[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 18:02:27 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Osterhus" <su_carbs -AT- hotmail.com>
To: <penn-central -AT- smellycat.com>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: PC: RE: Re: Why no money?
> >First of all it is bad business operating a class 1 RR with old junk and
> >charging a premium for service.
> PC neglected repairs on many units. I seem to remember seeing a picture of
> burnt-out E40 electric. Those units weren't very old, and didn't last very
> I remember hearing stories of passenger cars (roach coaches) being trashed
> inside. Inoperative A/C and heat made cars miserable.
> >Newer engines are more efficient and fuel efficient. Look today. When
> >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.
> I agree with that one. Maybe if PC could have both purchased newer
> equipment, and retired the older stuff things might have been different?
> >It was also harder and more expensive taking care of the older units.
> They should have scrapped them.
> >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.
> The only reason that was done, is that it cost less than buying a new
> Many of the GP8/10s are still around.
> >I don't know of Waynesburg, but I do know as soon as PC took over the
> >PC invested large sums of money on the Maybrook Line and >Poughkeepie
> >Bridge. The entire line recieved new rail, ballast, ties >and steel
> >was being installed on Poughkeepsie Bridge to replace >the old wooden
> >walkways. Before PC the Maybrook :Line had many >slow orders due to
> >in some places sunk in mud with no ballast >and cars swayed side to side
> >you saw on Wayesburg Secondary Track.
> Was this right before the bridge burned?
> The Waynesburg line ran from the PRR/MGA line north to the B&O.
> >Along >with this came the end to jobs for many who worked for NH, PRR
> >NYC into PC. CR was the worst railroad ever that it's initials made >it
> >Rail because that is what they were experienced in.
> True, but alot of those jobs were duplicated. Why have 3-4 shops when 2
> do the job? From that standpoint, it made sense to close redundant shops.
> order to make a profit, anything not essential was closed, sold, or
4977 was the only last operating E40. E40's were not suited for PC freight
operation as neither did NH use them in freight service. Amtrak also had no
use for them with all then old GG-1's that were then still in service when
they took over passenger operations in 1971. Had the E40 been a
bi-directional unit like the E33 they would have lasted on PC. E40's were
removed from NH Region passenger service after the merger as Boston-DC
trains only required a single GG-1 from New Haven than previous engine
change at Penn Station to a GG-1. And when MTA assumed operation of NY area
commuter service there was less of a need for locomotive powered commuter
trains from New Haven with M-2 class MU's doing the work. PC cared more for
the E33 and E44 units than GG-1 and E40 models as these were the backbone of
electriified freight service that gor dismantled by CR. I agree with you
E40's were not that old. They also were a good engine.
I never heard of any roach infested passenger cars. None in the NY area
commuter service. I do remember of A/C problems but not only on PC but LIRR
as well. NYC buses at the time also had broken A/C units that did not
function. But the A/C issue comes under MTA and not the PC. MTA is
responsible for fixing AC units.
PC did get rid of old problem ALCO 539 Engined S series units. Last Alco
switchers used to CR were the six T-6 models usually found in Phillipsburg,
NJ area. NYSW was the last road in NJ area still using S2 and RS-1 power. PC
did make use of newer power in the right places. The Maybrook Line started
to recieve six axle U25C and SD40 units. NH would have preferred U25C's over
U25B's they bought but the money was not there for the six axle units. As it
is, NH U25B, C425 and B&M GP40-2 units all came delievered minus dynamic
brakes that both roads preferred as well as both preferring six axle power.
NH had to replace brake shoes more often on the U25B and C425 units because
engineers had to use air brakes to slow on the grades to and from
Poughkeepsie Bridge tham dynamics.
Correct. It then cost less to remanufacture GP7/9 units to GP8/10 than
buying nre GP38-2's for the same service. Now even GP8/10 units are being
bumped by GP38 units that became surplus on many railroads. The GP38 today
is what the F7/9 was in the 50's.
Yes, Maybrook :Line was rebuilt right after the merger in 1969. PC did a
great job on the tracks and signalling. Train operated much more smoother
and faster. Dispatching was moved from New Haven to Springfield where it
rermained under CR up to 1993 when CR operated the last Selkirk-New Haven
Maybrook Line freight via Hopewell Junction on Beacon Secondary Track to
Baecon where it connected Hudson Line to Castleton and into Selkirk
Yes, but these shops were not a few miles appart so they did provide a
service to those lines. Close all the shops and then one shop to replace 3-4
has worked backed up they they cannot get bad order cars back on track fast
enough. So it is not cost effective or efficient closing all these shops..
> Just my .02
> --Chris Osterhus
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Main Index |