New Arcade & Attica Pictures

^Necessary.

One loco and 4 cars is usually the limit for trains to NJ.

The A&A has been getting 11 cars at a time from the B&P.

Instead of 3 trips to NJ, doubleheading creates only 2 trips to the mill.

I figured that would've been the point of purchasing the 80-tonner, to handle more cars in one train. Is that not a logical thought? Or is there some other reason?

Also, I think this has been asked, but do the locos have a "MU" setup or does each need an engineer when doubleheading?

^Yes.

But, the tracks between Curriers and North Java are in bad shape.

The A&A is up for a grant to repair the line like they got when the line from Arcade Jct. to Curriers was redone.

All new ties, tamping and ballast.

Let's hope they get it this year!

Instead of small GE's, why don't they just get an EMD switcher and solve the power problem altogether? One of those can't weigh any more than a loaded car of feed they are hauling now. Or pick up an Alco S-2? LA&L acquired 2 from the Tioga outfit, maybe they'd part with one, and there are a lot of Alco mechanics and parts in western NY state. One of those would take all 11 loads in one shot.

^As I keep saying, the line between Curriers and NJ is in rough shape.

Trains operate at walking speed.

The rail is 90 pound.

The GE tonners are perfect for their operations now.

If they get the Curriers to North Java line rebuilt and get heavier rail, an EMD switcher would work.

I don't understand your point. So the track is bad. Why does that prevent getting a larger locomotive? An S-2 or SW-1200 can operate at walking speed just fine. 90 lb rail is no big deal, OMID runs 25 MPH over 80 lb rail, and used to run RS11's over 70 lb rail on the Marion Branch. It's more about tie condition and surface than rail weight.

If they are handling loaded covered hoppers over the line now, a full-size switcher would be about 5 tons LIGHTER. And I have seen S-2's and SW-9's operate just fine on track which is just as bad as what ARA has. Obviously I don't know all of what went into their decision but it would seem that investing money into locomotives which are less than adequate to their needs is not a prudent decision.

That said, it's great to see one of the classic old 44-tonners still earning its keep.

BR&P wrote:It's more about tie condition and surface than rail weight.

Besides being 90# rail between Curriers and NJ, most of the track from JC to NJ is through the Beaver Meadow swamps, so it goes even further into a road bed that is pretty soggy. I actually worry about when they go to upgrade the rail because I have a feeling they'll be doing quite a bit of reconstruction on the base as well, which could take the track out of commission for a while, unless they plan to side-step the current rail, but then they're running into encroachment on the wetland and the issues associated with new construction.

If they are handling loaded covered hoppers over the line now, a full-size switcher would be about 5 tons LIGHTER. And I have seen S-2's and SW-9's operate just fine on track which is just as bad as what ARA has. Obviously I don't know all of what went into their decision but it would seem that investing money into locomotives which are less than adequate to their needs is not a prudent decision.

Something about the goose and the gander is running through my head as I read this

112 just received some pretty major overhaulage within the last few (10?) years, including new Cummins power, so why outright replace it if they don't have to? I don't know if an issue with 111 precipitated the purchase of 11_ or if the opportunity to purchase 11_ arose first and allowed them to retire 111, but either way, 111 was probably coming up on needing some pretty major work in the near future to remain viable... But why purchase a larger loco that the track may not be able to handle, even if you plan on upgrading the track? Plus, who ever said that 11_ was inadequate to their needs? I feel it was pretty established in my question and Bigham's reply that when the track is upgraded, 11_ will probably be capable of running trains to NJ on it's own most of the time, even longer ones. It makes sense to keep 112 in working condition though, to have a backup in case 11_ breaks down or those occasions when they have too many cars.

BR&P wrote:Instead of small GE's, why don't they just get an EMD switcher and solve the power problem altogether?

Still failing to see a power problem, appears to be a weight problem right now... 112 has been hitting the diesel pretty hard, probably needs to go on a diet... But I'm not going to be the one to tell her that, she might run me over
There might also be a bit of partiality to GE centercabs, considering it was a 44-tonner (110) that basically saved the railroad and singlehandedly dieselized them in the '40s. Maybe they want to keep that image going... You know, it's not like the GVT family HAS to purchase all Alcos, but they do, and it's kind of an image they've given themselves now.

That said, it's great to see one of the classic old 44-tonners still earning its keep.

Unfortunately, both 44's are now retired (assuming 111 is retired)... 112 is a 65 tonner.

ctclark1 wrote: Plus, who ever said that 11_ was inadequate to their needs?.

Chris Bingham did, in the post at the top of the page:

One loco and 4 cars is usually the limit for trains to NJ.

The A&A has been getting 11 cars at a time from the B&P.

Instead of 3 trips to NJ, doubleheading creates only 2 trips to the mill.

