Railroad Forums 

  • Conrail Route Abandonment Regrets?

  • Discussion related to the operations and equipment of Consolidated Rail Corp. (Conrail) from 1976 to its present operations as Conrail Shared Assets. Official web site can be found here: CONRAIL.COM.
Discussion related to the operations and equipment of Consolidated Rail Corp. (Conrail) from 1976 to its present operations as Conrail Shared Assets. Official web site can be found here: CONRAIL.COM.

Moderators: TAMR213, keeper1616

 #1313714  by NYCS
 
Hey guys,

I've been studying the network of Conrail before the CSX/NS split, and ran across this map showing the railroad's network and how it was to be distributed:

http://broadway.pennsyrr.com/Rail/Conra ... ain_lg.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My question is, since Conrail is one of the major success stories of Northeast railroading, they obviously had to do a lot of abandonments to eliminate duplicitous routes, unprofitable branches, and slim down to become profitable. With all that said and done, I ask you this hypothetical question:

Do you think - in retrospect - there are any routes that Conrail abandoned that wasn't a smart strategic move? Perhaps if the railroad survived into today, given the shift in traffic volumes and commodities (i.e. ethanol boom), do you think Conrail would be banging its head against a wall for abandoning certain routes? I know this is all hypothetical, but figured it would be a fun discussion. Which routes should Conrail have kept from its predecessor roads instead of abandoning them, and why?

My answer: The line west of Manhattan to 65th Street Yard (which was sold to Trump for residential high-rise development). Even though the industries had left the High Line, the 65th St. Yard would have made for a strategically placed team yard facility and bulk transfer terminal for goods destined to Manhattan. (food ingredients, rebarb, steel I-beams, construction materials, etc.)
 #1316510  by Allen Hazen
 
The Canada Southern across southern Ontario was, I believe, a very well-engineered line. At a guess, it could have been part of a usefully short route between Chicago and some East coast port. (Certainly it seems to be on a direct line from the midwest to Halifax, which, as the easternmost port on the main North American rail system (? that is true, isn't it ?), is a natural place for the rails to meet container ships. And it LOOKS as if Chicago to Buffalo is shorter by CASO than by the New York Central main line: which would make it part of Conrail's shortest route to anywhere it reached via Buffalo.)
 #1582968  by XBNSFer
 
Interesting topic, so I'll "resurrect" this for some $0.02.

First, I'll beg to differ with this to some extent:

"My question is, since Conrail is one of the major success stories of Northeast railroading, they obviously had to do a lot of abandonments to eliminate duplicitous routes, unprofitable branches, and slim down to become profitable."

I wouldn't say Conrail was a "major success" at all. Conrail was more of a "necessary evil". The state of railroading in the northeast was based on the "systemic" issues US railroads faced since the 50s-60s, the three-legged stool of (1) oppressive government regulation that treated railroads like they held an intercity transport monopoly, even long after government subsidized trucking, buses, and air lines were diverting traffic away from them, (2) organized labor's suffocation of the industry with work rules from the steam era, in some cases with state government meddling adding insult to injury, and (3) money losing commuter trains that railroads were forced to continue operating. As long as these "systemic issues" were not "fixed," railroading in the northeast was not going to be a profitable venture.

"Conrail" showed without a doubt that this was the case. Long after its main lines were restored to smooth as glass, hundreds of new locomotives and rehabilitated locomotives were providing reliable motive power, and despite the lack of any credible competition from other railroads and despite property tax deferments, Conrail performed... just like Penn Central, losing $1 Million per day. It was only AFTER (1) Staggers deregulation/getting the IPCC off the back of railroads, (2) labor concessions on work rules, and (3) the ability to offload commuter rail to state agencies, did "Conrail" begin to turn a profit, and become a "success."

Given similar government largesse to repair infrastructure and locomotives, similar labor reforms, and the ability to unload commuter operations, considerably more of the northeast's rail infrastructure might have been saved, and more of it likely built up to more expeditiously and reliably move today's rail traffic. Conrail's virtual monopoly on northeast rail traffic, and its zeal to defend it to the death, combined with the "cost cutting" mentality that was carried way too far, resulted in a "minimalist" system that can't provide service good enough to keep northeast highways from being jammed with tractor trailer traffic today.

Today we hear things like:

(1) How NS is "unhappy with the speed" on the "Penn Line," which in its current form consists of the ex-LV from the NJ terminal area to Allentown, the ex-RDG from Allentown to Harrisburg, the ex-PRR from Harrisburg to Cleveland, and the ex-NYC from Cleveland to Chicago. And too much of this route is single track (ex-LV from Easton to Hillsborough, parts of the cobbed together ex-RDG routes, single tracked "junctions" where traffic was rerouted from historical routes or on "freight bypasses" around congested cities/terminals), or is single track for the traffic that matters (see the single track "bypass" around Pittsburgh that must be used for double stacks due to clearance problems on the "main line" through the city proper).

