Eastern Railroad Discussion > Former PRR Low Grade Question

Good Afternoon:

When the NS gave the former Low Grade in Lancaster County, PA to local townships, did they include a provision to take the property back if traffic warrants? With some transportation observers projecting that U.S. rail traffic could double in 20 years, it seems like this would have been a prudent move.

Thank you in advance.

Provision wise I am not sure, but the Low Grade as a viable freight route does not seem like the best routing. NS would have to run down the Trenton Cutoff to Frazer then run Amtrak's Harrisburg Line to Exton where the Low Grade flys the Main Line. Then rejoin the Main Line to Atglen. (Note, technically they could build the lines seperate on the inside?) I would think the Downingtown, Martic Forge, and Safe Harbor bridges would all need a fair amount of work as well. The bigger question is how big of a traffic increase would Morrisville/Abrams require for that to happen (Which I believe is pretty slim, though). East of Reading, NS has their Harrisburg Line and the less used Turkey Path routes out of Reading to reach the Norristown area.

Technically NS did something similar this past January where 21E ran Amtrak's Harrisburg Line to Lancaster then switched onto the Columbia Sub to the Port Road.

I always admired the Low Grade engineering, especially the fly over at Whitford and the over-unders at Atglen and Frazer. (This concept is still in service at Rahway where NJT's North Jersey Coast Line splits from the NEC).

Posted from Android



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/14 19:55 by rwa14.

CSXT_8437 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good Afternoon:
>
> When the NS gave the former Low Grade in Lancaster
> County, PA to local townships, did they include a
> provision to take the property back if traffic
> warrants? With some transportation observers
> projecting that U.S. rail traffic could double in
> 20 years, it seems like this would have been a
> prudent move.
>
> Thank you in advance.

My guess would be double tracking the Lurgan before that would happen. Supposedly in the plan, according to various sources...

John R -- CP Spring
Carlisle, PA

rwa14 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I would think the Downington, Martic
> Forge, and Safe Harbor bridges would all need a
> fair amount of work as well.

Not sure about the rest, but, the bridge in Quarryville over Rt 372 is gone. Plus, I believe most of that line from Atglen to the river is now a rails-to-trails path.

reel_smooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not sure about the rest, but, the bridge in
> Quarryville over Rt 372 is gone. Plus, I believe
> most of that line from Atglen to the river is now
> a rails-to-trails path.

You're right, I forgot about the bridge in Quarryville. I believe it was a stone arch bridge? I believe all of the track from Atglen to Columbia is gone (Not positive). I know there was a fair amount of re-grading along parts of the line for the Rails-to-Trails operation. You can see this around New Providence Road. I also know the historic PRR catenary supports have been replace by Amtrak with monopoles. (IIRC, Amtrak still uses electricity from Safe Harbor via the powerlines / and catenary poles back to the NEC).

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/14 15:53 by rwa14.

The low grade in manor township was purchased from NS along with the high bridge. It is a rail trail now

I kind of remember in one of the newspaper articles along time ago about if NS would need to use the Low Grade in the future,but don't remember what was said anymore. I would think it would be great to see trains running again on the Low Grade but don't see that happening in my lifetime but would be cool to see track layed down so the guys who own those tracksters could come and run them.
On side note, I know that Manor Twp. wants to restore the trestle at Safe Harbor in the future and continue the rails to trails over to the Conestoga Township half of the trail.

John Miller
Conestoga, PA

Most RR property goes back to original owners of record, if they can find them, or becomes public property in a Rails to Trails program. I'm sur there are exceptions and I admit I cannot be totally correct on this one. From an engineering standpoint no doubt track and any missing bridges on The A&S could be rebuilt with enuf bucks. Wher it is joint with AMTK sure middle, sepearted tracks for freight could be rebuilt; there are not that many passenger trains on that route. he P&T and old Trenton branch could be rebuilt and double tracked, bucks, bucks, bucks. But the real question is, where would is the potential growth going to go?

If North Jersey forget it. The ex-Trenton Branch connects to the NEC at Morrisville. Passenger traffic , AMTK and NJT, has grown exponentially since the PC/CR era. I'm sure they would not want much, if any, freight on this line. And in North Jersey it does not connect to some of the big intermodal terminals. If going to Morrisville area, OK, but I do not see how 20% growth there warrants rebuilding the PRR. Going to Philly? I doubt itMarket isn't just big enough, and AMTK and its SEPTA tennant still have enough passenger trains they have not tried to remove one of the four tracks Paoli to Philly in the thirty years since thru freights left. As population increases so will passenger traffic because Philly's interstate road system has always been inadequate, compare to Baltimore, for instance, which is much smaller.

Conrail decided to concentrate their freight traffic on the ex RDG / LV lines from Harrisburg in the early eighties. this for several major reasons.

