NYSW: Conrails missing link

Wyeing the power doesn't do anything when you literally have to shove the train 6 + miles (not going to happen) or backhaul the train east, and swap ends anyway(not going to happen), when they can already haul straight through west from Selkirk at 40-50 mph the entire way.

It sounds like you just don't understand why this idea is logistically unfeasible out of the gate. Adding an extra 70+ miles to go in the wrong direction on slower track isn't "direct", nor a useful benefit for the end customer lol...

Southern teir trains go very fast and is much faster and much less redundet than the pittsburg line
The detours took so long becuase of crew issues
They dont shove the train they go into the yard via the connecting track
If they work dewitt there not going 40-50mph

The good thing about railroads is that they are an old business with a history. So, oftentimes if we're willing and able, we can look backward to think about the future.

In this particular case looking back, even when Conrail owned this proposed routing option consisting of branches among others, including what is now Norfolk Southern's shorter southern tier, the age-old characteristics of the high-density, high-speed, low-grade Water Level Route and the River Line was the preferred choice, including considering how railroads best operate at scale (higher volume), to meet the fastest speed requirements, and when it came to where and how to expensively increase capacity and capability. Same with the Lehigh Line and the high-density ex-PRR out across Pennsylvania now owned by NS.

I don't see anything new today that would change that past behavior moving forward.

TrainTrackToby wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 11:00 am Southern teir trains go very fast and is much faster and much less redundet than the pittsburg line
The detours took so long becuase of crew issues
They dont shove the train they go into the yard via the connecting track
If they work dewitt there not going 40-50mph

Wrong. Wrong. And Wrong again... the Pittsburgh line goes directly west instead of adding an extra 70+ miles going north out of the way over an extra railroad. This is publicly available info....

Sounds like the crew issues occurred because of an inability of NYSW to provide crews to handle additional capacity on their line. What other excuse is there?

If they go via the connecting track, they still have to change ends, which I've pointed out several times.... a needless extra step when they can simply haul straight through from Selkirk as they do now.

Of course they're not going 40-50 through a yard, I never suggested they were, lol...

The Pittsburg line is a very curved and steep route just watch the Altoona railcam to see how slow there going changing ends wouldn’t be too hard there a wye only trains working Dewitt would go that wye and as yard crews pickup and set out the needed cars the crew will wye the power and proceed on there way

And yet NS continues to use it over the Tier, clearly they have a better idea on what works...

There's simply no reason to needlessly backhaul in the first place... end of story. Trains are either going to stop at Selkirk or DeWitt to work the yards or change crews, and they're going to do it the way they've been doing it.

Trains are not going to take a circuitous route over a shortline, when they have their own preferred route with higher MAS.

Do they though?
There not back hauling there going 7 miles (not that much) toward the yard changing crews and as they are wyeing the power a yard crew shunts the train then head off
NYSW isnt a shortline its a class 2

They do, considering they continue to use it...

It doesn't matter if it's 7 or 70 miles, if they're hauling traffic backwards, it's a backhaul...

For the 5th? time, the power would have to change ends to continue west; wyeing the units doesn't solve that despite your repeated insistence... nor is there any legitimate reason to add such an unnecessary backwards move.

CSXT simply isn't going to tie up mainline tracks moving trains backwards, end of story...

Ok whats wrong with a small backhaul trains working markham yard do it
Changing ends doesnt take long
Theres 3 to 4 tracks only 2 are used as a mainlines the rest can be for the backhauls
If adding the additonal time and length of a backhaul its still shorter and faster than the river line

If NS wanted to run a train from Croxton to Buffalo they could do so over the Southern Tier without using any NYSW trackage since they enjoy trackage rights over NJT from Croxton to Port Jervis and then own their own line from Port Jervis to Binghamton, where they could route trains west to Buffalo.

The fact that the owner of the route used by NYSW between Port Jervis and Binghamton (NYSW leases the line from NS) isn't bothering to use it probably should be an indication of how useful they find it for routing their own trains.

Suggesting that a route that is 50 miles of 30mph MAS is faster than a mix of 40/50 with 35s sprinkled in here and there (River Line) is funny enough... then add in the fact of paying another railroad's crews to move your own traffic over a competitor owned line... just not happening lol. Let's be realistic and use an ounce of common sense here...

Ns dosnt relize the pontentail of the line nor does csx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I9m0OJxfuA&t=821s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caPwd4Nk5gs

Hmm... Seem like the southern tier is faster
they wont be paying another roads crews they will own the line 50%
Plenty of instances of ns and csx sharing a line: CSAO lehigh line

You posted an NYSW train going 40 at best, and a run-through unit crude oil train that specifically runs at a lower speed, at an undisclosed location on the line. If you're going to attempt to cherry pick, try a little harder... terrible comparison.

NS owns the track as noted above between Port Jervis and Binghamton, and NYSW only owns the portion between North Bergen and the State Line. So not only would CSX be paying another road's crew, they don't even own 1/3 of the track to get to Binghamton lol... not anywhere near 50%.

Conrail Shared Assets exists to prevent a monopoly of either railroad where they serve customers in those three zones... sharing track is literally the point.

NYSW's "potential" is to feed the two roads that own it, in a similar fashion as CSAO; not as an alternate route for its owners' mainline traffic. The evidence is right in front of us... your "faster" train that runs a whopping two days a week had all of 71 cars. How does a railroad that runs four trains a week possibly have "crew issues"? CSX runs multiple trains twice that long, and faster on its own route already... they're not going to qualify crews on a second route.

I am curious as to the age of the original poster and what their background might be in railroad knowledge.

The purchase of the NYS&W by NS and CSX back in 1999 was specifically to prevent any chance of the NYS&W connecting to another railroad, CN or at the time CP to run intermodal trains and other traffic into NJ and the NY metro area. This is what the NYS&W did as competition to Conrail back in the early 1980s. NS and CSX were not going to allow it.

That being said any traffic originating or destined for the NYS&W is going via CSX or NS. Having the NYS&W be the local switching entity saves the others money.

As for using the NYS&W to relieve capacity issues on CSX and NS...What capacity issues? The Riverline runs amazingly efficient. Just yesterday spending a day on the line, CSX ran about 10 trains in a 6 hour period through the Iona Island area. There is still available space to re-lay a second track in many areas of the line. Some passing sidings have been extended to allow two trains to hold back to back in some locations. If more capacity is needed, CSX can make further improvements to the existing line.

As for NS west out of NJ. They too have areas where a second track could be added if capacity was needed. There had been a second track over the Lehigh Valley main line. Even the former CNJ across NJ could be used (portions rebuilt) if absolutely necessary. Further into PA, many areas had additional tracks that had been removed. Simply adding another track would be much easier. Even Horseshoe Curve could have an additional track added. It had been four tracks, only three now.

It seems as though the original poster has their opinion, and nothing is going to change it, but at least some good rebuttals took place in the thread.

Isn't the connectivity issue and interchange debacle with CN what doomed the Massena line sale as well?