[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PC: RE: Re: Why no money?
- Subject: Re: PC: RE: Re: Why no money?
- From: "ERIE LACKAWANNA SD45-2" <ERIE-LACKAWANNA@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:43:32 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Osterhus" <su_carbs -AT- hotmail.com>
To: <penn-central -AT- smellycat.com>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: PC: RE: Re: Why no money?
> >As for the diversification moves, they would have made sense if the net
> >revenues were used to help the parent rail operation. I suspect that
> >such revenues instead helped cover the stock dividends (see >above). If
> > >the non-rail investments didn't make money, it only >compounds the
> > >general view of PC executives.
> They got greedy, and over-diversified. For example, what business did a
> railroad have in owning part of a hockey team? EJA and Penphil are two
> others that come to mind...
> >[By the way, and off-topic, the FRA created a new class of track
> >-"Exempt" - to describe and regulate the derelict former PC >track spun
> >to short lines in the 1970s.]
> I hear ya on that one! I remember the PC trains wobbling thru Waynesburg,
> on the Monongahela from the late 70s, until CR came along, and upgraded
> Also, what about the large purchases of locomotives? Why did they purchase
> new engines, and not take care of the ones they had?
First of all it is bad business operating a class 1 RR with old junk and
charging a premium for service. Newer engines are more efficient and fuel
efficient. Look today. When did you last see a train with 4-5 engines? New
engines mean less engines and fuel per train. Two engines do the work of 3-5
today, putting them other engines on other trains. It was also harder and
more expensive taking care of the older units. Parts were not readily
available anymore and had to strip other engines for parts. This was why
some railroads re-engined GP7/9 units with 645 components that became GP8/10
units. PC did make use of old dead E8's by removing prime movers and
installing them in RS3's to become RS3m's as again it was getting hard
finding parts for Alco 244 engines. So PC did rebuild some older engines
while buying new ones for road service.
I don't know of Waynesburg, but I do know as soon as PC took over the NH, PC
invested large sums of money on the Maybrook Line and Poughkeepie Bridge.
The entire line recieved new rail, ballast, ties and steel grading was being
installed on Poughkeepsie Bridge to replace the old wooden plank walkways.
Before PC the Maybrook :Line had many slow orders due to tracks in some
places sunk in mud with no ballast and cars swayed side to side as you saw
on Wayesburg Secondary Track.
If you look in the right places, you will see where PC did good and in many
cases better than the later CR. CR ruined the entire system. A once 44,000
mile system down to a short line status 11000 miles. Along with this came
the end to jobs for many who worked for NH, PRR and NYC into PC. CR was the
worst railroad ever that it's initials made it Cut Rail because that is what
they were experienced in. A few cabooses had graffiri Con Job on the sides.
I never remember seeing any of these slang terms on NH, PRR, NYC equipment.
> --Chris Osterhus
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Main Index |