(2) How EHH was "unhappy with the demands" made by UPS for, you know, adequate service. This, again, is thanks to significant single track on the New York or Boston to Chicago arteries, which include the barely adequate even in Conrail days "River" line/subdivision between the NJ terminal area and Selkirk, or the single tracked Boston Line through the Berkshires, and the dip south at Cleveland to the ex-B&O for the Greenwich to Chicago portion - which CSX had to reinstall the second main track on to handle the addition of traffic from the portion of Conrail it acquired.

This is Conrail's legacy. Too much rail infrastructure was destroyed, too little improvement and capacity expansion was done on routes that were critical, and northeast railroading is less than it should be today. Neither CSX nor Norfolk Southern has routes that are as direct or as fast as the NYC and PRR had more than half a century ago, and that's pretty sad.

So I would say that the "major success story" for northeastern railroading was deregulation, labor reform, and the unloading of commuter train operations. "Conrail," not so much. Conrail was just the wrong way to, in the end, reach the inevitable and actual "solution" to the actual "problems."

As for specific routes, I'll say in general I still think there should never have been a monopolistic "Conrail" to begin with; the "Penn" and "Central" should have been separated, since the P-C merger was anti-competitive and never should have happened to begin with, and the ex-NYC and ex-PRR should have served as the "skeletons" to build two competitive northeast "systems" on, replacing bits lost to Amtrak or commuter rail with alternate lines from other roads being included in the "solution," but with infrastructure built up so that the major arteries were all high capacity, high clearance, and high speed lines to the extent possible.

Given the notion that competitive rail access in the northeast was the goal, certainly once "self sufficiency" was achieved, big "regrets" that stick out might include the downgrade/removal of the ex-PRR Crestline to Chicago main line as a through route, and the similar removal or downgrade of the ex-NYC and ex-PRR (alternating) Indianapolis to St. Louis routes. As for the "if Conrail still existed as an independent railroad" scenario, I doubt they regretted ripping up anything - to Conrail, less northeast rail infrastructure was protective of their monopoly.
 #1583029  by photobug56
 
My big problem with Conrail decisions is their ripping up the Lackawanna Cutoff. Should never have happened. And it's my understanding that it was a choice to prevent anyone using it for anything regardless of need, including how they sold it off.
 #1583063  by ExCon90
 
Was the Cutoff even included in the Final System Plan (prepared by USRA before Conrail existed)? If not, it was left with the EL estate. USRA had the task of identifying which segments of railroad in the Northeast were worth saving, and a short, straight route to the Pocono Mountains was no longer needed to haul anthracite to New York; the Water Level Route was obviously a better choice for the Buffalo-New York corridor. I know Conrail got the ex-Erie route via Port Jervis but I'm wondering if it ever got the ex-DL&W route.
 #1583069  by Bracdude181
 
Does this route abandonment thing also apply to Conrail Shared Assets? Just curious.

My pick for one line that never should have closed was the Freehold Secondary between MP19 and MP24, where it connects to the Southern Secondary. (Ex CNJ Southern Division) It forced all remaining trains to use NJ Transits North Jersey Coast Line, (NJT is not freight friendly on the Newark Division!) and meant that Conrail no longer had a direct connection to the line. I believe it was done because cutting it off meant 5 less miles of track to maintain.

Fast forward 20-30 years and now the Southern Secondary has very poor service because Conrail is at NJTs mercy. NJT says when they can come down, what freight they can bring, and how heavy it can be. Problems they wouldn’t have with a direct connection to Browns Yard with Conrail owned track.
 #1583154  by ExCon90
 
photobug56 wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:20 pm Conrail made the choice to chop up the Cutoff to prevent competition. Period.
On checking Wikipedia (I know, but still ... and the dates seem to check out), the cutoff was indeed conveyed to Conrail, which discontinued operations in 1979, applied for abandonment in 1982, tore up the track in 1984, and sold off some of the property to private developers. So it appears to meet the OP's stated criterion of being a "smart strategic move" -- remember the Congressional mandate to become profitable, and quickly. Even if the route had survived it still would have been difficult for a competitor because of the grades in the Poconos and the lack of a useful route east of Dover. With the benefit of hindsight, it may have been a bad strategic decision of the EL to sell the portion from Mountain View to Paterson to the state of New Jersey for a highway (but who knew, back then?)-- the Boonton Line was a much better freight railroad than the New York & Greenwood Lake until it was severed.
 #1583211  by scratchyX1
 
photobug56 wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:25 pm Conrail. They knew at the time that people wanted to restore passenger rail. Nasty choice.
They ripped it up, knowing that amtrak was looking for using it.
Could have given it over, and be rid of the tax burden.
 #1583216  by Bracdude181
 
@NotYou The Lehigh Line is currently double track all the way from Manville to Newark. Conrail double tracked it in the mid 2000s. The Lehigh is mostly single tracked with sidings west of Manville on the NS owned portion, or at least that’s how it is between Manville and Allentown. I don’t much about what’s past there.