... UHH I forget the NS yard name right next to CP Draw..

Gardnerville line would had eliminated many complex stuffs.. CP Draw, wye/connection to SK yard, amtrak station, etc... That their hot trains can run through bypass these.
(You're thinking of Buffalo Junction - the one on the north side of DRAW.)
Shoulda woulda coulda. See the above comments on why Gardenville didn't fit for the NYC anymore, and then even moreseo for CR. Namely, traffic was different. Just because intermodal is king today and sure, they could fly them through at 60 if they wanted to, there wasn't a need for it when these railroads were hemorrhaging money out of their behinds, and the goal was downsize and focus on what they needed at that time. Honestly, CR could've kept the Compromise as 2 tracks, but they didn't see the need and, as with everywhere else, were told to do what they had to in order to reduce overhead, costs, and trackage.
Matt Langworthy wrote: I also expect to see NS increase the traffic to/from/through Buffalo after the Letchworth viaduct is replaced.

Gardenville served its purpose back in the day, but CTC rendered it unnecessary.
These two things... Quoted for Truth.

sd80mac
Posts: 1916
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:28 am
Location: Rochester, ny

Re: Gardenville line is clear. 12-20

Post by sd80mac » Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:35 pm

ctclark1 wrote:At the time, as Matt said, their priorities changed... Gardenville was built around 1900, practically overnight, nearly abandoning Frontier's predecessor...
Thanks for clearing it up! much appreciate it!

Flat-Wheeler
Posts: 368
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:48 pm
Location: Nearest jammed interlocking

Re: Gardenville line is clear. 12-20

Post by Flat-Wheeler » Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:16 pm

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Return to “New York State Railfan”