It seems like people could drive to Dover in the same amount of time it would take to ride the train and not require additional infrastructure.

I'm not asserting a fact. I am asking a question. I posted portions of the old schedules at: http://users.erols.com/drfenton/Cutoff_is_a_mistake.htm

Projected growth in Northeastern Pennsylvania is such that, within 10 years or so, the roads will be saturated. One could argue that the authorities should provide more road space (added lanes, new roads), but that is almost always economically and environmentally damaging, and would be tremendouslty difficult in the Delaware Water Gap, through which most east/west traffic passes.

Another benefit of passenger service is that it often (though not as often as some advocates claim) revitalizes towns through which it passes by increasing pedestrian traffic and tourist interest, something highways tend to diminish.

Of course, I'm probably preaching to the choir here.

As for the schedule, it shows local service that makes 23 stops between Scranton and Dover. I doubt there'd be any more than 5-7 stops on the new service. Considering the ac/deceleration of steam and older diesel trains, I'd say times on the schedule are much slower than they would be with modern equipment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by irishchieftain:
(heck, if people ride from as far away as Port Jervis still, you can't tell me there ain't a market...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gct29:
As for the schedule, it shows local service that makes 23 stops between Scranton and Dover. I doubt there'd be any more than 5-7 stops on the new service. Considering the ac/deceleration of steam and older diesel trains, I'd say times on the schedule are much slower than they would be with modern equipment.

[This message has been edited by gct29 (edited 04-15-2002).]

---

From what I understand, there are commuters that make the trek into the city from Pennsylvania.

Personally, I think the train would be worth it, even if for now it terminated at Hoboken.

Regards....

I still think that's a slow schedule, though. Even 10 stops along that route will slow things down substantially for a steam locomotive pulling heavyweights. And I'm sure the schedule was padded for deliveries (milk, mail, etc.) en route. I'd look at the schedule of a Lackawanna through train to Buffalo (Phoebe Snow?) for a more accurate comparison.

Well...how long ago was it since the old Erie main line via Greycourt, Goshen, Middletown, etc. was ripped up in favor of using the Graham Line full-time? The line used to be double-track all the way to Port Jervis, in addition to beyond to Binghamton and the rest of the main, etc. etc. into history. Of course, there were several problems that I've heard of, not the least of which being the at-grade alignment past Harriman through the centers of towns, not to mention the fact that one track was too close to a certain hotel in Goshen (Greycourt?) and trains kept scraping against one corner of the building...but the old mainline route was close to 9 miles shorter than the current route, which is the Graham Line; the other major disadvantage of the old main was the steeper grades, one going clear over Otisville Hill. (The grades of the Graham Line are far less severe, plus there's a tunnel through the mountain at Otisville...but the tunnel, like the Moodna Viaduct, is a single-track bottleneck, otherwise the Graham Line, even though it doesn't have it for most of its route, has room enough for two tracks.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by gct29:
I'd look at the schedule of a Lackawanna through train to Buffalo (Phoebe Snow?) for a more accurate comparison.

BTW--Thanks for posting that timetable. Good stuff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gct29:
Projected growth in Northeastern Pennsylvania is such that, within 10 years or so, the roads will be saturated. One could argue that the authorities should provide more road space (added lanes, new roads), but that is almost always economically and environmentally damaging, and would be tremendouslty difficult in the Delaware Water Gap, through which most east/west traffic passes.

---

I can understand that. But will trains to New York or Hoboken really help with traffic in the Poconos? How many of the cars cluttering the region's roads contain people going to points on or near the M&E? It seems to me that real estate agents, local government officials, and many people think reactivating the Cutoff will increase development in the Poconos, which can only exacerbate traffic. But others whom espouse the virtues of rail service as a means of reducing highway congestion claim it will really help. Someone has to be wrong.

Look at Morris and Essex counties. They have lots of rail and bus service. Driving through the area is still a real pain.

quote:

---

It seems to me that real estate agents, local government officials, and many people think reactivating the Cutoff will increase development in the Poconos, which can only exacerbate traffic

---

Not really...any demand for rail service is merely a symptom of something that's already happening (not a cause), in this case the so-called "river-crosser" phenomenon. Any new development won't be spurred by new rail service more than it would be spurred by adding lanes on I-80...that is, unless it's a really fast train like on the NEC...