The rationalization of redundant trackage...

From what I understand, there was a five-year period of evaluation after Conrail took over in 1976 to determine the fate of excess redundant trackage, and that the majority of this excess was removed by 1981 or so. Is this right? Is there more to it?

-otto-

As I understand it, this is mostly correct. There was a determined and protracted effort early on to identify and dispose of redundant and low revenue/traffic density trackage in some way -- either by sale or abandonment.

L. Stanley Crane's arrival on the property set off a new round of rationalizations that included all types of excess capacity items -- such as crossovers, controlled sidings, branch lines, etc.

Otto Vondrak wrote:From what I understand, there was a five-year period of evaluation after Conrail took over in 1976 to determine the fate of excess redundant trackage, and that the majority of this excess was removed by 1981 or so. Is this right? Is there more to it?

-otto-

Basically, you have the story. A number of former main lines were taken
out of service, downgraded, sold or abandoned during the period you
mention. Among the most known of the northeast are the former D. L. &
W. mainline between Port Morris Junction and Binghampton which was well
broken up, Port Morris to Slateford Jct. was abandoned, Slatford Jct. to
Binghampton was sold to counties and the D. & H. (now C.P.). The former
New Haven's Maybrook line was also abandoned between Maybrook and
Hopewell Junction except for a short portion in Poughkeepsie which lasted
longer for local service. I guess the former Erie main line through Goshen
and Middletown, New York would also come into that situation and a good
sized portion of the L. & H. R. as well.
Unfortunately, there was just too much physical plant in the northeast for
the amount of available business.
Noel Weaver

Sounds like a Dave Gunn to me trying to get rite of anything and eveything surplus.

John

Rationalization, in this context, means keeping only that which it makes sense, business-wise, to keep. Early Conrail had a huge need for rationalization.

USRA planners had counted on EL not being part of the final system design. The "last minute" inclusion of EL added to the need for rationalization, as noted above.

Was EL bankrupt or near Bankruptcy when CR was created? I always wondered why EL was included because pictures - my only reference point - make it look like EL was in far better shape than PC. The locomotives were new and clean while PC looked like crap.

Tadman wrote:Was EL bankrupt or near Bankruptcy when CR was created?

EL filed for bankruptcy protection after Hurricane Agnes flooded much of Central PA in June of 1972, wiping out a good bit of track.

Tadman wrote:I always wondered why EL was included because pictures - my only reference point - make it look like EL was in far better shape than PC. The locomotives were new and clean while PC looked like crap.

Ah, but Tadman, the cleanliness of locomotives is a very superficial indicator. Maybe it's just that the EL colors better hid the dirt and grime -- or that PC's showed it better.

As I understand it, EL had some massive debt coming due with no means to pay it. Others more informed can provide details.

While they may have had debt coming the EL and the Reading both turned profits in 1975. So the EL opted into Conrail despite the possibility of being able to pull it out. Before Agnes they were the road in the best financial shape and from what I can see looked like they had begun to recover from that. The elimiation of their system, a previously profitable one, seems more like a personal choice of the new CR management rather than a business choice.

metman499 wrote:The elimination of their [EL's] system, a previously profitable one, seems more like a personal choice of the new CR management rather than a business choice.

Well -- this has been discussed extensively on previous incarnations of Railroad.net forums. My intention is not to set off another round of recriminations about the situation as it unfolded in those trying times for Northeastern railroads.

As far as I know, though, the decisions that were made concerning which lines to keep and which ones to be rid of were actually business decisions and not personal ones at all.

One can certainly disagree with these decisions -- and characterize them any way one wants -- but it doesn't change the facts concerning revenue streams and maintenance expenses projected into the future. Having been "previously profitable" doesn't really change those financial realities.

But hey -- I'm not the ultimate authority here. I'm just reporting what I recall to be factual.

I agree it's a shame that so much good railroad went away. It's also a shame that Conrail, in the effort to become a viable operation, went from over 100,000 employees to about 25,000 in just a few years. Admittedly, many went to commuter agencies and Amtrak, but many just lost out altogether in the process.

Noel,
Would hate to argue with you on most subjects, but IIRC the Maybrook Line was shut down as a through route in 1974 due to the "unfortunate" fire it suffered on Penn Central's watch, 2 years before Conrail.

NHRDC121 wrote:....2 years before Conrail.

T'is true.

NHRDC121 wrote:Noel,
Would hate to argue with you on most subjects, but IIRC the Maybrook Line was shut down as a through route in 1974 due to the "unfortunate" fire it suffered on Penn Central's watch, 2 years before Conrail.

You are correct in that the line in question was shut down due to the fire on the bridge in 1974 but the line was officially abandoned under Conrail
much later on, around 1979 I believe, I would have to find the B?O's.
Incidentally, the Final System Plan which provided for the setup of Conrail
provided for keeping the entire line as a through freight route but after
taking over, the management of Conrail decided it was not worth the high
cost of bridge repairs and other work necessary at that time to restore the
line to through service.
Noel Weaver

A couple of corrections to this interesting thread.

Not to be (too) pedantic but it's Bingham-ton (named for early settler/speculator Bingham) not Bing-hampton (which, if it existed, would be on the LIRR). A typical upstate/downstate NY mistake.

Second, the Agnes floods were mostly in upstate NY. The EL was heavily affected between Hornell (on the Erie) / Bath (on the DL&W) through Painted Post (nearly wiped out) and Corning. I remember watching tremendous EL action on the Lehigh's main line (Seneca/Schuyler/Tioga counties, through Cayuta and Odessa) for many weeks late June and into July 1972 as trains were detoured via Buffalo, then on the LVRR to either Sayre or maybe all the way to Coxton (not sure about that).

That LVRR main is a good example of excellent railroad, built in 1890, abandoned just because there was too much trackage. Right up to C-day it was heavily used for bridge traffic.

LCJ,

Many thanks for the link, I stand corrected about the main effect of Agnes. I had always thought it stalled in upstate NY but now I see that Shamokin had 18" (!!) of rain versus our 6" or so.

However, for the EL I think I'm right that east of Binghamton (i.e. the eastern PA trackage) Agnes did not affect it.

"In the rest of the Delaware River basin, flooding was only minor"; that would include the water gap.

"Flooding along the Susquehanna above Binghamton, New York was only minor"; that would include Great Bend and Susquehanna.

Now I am doubting whether the LV operated between Sayre and Coxton as that line follows the upper Susquehanna; it's mainly built on a higher terrace, though. This line was retained in Conrail, since the Ligget's Gap / Lackawanna & Western / DL&W / EL from Taylor to Bingo was dropped from Conrail as already mentioned.