Division of Conrail on former NYC

[conductorbob]

Hi everyone. Just a few questions...When Conrail was broken up, why didn't CSX take the whole former NYC? As it turns out the split is in Cleveland. Does that make every train going east and west thru Cleveland an interchange train(probably not using the right term, sorry). And if so, isn't there a charge for cars delivered to another RR after a certain amount of time? Then another question is this- where do the NS trains east of Cleveland go, and does CSX use the former B&O west of Cleveland? You would think that west of Cleveland should have been shared assests and run under Conrail. Thanks in advance Bob Rabie former Conductor

[chrisnewhaven]

The way the former NYC organized its Cleveland tracks allows CSX to have their trains from the east flow directly into the Cleveland - St Louis line, which crosses the B&O mainline around Willard (?). Norfolk Southern runs their trains off of the former Nickel Plate from Buffalo and PRR from Pittsburg onto either the Nickel Plate or the NYC to Toledo. How this second arangement precisely works I'm not sure, but I think NS got a belt line south of Cleveland which connects to the Nickel Plate and PRR and flows directly into the NYC main at the point where CSX's Cleveland - St Louis line splits off of it.
C.J.V.

[charlie6017]

Chris is absolutely correct. There is no interchange between NS and CSX trains entering
Cleveland, with only perhaps the small exception of local traffic. CSX trains heading west
from Buffalo on the NYC enter what is called "The Short Line" near Collinwood Yard and
that in turn connects to the former "Big Four" line as Chris stated. That connects to CSX's
former B&O main line at Greenwich where CSX built a turn-out prior to merger. Yes, this
location is a short distance East of Willard.

The NS Cleveland Line (ex-PRR) and former Nickel Plate lines from the east connect to the
former NYC near the Drawbridge over the Cuyahoga River.

Charlie

[sd80mac]

That connects to CSX's former B&O main line at Greenwich where CSX built a turn-out prior to merger. Yes, this
location is a short distance west of Willard.
Charlie

U meant east of willard? Willard is west of Greenwich. Attica is west of Willard....

[QB 52.32]

When Conrail was broken up, why didn't CSX take the whole former NYC?

The reason CSX didn't take the whole former NYC (Chicago-NY/New England trunk) was because the Conrail split was negotiated with NS with a goal of achieving a "50/50" deal moving forward and splitting things in this way didn't achieve this. When considering the costs and benefits over time and within the context of the entire deal, it was negotiated to split the ex-NYC Chicago-NY/NE trunk at Cleveland (and with CSX getting the ex-NYC Cleveland-St.Louis line though having to rebuild the ex-B&O Chicago line to handle much more traffic). Fifteen years later and with CSX having gotten its management house in order and the rail industry's competitive position strengthening, both systems are at performance parity with CSX just edging out NS in operating ratios for the past few years.

[charlie6017]

That connects to CSX's former B&O main line at Greenwich where CSX built a turn-out prior to merger. Yes, this
location is a short distance west of Willard.
Charlie

U meant east of willard? Willard is west of Greenwich. Attica is west of Willard....

Yes......Thanks very much--brain was thinking East and fingers were thinking West.

I corrected my post as well.

Charlie

[conductorbob]

Thanks for the imput. I am still lost... when AMtrak 48/49 goes east and west of Cleveland, doesn't it use the former mainline of the NYC from Cleveland to Chicago ? And isn't that NS? thanks. Bob Rabie

[charlie6017]

You're really not lost......trains 48 and 49 DO stay on the all ex-NYC rails. The train stays the
same, only the host railroad (NS & CSX) ownership changes at Cleveland as you described.

This practice isn't uncommon. Amtrak train routes can and do run over different host railroads
rails during single trips. The "Adirondack" is another example. Runs from NYC over it's own leased
trackage up the Hudson River (was CSX's until recently) and then up CP's ex-D&H tracks into Canada.

Charlie

[conductorbob]

Thanks again for the imput. One last question . Does that mean that Amtrak's Capitol Ltd when it arrives in Cleveland uses the ex NYC to Chicago? If you look at Amtrak's schedule it makes the same stops as the Lake Shore does. I realize this is not an Amtrak board I'm just churious on the trackage to Chicago. Again thanks. Bob Rabie

[charlie6017]

You are most welcome!

You are correct on the Capitol Limited routing. From Cleveland, it does follow the ex-NYC west into Chicago.

Strangely enough, there is a tiny section of ex-PRR in the Chicago Metro area that the "Chicago Line" runs
on that paralleled the NYC trackage. I **think** this was done under Conrail because the ex-PRR bridge over
the Calumet River was in better shape than the NYC bridge--but don't hold me to it. This was in the Milepost
502 area.

Charlie

[sd80mac]

That connects to CSX's former B&O main line at Greenwich where CSX built a turn-out prior to merger. Yes, this
location is a short distance west of Willard.
Charlie

U meant east of willard? Willard is west of Greenwich. Attica is west of Willard....

Yes......Thanks very much--brain was thinking East and fingers were thinking West.

I corrected my post as well.

Charlie

Same with me. You're not alone... my mind says go right, my hands in signing, as well as fingers during typing, says go left

[Tadman]

there is a tiny section of ex-PRR in the Chicago Metro area that the "Chicago Line" runs
on that paralleled the NYC trackage. I **think** this was done under Conrail

You've pretty much got it. I can't remember the particulars other than PRR and NYC were parallel from Hammond to Englewood. The track was rationalized so that only one of two parallel alignments was used, and it changes between PRR and NYC at certain spots. I can't remember which...

I believe this was actually done under PC. One of the biggest arguments in favor of the PC merger was all this parallel track they were going to rationalize. It barely happened, and this Englewood-Hammond stretch was on place.

[shlustig]

IIRC, the crossover point from the NYC to the PRR was at Lake Jct. and was done under PC.

There was some difficulty in getting used to the PRR track numbering which was the opposite of the NYC. (NYC was generally even-# train on even # track, odd # train on odd # track; even was east and north, odd was west and south.)

One drawback was that the PRR route had been realigned at the bridges over Calumet (?) River so that there was no straight track route, everything involved a medium speed turnout vs. the straight track route over the NYC bridges.

[wurlitzer153]

The NS Cleveland Line (ex-PRR) and former Nickel Plate lines from the east connect to the
former NYC near the Drawbridge over the Cuyahoga River.

Charlie

The PRR line connects to the NYC near E. 9th street.
https://maps.google.com/?ll=41.509622,- ... 9&t=h&z=16

There is no NKP connection on the East side. It instead uses a connection just west of the river to get on the Big Four to Rockport yard, where it joins with the NYC.
https://maps.google.com/?ll=41.477565,- ... 3&t=h&z=18
https://maps.google.com/?ll=41.425127,- ... 1&t=h&z=15

There are still some unresolved issues involving where connections can be built. There is no westbound PRR/NYC-to-NKP connection, so the Pitt-Avon Lake coal train must run the Youngstown line all the way up to Ashtabula before running west on the NKP. Ashtabula is also a problem because it lacks a Buffalo connection. Runarounds there are frequent.
https://maps.google.com/?ll=41.862602,- ... 5&t=h&z=17

[charlie6017]

Thanks very much--I stand corrected and appreciate the clarification.

Charlie