Railroad Forums 

  • DL&W vs. ERIE Engineering Standards

  • Discussion relating to the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western, the Erie, and the resulting 1960 merger creating the Erie Lackawanna. Visit the Erie Lackawanna Historical Society at http://www.erielackhs.org/.
Discussion relating to the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western, the Erie, and the resulting 1960 merger creating the Erie Lackawanna. Visit the Erie Lackawanna Historical Society at http://www.erielackhs.org/.

Moderator: blockline4180

 #115869  by Cactus Jack
 
Anyone have any info on how the track engineering standards differed ?
e.g. elevation and underbalance, spirals, tie renewal, general surfacing etc.
 #116606  by Matt Langworthy
 
Here's what I know:

Both lines used the same weight rail for the mainline (130-132 lb) but differed on the branchlines. The Erie favored 110, 112 or 115 lb rail for light density branches, while DL&W used either 105 or 118 lb.

On curves, DL&W used 16" tie plates but Erie used 13" plates.

 #117122  by JoeG
 
The Lackawanna fastened its rails to the ties with screws instead of spikes.

 #117885  by pdman
 
I remember the screws. On the Gladstone Branch it was all spikes. About 800 feet of the line bordered our property just west of Gillette. I still have many of the ones found at the sides.
 #118190  by Matt Langworthy
 
I have a spike from the old Erie yard in Bingo. I happened to be in the area circa '84 when CR was working on the tracks and there was a pile of scrap sitting near the edge of the property. Being 15, I needed permission from an adult to go in, but luckily the priest from my church was there so he accompanied me.

 #120675  by Dieter
 
I bet if you looked up the records, you would find more derailments on the Erie than the Lackawanna, and that's figuring a proper ratio, given the sizes of the two systems.

I remember hearing years ago that Lackawanna's was definately superior to the Erie, and that was from an Erie man!

Dieter.
 #121201  by ChiefTroll
 
The Lackawanna stopped using the screw fasteners in the 1920's, but there were some side tracks on the NY Division that still had them into the 1970's, at least.

The Lackanna used its own standard of rail sections, including 101 DL, 105 DL and 118 DL, into the 1930's. They finally adopted 131 RE before WW II, and continued on with 132 RE.

Up through 1968, the P&D Branch was mostly laid with 101 DL jointed rail, and it had seen many moons and many trains. EL still owned the rolls for 105 DL rail, and as long as the rolls were available the steel mills would roll anything a railroad wanted. So EL bought enough 105 DL rail to relay both tracks between Morristown and Denville with continuous welded rail in 1969, releasing enough 105 DL relayer to just about rid the P&D of that 101 DL rail. The 105 DL rail was a pretty good rail section for light MU and passenger traffic.

The Erie had adopted AREA standard rail sections in the 1920's, and stayed with them through EL and into Conrail. Most of the Erie's rail since about 1925 was in the 110 RE family, including 112 RE and 115 RE when they were developed; and the 130 RE family, including 131 RE and 132 RE when they became the standards.

Even though the newer Lackawanna and Erie rail sections (131 and 132 RE) were the same, the two railroads used different drilling patterns for the joint bars. It gave us fits when a piece of DL drilled rail had to be used for a replacement on the Erie in the middle of the night, and the section gang had to scare up two compromise joints to accommodate the different hole sizes and spacing.

The Erie also stuck with single-shoulder tie plates, with screw spikes in the corners, for a long time. That was not a good standard compared with the double-shoulder plates on the Lackawanna, and in the long run it cost the EL a lot of unnecessary rail running and tie deterioraton.

The Lackawanna management seemed to place a higher emphasis on good engineering standards than did the Erie. Part of that can probably be credited to the Chief Engineers themselves, and I would love to have been a mouse in the woodwork at the board meetings when engineering standards and their costs were discussed. Most railroads did not bother their Boards of Directors with such mundane topics, but on the Lackawanna the Chief Engineer, by virtue of his position, was a full member of the Board of Directors. That alone tells us a lot about their concern with engineering issues. George A. Phillips was the next-to-last Chief Engineer of the DL&W, and a Board member. He was known on the railroad as King George IV, and his word was Law.

