Railroad Forums 

  • DL&W 1888 Timetable - Rochester?

  • 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

 #648946  by nydepot
 
I'm reading a DL&W 3/12/1888 timetable. It shows trains leaving Hoboken, westbound, as you would expect on what you know as the DL&W. Once the trains get to Mt. Morris, they go to Rochester, then R&P Junction (Reading & Pittsburgh Jct, now called P&L Jct), East Buffalo, and Buffalo.

All trains do this and all trains take the same reverse routing.

How did the DL&W get to Rochester, over the Erie or PRR?

To get to R&P Jct., they must have taken the BR&P? and then the NYC to Buffalo?

Here is an example:

Train No. 9, Daily:
...
Dansville: 9:00AM
Mount Morris: 9:28AM
Rochester: 11:10AM
R&P Junction: 10:12AM
East Buffalo: 11:30AM
Buffalo: 11:45AM
 #650476  by scottychaos
 
Charles,
thats interesting!

must have been a short-lived routing while the DL&W finished its mainline to Buffalo..

Could have been Erie or PRR between Mount Morris and Rochester..
although PRR makes a bit more sense IMO..
because the PRR station was directly across the street from the BR&P station!
passengers could simply walk across Main street to get on the BR&P..

So that would be:
DL&W to Mount Morris.
PRR to Rochester.
BR&P to P&L junction..
then probably NYC on to Buffalo.

must have been BR&P out of Rochester..nothing else makes sense..
the only question is PRR or Erie to Rochester..

Would have been quicker to take the Erie from Mount Morris to Avon, then straight over to P&L junction..
bypassing Rochester alltogether..
but they probably wanted the Rochester business..

Scot
 #650484  by nydepot
 
It's all rather odd. I've have never heard about this before and have never read mention in any of the DL&W books I own.

Again, Taber's books just mention that coal was first and passenger train came right after that. But the Buffalo line was started in 1881/82. Considering their speed back then, I think that in 1888 they would have been on their own line by then.

Sort of like the LV having the third rail installed on the Erie for trackage rights. Common story and it can be read about in early LV history. So far it seems to have been overlooked on the DL&W.

Charles
 #650486  by nydepot
 
scottychaos wrote:Could have been Erie or PRR between Mount Morris and Rochester..
although PRR makes a bit more sense IMO..
because the PRR station was directly across the street from the BR&P station!
passengers could simply walk across Main street to get on the BR&P..
Scot
While the passengers could have detrained, I'm guessing the it stayed DL&W power/passenger cars though the whole trip. The train could have bene handed to PRR pilots at Mt. Morris, BR&P pilots at Lincoln Park, and NYC pilots at P&L Jct. NYC peanut to Batavia and Batavia to Buffalo on the mainline.

I'm guessing at all this. Nothing else to go on!

Charles
 #650494  by scottychaos
 
nydepot wrote:
scottychaos wrote:Could have been Erie or PRR between Mount Morris and Rochester..
although PRR makes a bit more sense IMO..
because the PRR station was directly across the street from the BR&P station!
passengers could simply walk across Main street to get on the BR&P..
Scot
While the passengers could have detrained, I'm guessing the it stayed DL&W power/passenger cars though the whole trip. The train could have bene handed to PRR pilots at Mt. Morris, BR&P pilots at Lincoln Park, and NYC pilots at P&L Jct. NYC peanut to Batavia and Batavia to Buffalo on the mainline.

I'm guessing at all this. Nothing else to go on!

Charles
Except I dont think the PRR and the BR&P ever had a direct rail connection at their passenger stations on West Main street..
they interchanged (freight) at Lincoln Park..

I have never seen any maps that show a rail connection between the two railroads at West main..
I have always assumed both dead-ended at their respective stations..
(same as the Erie and LV downtown)

the PRR might have crossed West Main to make a BR&P connection!
but if so, I have never heard of it..or seen a map to support..
doesnt mean it didnt happen! ;)
but it seems unlikely to me..

