Re: (erielack) O&W Discussion Group Abandoned RRs in Scranton Area

["Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>]

I thnk earlier you hinted at a very important difference between then and now: the "dead hand" of regulation created an artificial environment which muted the effects of economics. Currently, 200 intermodal terminals appears to fit the demand. The terminal network has long been rationalized, compared to say 1971 when there were 1500 terminals (ie seven times as many for one seventh the traffic). I don't think the rail infrastructure was particularly overbuilt in developed areas like Scranton/Wilkes-Barre in the early decades of the 20th century when almost every factory, warehouse and coal dealer had a siding. If O&W was liquidated in 1920, I imagine most of it's trackage in the Scranton area would have survived under a different flag. The problem was the redundant intercity routes through the boondocks, maintained by the regulated environment for decades after they should have been rationalized. There were too many routes competing for the finite amount of profitable line-haul traffic.

Paul B   
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Fred Stratton 
  To: doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net ; erielack@lists.elhts.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:38 AM
  Subject: RE: (erielack) O&W Discussion Group Abandoned RRs in Scranton Area


  My point exactly Paul. If the worse case did happen, many might think 40 years from now that we were saturated with too many intermodal facilities, much like the uselessness of the Old & Weary. But at it's time it was what was felt to be necessary at the time. One point however ablout this line of thought is the same as "who moved the cheese". Will thr RR's today adapt for the needs as situations change? We would have hoped the EL would have and I guess in part it did, but as the NE rail scene crumbled, it didn't have time to change. It did however for a time provide the most reliable piggyback service from NY to Chicago. JUst my two cents worth.







  Fred Stratton

  MP. 7.2 NS Asheville line

  Salisbury, NC


- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: "Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>
    Reply-To: "Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>
    To: "EL Mailing List" <erielack_@_lists.elhts.org>, "Fred Stratton" <erief7@msn.com>
    Subject: (erielack) O&W Discussion Group Abandoned RRs in Scranton Area
    Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:32:42 -0400
    >That's a pertinent question, Fred. As I mentioned in a recent post, today's intermodal infrastructure exists primarily for international traffic (about 75% of the total). The map in the current Trains shows a current network of about 200 terminals distributed to serve this business, ie mostly at the ports and at Chicago, plus other relatively widely spaced inland locations. In the lower 48, 12 states have no intermodal terminals, 9 have one, and 4 states have two or more terminals all located in one city. Most of this international traffic moves through the west coast ports, and is very much at risk if shipping lines begin diverting significant portions to routes using the Panams and Suez canals.
    >
    >Paul B
    >
    >From: "Fred Stratton" <erief7_@_msn.com>
    >Subject: RE: (erielack) Re: O&W Discussion Group Abandoned RRs in Scranton Area
    >
    >It was alot of regulation and much of what was needed to be transported by the railroads. IE: intermodel (containers, trailers etc) is a big booming business. But what would happen if that type of industry or the need for it dropped off drastically and the RR's had nothing to fill the void?How many intermodel yards and such would be empty. It's all relative and dielectric.
    >
    >
    > The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
    > Sponsored by the ELH&TS
    > http://www.elhts.org



- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Get the new Windows Live Messenger!

	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	Sponsored by the ELH&TS
	http://www.elhts.org

------------------------------