One of his engineers was John Hiltz, who had come from the PRR to become Engineer Maintenance of Way on the Lackawanna. One of his pet projects was maintenance of extremely tight alignment standards on curves. He developed curve lining to a fine art, and taught it to the track foremen and supervisors. Most of the Lackawanna track supervisors in the 1950's had been curve liners for Hiltz, and had gone through the school that he taught personally. Of course, much good training on other subjects was passed along, too.

J. P. Hiltz later followed William White to the New York Central as Engineer Maintenance of Way, and then to the D&H as Vice President of Operations. When White went back to the Erie Lackawanna, Hiltz became President and General Manager of the D&H, and he filled both positions with great competence. His time and mine on the D&H only lapped by about six months, so I never had the privilege of this, but he was known to come back out on the railroad after a business car trip and check out the locations where he had a bad ride. He would have the Track Supervisor and the Patrol Foreman take either end of the string around the curve while he recorded the mid-ordinates. Then they would go sit under a tree and calculate the throws to get the line corrected. I don't recall if he helped drive the stakes, but he could have if he wanted to. Not many railroad presidents got their jollies from lining curves by hand.

When I was Asst. Division Engineer at Hoboken 1968-70, all four of our Track Supervisors were former DL&W, and they were excellent track men. They had all come up under Phillips and Hiltz.

 #121366  by Cactus Jack
 
Chief,

Good stuff, thanks...some follow up questions:

What was the preferred underbalance on DL&W ?
Did DL&W ever get into CWR ? - How about the Erie ?
What was first CWR on EL

What happened to the 105DL rolls, I assume this was control cooled when rolled in EL days ?
Who rolled it ?

Did Erie and DL&W have different ballast standards ?

How did each approach mechanization ?

What was (is) extreme height on the M&E under the wires, and was there any difference in track standard engineering for the electrified lines ?

Why did the DL&W have such great engineering standards, and then place track centerlines so close ?
 #121453  by ChiefTroll
 
< What was the preferred underbalance on DL&W ?

> I believe the maximum was set at 3 inches but the actual speeds and superelevation were set by the Division Engineer based on tonnage levels and predominant speeds. If a curve could be elevated 6 inches but most of the tonnage dragged up the hill at 15 mph it would kill the low rail, so they had to compromise.

< Did DL&W ever get into CWR ? - How about the Erie ?

> I don't think either had any before the 1960 merger, but I'm not certain.
What was first CWR on EL


< What happened to the 105DL rolls, I assume this was control cooled when rolled in EL days ?

> I assume the rolls were scrapped by Conrail. Nearly all rail rolled in 1937 and later was control cooled, and certainly all the EL rail was.

< Who rolled it ?

> Bethlehem Steelton.

< Did Erie and DL&W have different ballast standards?

> Yes, but not having Erie or DL&W standards books I don't know what the differences were.

< How did each approach mechanization?

> As funds were available. Most of the track production organization came after the merger. EL still had section gangs in 1970, but they had large sections. DL&W made extensive use of Speno ballast cleaning and rail grinding, and that policy continued into EL. It made a big difference in extending rail and tie life, and surfacing cycles.

< What was (is) extreme height on the M&E under the wires, and was there any difference in track standard engineering for the electrified lines?

> I don't recall the clearance standards on the M&E. The track standards were universal on the system, but their application was subdivision-specific, based on axle loads, speeds and freight/passenger traffic mix.

< Why did the DL&W have such great engineering standards, and then place track centerlines so close ?

> Are you talking about the M&E or the entire railroad? The width of the right-of-way on the M&E was a severe limitation.