I was thinking the passengers would have had to change trains on each leg..
PRR train from Mount Morris to Rochester,
then a BR&P train to P&L, then a NYC train..etc..

but im just guessing too! ;)

Scot
 #650506  by nydepot
 
I think the train might have used the Terminal Branch of the PRR. So up the PRR to Rochester. When it gets to Scottsville Rd yard, the train would take the Terminal line to Lincoln Park. Once in Lincoln Park, the PRR had a direct connection to the BR&P and the train could head right into the station. Once ready to leave, it would be like a BR&P train to P&L Jct.

Charles
scottychaos wrote:Except I dont think the PRR and the BR&P ever had a direct rail connection at their passenger stations on West Main street..
they interchanged (freight) at Lincoln Park..

I have never seen any maps that show a rail connection between the two railroads at West main..
I have always assumed both dead-ended at their respective stations..
(same as the Erie and LV downtown)

Scot
 #650517  by FarmallBob
 
Interesting question Charles. I'm curious to learn more...
nydepot wrote: Train No. 9, Daily:
...
Dansville: 9:00AM
Mount Morris: 9:28AM
Rochester: 11:10AM
R&P Junction: 10:12AM
East Buffalo: 11:30AM
Buffalo: 11:45AM
Are the station stops above listed in order? Unless the DL&W was experimenting operating trains thru some sort of time/space continuum ca 1888, it seems at least one station (or time) is out of sequence(!)

Bob
 #650523  by boblenon
 
Thats in order ... assuming they came to Rochester via PRR or Erie .... Either would work. Up the PRR to Rochester, then south and over to the BRP along the barge canal (which was not there then). The erie, they would have run back to Avon, and over to Caledonia .... but Since it was R&P jct, the PRR => BRP makes more sense .... I think.
 #650534  by nydepot
 
I see what you are talking about. The times are correct. Rochester is bold and Buffalo is bold.Makes it seem like a train head to Rochester and gets there at 11:10 and is done. A second train routing to Mt. Morris-R&P-East Buffalo-Buffalo.

Now I'm thinking Erie. Erie train to Rochester or if you are continuing to Buffalo, the Erie to Avon and then to Batavia and the NYC to Buffalo.

It's getting weirder!

Charles

FarmallBob wrote:Interesting question Charles. I'm curious to learn more...
nydepot wrote: Train No. 9, Daily:
...
Dansville: 9:00AM
Mount Morris: 9:28AM
Rochester: 11:10AM
R&P Junction: 10:12AM
East Buffalo: 11:30AM
Buffalo: 11:45AM
Are the station stops above listed in order? Unless the DL&W was experimenting operating trains thru some sort of time/space continuum ca 1888, it seems at least one station (or time) is out of sequence(!)

Bob
 #650544  by jrs363
 
Charles

If you could find an official guide from that period you may find another RR with a train coming in to Rochester at that Time.

John
 #650549  by jrs363
 
Also,

Look in Gordon's Erie book, there is a TT that shows an Erie train coming at 11:10. Also has Dansville on the TT, so you may be on to something

John
 #650582  by nydepot
 
I'd always heard that the original construction of P&L Jct was called R&P Junction. You could be right. Then all of this is moot.

Charles
BR&P wrote:Are you sure R&P Jct isn't DL&W's name for what the BR&P called DL&W Jct, rather than P&L?
 #650627  by nydepot
 
Tabor says it was BR&P Jct. and then B&O Jct in 1932. Maybe R&P Jct. for Rochester & Pittsburgh?

Charles
BR&P wrote:Are you sure R&P Jct isn't DL&W's name for what the BR&P called DL&W Jct, rather than P&L?
 #650658  by BR&P
 
Well, the R&P became the BR&P in...1885 or 1886, I forget which. So this would only be a couple years after that and it's possible they had not yet changed the name of the junction.

I'm not saying it CAN'T be what we know as P&L - just saying that operationally, it would make a whole lot more sense if it was via "DL&W Jct".