I realize there are a lot of factors involved. many of which most of us don't see. And I'm not saying it's "wrong" to stay with the GE's. Obviously they are familiar with their care and feeding, and getting an Alco or EMD would not only cost $ but also would require different spare parts, different tools, and different knowledge. And the market for small old GE's is pretty slim so they would not get much for what they have now. (I stand corrected BTW on the 112 being a 65T vs. 44T).

If what they have makes sense for them that's fine with me. I was just responding to remarks that one engine can only handle 4 cars and a large inbound requires 3 trips. Two is better than 3 but 1 - assuming all the other factors were possible - would be better than two.

As for the swamp, I'm guessing rehab of the track could be done in segments, with perhaps a window between where the train could make a trip or two to keep the mill caught up before the next segment was taken out of service.

I'm under the impression that the "limit" of 4 cars per trip to NJ is more due to track condition than the locos not being able to pull it all (ie limiting the number of axles/weight on a given segment of track), especially given...

ctclark1 wrote:I figured that would've been the point of purchasing the 80-tonner, to handle more cars in one train. Is that not a logical thought? Or is there some other reason?

thebigham wrote:^Yes.

But, the tracks between Curriers and North Java are in bad shape.

That's where my confusion about the inadequate engine comments came in...

I'm under the impression that the "limit" of 4 cars per trip to NJ is more due to track condition than the locos not being able to pull it all (ie limiting the number of axles/weight on a given segment of track),

That would seem not to be the case since it was stated that doubleheading allowed an 11-car delivery to be moved in 2 cuts rather than 3. So now you're talking 2 locos and 6 cars - which with a stronger loco could be 1 loco and 7 cars.

If the track is all that bad it's possible they want to keep the trains short so as to have a better view back, to be sure they're all still on the iron. And it's also true that if the track is extremely bad, you don't want TOO much weight trailing around a curve. I'm sure they have their reasons.

If you have the choice to spend your budget on some ties to keep the line running, or a bigger better loco, the answer is obvious. Many years back in one of the forum's earlier incarnations, there was an exchange about a different short line whose loco was sadly in need of paint. Somebody posted that the company was putting in ties and another railfan posted "Too bad they could not take some of that money and paint the engine." There followed an exchange about the relative merits of having a mangy loco pulling freight, or a nice shiny one on the ground.

I'm sure if money grew on trees ARA would love to have Class 2 track and big shiny engines. I give them a lot of credit for continuing to get by with what they have.

BR&P wrote:As for the swamp, I'm guessing rehab of the track could be done in segments, with perhaps a window between where the train could make a trip or two to keep the mill caught up before the next segment was taken out of service.

Based on the reports and photos I've seen, the A&A seems to operate freights trains about once or twice per week. Depending on how much work needs to be done, would it be possible to rehab the ROW in very short segments on the "off" days?

Matt Langworthy wrote:Based on the reports and photos I've seen, the A&A seems to operate freights trains about once or twice per week. Depending on how much work needs to be done, would it be possible to rehab the ROW in very short segments on the "off" days?

I'm not speaking for ARA but in general terms the likely answer is "yes". Obviously a major rehab would be contracted out, rather than ARA's people doing the whole thing. Track contractors are well acquainted with the balance required to get track time for rehab, yet allow traffic to move. The railroad will set the requirements, after input from the customer. Most likely the customer will lay in a little extra inventory, then go as long without service as possible to give the contractor the most possible working time. So, speaking hypothetically - maybe they bring in an extra bunch of cars, maybe even leave one loco up at NJ to shuffle the loads and empties. Maybe that gives the contractor....name a time...10 days? 2 weeks?...to do their thing. And then at the earliest possible time the contractor will let a train through to keep things alive.

That scenario is quite common. Twice on Ontario Central for example - the first time when the track was relocated under the Rt 332 bridge to allow Plastermill Road to be extended, and again in Manchester when the Route 21 bridge was removed and a grade crossing was installed. The key to success is communication, communication, communication - all parties involved have to be on top of every move made, and it can work out just fine.

The A&A's two GE tonners are headeding to Arcade with 3 empties from the North Java feed mill.

Here they are refueling at the Java Center station:

http://photos.greatrails.net/s/?p=228702" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://photos.greatrails.net/s/?p=228701" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Crossing Rt. 98:

http://photos.greatrails.net/s/?p=228700" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Two more:

http://photos.greatrails.net/s/?p=228699" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://photos.greatrails.net/s/?p=228698" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cool pictures!

New A&A pics here:

http://photos.greatrails.net/show/?orde ... y=33&key2=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://photos.greatrails.net/show/?orde ... y=33&key2=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

#112 is back in service.

Snowplow #402 has been painted for eventual display.