 #121478  by pdman
 
I don't remember seeing CWR anywhere on the DL&W (my heavy travels were up to 1961).

But, a question about curves: When riding the observation cars when #3 and #6 were at fairly high speed and sitting in the last seat in the car looking out -- when entering a curve it felt like the low side of the car actually dropped some when entering the curve. I know the other side of the track was elevated. But, was this just a sensation, or was this a real engineering phenomenon?

This was especially westbound on track 1 through South Orange, Maplewood, and Slateford Junction.

 #121494  by Cactus Jack
 
Thanks Again Chief Troll !

My comment on track centers bascially applies to the entire mainline from New Jersey to Buffalo, including the Cut-Off and relocations between Scranton and Binghamton. While never having taken a tape, or checked engineering drawings, they seem to be quite close to each other, but I guess so did the NYC RR when it was a four track main.



What year was 132RE introduced ?
 #121549  by ChiefTroll
 
< But, a question about curves: When riding the observation cars when #3 and #6 were at fairly high speed and sitting in the last seat in the car looking out -- when entering a curve it felt like the low side of the car actually dropped some when entering the curve. I know the other side of the track was elevated. But, was this just a sensation, or was this a real engineering phenomenon?

This was especially westbound on track 1 through South Orange, Maplewood, and Slateford Junction.

> In ideal circumstances, the superelevation would be set to accommodate the prevailing and maximum speed, then the rate of runoff from level to full would be set based on the speed. A typical rule of thumb for speeds up to around 60 mph until 1971, and still generally valid, was one-half inch per 39-foot rail. The full superelevation and the runoff rate would determine the ideal length of the spiral transition from tangent to a circular curve.

Ideally, if you had 4 inches superelevation, and 1/2 inch per rail runoff, you would want spirals of 352 feet on each end of the curve. In reality, there were some places where you coudn't fit the needed spiral length. In those cases, they would run some of the superelevation back onto the tangent. That was probably what you were feeling at those locations. The problem with elevating the tangent is that the flanges crowd the low rail from the tangent up to the point of equilibrium in the spiral, then the wheels come across the rails and hit the high rail. If many trains operate at generally the same speed, the spiral will develop a hook near that point, and it will need constant relining.

< My comment on track centers bascially applies to the entire mainline from New Jersey to Buffalo, including the Cut-Off and relocations between Scranton and Binghamton. While never having taken a tape, or checked engineering drawings, they seem to be quite close to each other, but I guess so did the NYC RR when it was a four track main.

> The NYC had close centers between passenger tracks, down to 12 foot 6 inches. After TCS was installed west of Albany with the two passenger tracks retained, some wide loads had to take the controlled sidings when meeting another train. It was a problem. The Erie was blessed with wide track centers dating from their six-foot gauge, as was the Susquehanna Division of the D&H. That's why so many dimension loads went via Jefferson Jct between the D&H and the Erie. The DL&W was not a major player in the dimension load business, as far as I can remember.

< What year was 132RE introduced ?

> It was shortly after WW II, and I want to say around 1948. 132RE is very close to 131RE, but the head - web fillet radius is wider to reduce the incidence of head and web separations. During the war, the two standard sections permitted by the War Production Board were 112RE and 131RE.
 #121592  by henry6
 
What really was most impressive to me, on the DL, the Erie, LV, CNJ, PRR, virtually any first class road you could name, was that with 39 foot sections of rail bolted together end to end and be perfectly straight, level, and even. Better than any CWR that I see today. It was Art to perfection!!

 #121923  by Dieter
 
Speaking of track screws, since Lackawanna had it's own cement business, why didn't they make their own concrete ties?

Dieter.

 #122204  by pdman
 
Chief, Thanks very much for the explanation!

DL&W and concrete ties: yeah, I wonder why they weren't considered? They were used in a lot of subways going back generations. Perhaps it was just simply due to the fact that creosoted ties lasted a long time anyway, and the tradeoff was never investigated.