1. The agreements negotiated between PC/AMTK/CR gave AMTK control over the maintenance of catenary and supply of electricity on electrified routes. Probably because the majority of electrified track miles was on tracks that were to become AMTK's NEC and harrisburg Lines and branches that became seperate. I'm sue it was viewed as simpler that way. So PC then Cr had to PAY AMTK for the electricity and catenary maintenance for the freight only routes, and that was significant. And only 66 of the freight motors were relatively new (20 years old) the E44s, the rest were well worn GG1s.

2. By this time I'm sure Conrail's upper management (of which, sadly, I was not a part) saw the future of the Potomac Yard Gateway. Freight traffic had declined (for all the usual reasons...at that time. The new CSX and the 'Commonwealth' of Virginia would own most of the property at Potomac Yard, and political interests wanted it for development (Crystal City, etc). The railroads wanted the bucks for a old double hump yard that was essentially worn out, but in the most strategic gepgraphical railroad location between the Southeast and Northeast. Rember, this is washington, where politis rule, not logic. So there would be growingly less need for the electrified freight to Pot Yard, plus tunnel clearances were already an obstacle. CR started negotiations with CSX for trackage rights Philly to Pot Yard (same clearance restrictions) and joint intermodal service SE to NE (The Orange Blossom Specials). So 1 & 2 really spelled the end of electrified freight service in ex-PRR territory.

3. The A&S, P&T and Trenton Branches had very little on-line freight business. What there was could be served by a few locals, and still is, altho they are not very efficient. The RDG lines had a lot of good on-line business. And it was double track ABS with a few long sidings, and could handle 40-50 total trains a day on the 60 miles between reading and Harrisburg, and less east of there once the Allentown/North Jersey route split from the Philly route.

4. No one then, as good as they were as marketeers, could see the growth of intermodal, double stack, and the fact that carload traffic, really would not drop as fast as predicted. No one even thought of crude oil. After the Conrail takeover NS but reverse signalling and added a few crossovers to this route. It is now handling more trains than in Conrail days. Some stretches have long third tracks, and some of it could probably be triple tracked. IMHO it can withstand a significant traffic increase, for a lot less capital dollars than restoring PRR's former Low Grade, despite it's marvelous engineering.

3.

2.

I apologize for bad grammer or spelling in above, tried to fix but I was out of it before I knew it. Hope what I said was still useful.

A few corrections on the original post: Yes, freight could run the Trenton Cut-off. At Dale/Glen (near Frazer), at one time, trains had the option of accessing the Main Line or taking the P & T west to Thorndale, where it rejoined the Main Line at a famous PRR flying junction. The P & T crossed (no connection) the Main Line on a large truss bridge at Whitford, site of the famous Grif Teller painting. It then crossed the Downingtown (not Downington) high bridge. All trains followed the Main Line to Parksburg, where the A & S (Atglen & Susquehanna) branched off. The A & S joined the Port Road (C & PD) at Cres, a few miles south of Columbia The Port Road, of course, continued north to Enola.

All parts of the A & S are now owned by the Townships they go thru. Some have done nothing with them, others have developed them into very nice bike trails. The Manor Township portion from near Cres, south of Washington Borough, to the Safe Harbor trestle, has a nice stone surface, with bathroom facilities, benches, elevated viewing areas, and a caboose (not PRR, but lettered for it) on display. I have seen this portion referred to as both the A & S Trail and the Low Grade Trail.

Paul B in Downingtown

pennsypower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Downingtown (not Downington)

I missed that spelling error, I've been there enough times I should know how to spell it by now (Or proof read),Haha!

But all kidding aside, the Bridges / Viaducts on the A&S and the Main Line are something to behold. The stone arch bridge and setting out in Coatesville is one of my favorites and probably least known. Pretty much any spot on either line is superb for photography.

Posted from Android

Replying to pennsypower, rwa14 wrote, in part:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> But all kidding aside, the Bridges / Viaducts on
> the A&S and the Main Line are something to behold.
> The stone arch bridge and setting out in
> Coatesville is one of my favorites and probably
> least known...

When they built the PRR, they really did it right. Something I've always admired about that property. Long live the Keystone!

billio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Replying to pennsypower, rwa14 wrote, in part:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > But all kidding aside, the Bridges / Viaducts
> on
> > the A&S and the Main Line are something to
> behold.
> > The stone arch bridge and setting out in
> > Coatesville is one of my favorites and probably
> > least known...
>
> When they built the PRR, they really did it right.
> Something I've always admired about that
> property. Long live the Keystone!

They built their bridges to last, that's for sure.

One major difference was the way in which the firm was financed. In the 1850s-1890s, etc firms paid dividends out of earnings, and the dividend flow was important to the owners. In those days before the present income tax system, a fat dividend wasn't taxed at all. So, you bought the Pennsylvania Railroad shares with the intent to hod them for decades.

Likewise, when the company evaluated decisions, they looked at the savings and revenue flow over decades. So, some major projects like the Trenton NJ to Colonia NJ freight bypass were never built. Others, like the Conemaugh line paid back their costs quickly.

Taxes on the company and on the dividend recipient have changed that whole calculation for everyone