Eastern Railroad Discussion > NS vs CSX North Jersey to Chicago Question

Good Morning:

What is the distance from North Jersey to Chicago on NS and CSXT? I know this has been posted before (cannot find it). Even though the NS route is shorter, but are they really that competitive against CSXT's Water Level Route? Seems like CSXT would just have to raise the speed if they wanted to be even more competitive in this lane.

Thank you in advance.

This is essentially the same comparison as the old rivalry between the PRR and NYC passenger trains. The NYC is longer but faster.... at least until EHH is finished with it, then it may just be longer.

The real question is how much would NS have to invest in NJ to Binghamton to make that route competitive. Binghamton to Chicago is in good shape once the Portageville Bridge is open. EL did well with UPS on this route despite EL's struggles.

I am not sure how the "new" NYSW route on east end (versus the former EL route) is connected to CR shared assets. Or can be connected.

The former Erie line via Port Jervis connects directly into Croxton yard, and into the North Jersey terminal.

Opinions vary on how much it would cost to make the 200 mile line to Binghamton a 50 mph run all the way.

Posted from Android

How fast is the route via Harrisburg? Can it be improved?

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The former Erie line via Port Jervis connects
> directly into Croxton yard, and into the North
> Jersey terminal.
>
> Opinions vary on how much it would cost to make
> the 200 mile line to Binghamton a 50 mph run all
> the way.
>
> Posted from Android

You really only need to deal with the 130 miles between Port Jervis and Binghamton. East of Port is in good shape.

CP4743 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> I am not sure how the "new" NYSW route on east end
> (versus the former EL route) is connected to CR
> shared assets. Or can be connected.

NYSW(actually sub CNY) leases the Erie east of Binghamton for some ridiculous amount, like a $1/yr. But I do believe that NS retains trackage rights and or the option to cxl the lease. The line is 25-40mph, I don't have a timetable, west of Port Jervis and east is combo of MN/NJT and that is good for 60mph all the way to Croxton and thus Shared assets. The problem with this line is NJT who dispatches the whole line from Port east, they will stab a freight train for hours and rarely under CR did they budge. One of the largest theft area on all of CR was Port Jervis because NJT would park a stack train stretched back through the old Port Jervis yard and thieves picked up the pattern. The reason I am mentioning this is NYSW gets off the Southern Tier just east of Campbell Hall NY at a place called Hudson Jct and runs south on the old LHR to NYSW proper at Sparta Jct then east to all the way to Little Ferry and a connection with CSAO at the east end of Croxton. Using this route trains from Chicago east made Little Ferry on a schedule of like 28 or 30hrs wonder how that compares to the water level or the middle division.

pal77 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CP4743 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >
> > I am not sure how the "new" NYSW route on east
> end
> > (versus the former EL route) is connected to CR
> > shared assets. Or can be connected.
>
> NYSW(actually sub CNY) leases the Erie east of
> Binghamton for some ridiculous amount, like a
> $1/yr. But I do believe that NS retains trackage
> rights and or the option to cxl the lease. The
> line is 25-40mph, I don't have a timetable, west
> of Port Jervis and east is combo of MN/NJT and
> that is good for 60mph all the way to Croxton and
> thus Shared assets. The problem with this line is
> NJT who dispatches the whole line from Port east,
> they will stab a freight train for hours and
> rarely under CR did they budge. One of the
> largest theft area on all of CR was Port Jervis
> because NJT would park a stack train stretched
> back through the old Port Jervis yard and thieves
> picked up the pattern. The reason I am mentioning
> this is NYSW gets off the Southern Tier just east
> of Campbell Hall NY at a place called Hudson Jct
> and runs south on the old LHR to NYSW proper at
> Sparta Jct then east to all the way to Little
> Ferry and a connection with CSAO at the east end
> of Croxton. Using this route trains from Chicago
> east made Little Ferry on a schedule of like 28 or
> 30hrs wonder how that compares to the water level
> or the middle division.

Port was a crew change on Conrail. It is not for the NYS&W and it was not for NS when they​ ran 24Z/25K and 46/47T.

Posted from Android

So there is a good connection between the NYSW and Shared Assets at Little Ferry if NS did not want to deal with NJT when using the former EL?

The NYSW routing is pretty slow on Suskie track, too.

NJT was adamant on a wide window against NYSW movements. Used to be no movements up the hill for two hours before an NJT move.

I wonder if they would offer better terms for a very high hp to ton ratio?

Posted from Android

CP4743 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So there is a good connection between the NYSW and
> Shared Assets at Little Ferry if NS did not want
> to deal with NJT when using the former EL?

The connection at Little Ferry is NYSW to CSX, I believe. There are other connectors at Saddle Brook, Hawthorne, and Croxton .

Posted from Android

NYS&W is not a viable route too long! your adding over 4 more hours.
If NS wanted to really run this way they would have!
Plenty of capacity on the Middle Division!!

yooperfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chicago to Manhattan via the old NYC was about 961
> miles, on the PRR about 908. Of course the current
> routes are somewhat different, but the difference
> is probably still about the same. When NS got half
> of Conrail they considered moving some NJ
> intermodal trains via the old EL east of Buffalo.
> But the Harrisburg route was faster and had much
> more capacity. I don't see where that has changed.

CSX got a higher percentage of the North Jersey intermodal than anticipated. NS didn't undermine the already cut rates so the need to route over the Erie was eliminated.

The Middle Division was never the issue. It was capacity across New Jersey.

Posted from Android

NYSWSD70M Wrote:

> The Middle Division was never the issue. It was
> capacity across New Jersey.

Which has been long addressed with double track in Conrail Shared Assets, the addition of 2 passing sidings in NJ on NS, bi-directional signaling on the Lehigh Line between Allentown and Easton, and soon-to-be-activated bi-directional signaling on the Reading Line. If they need any more speed, it would be cheaper and easier to upgrade NJ to Harrisburg to 60 MPH from its current limit of 50. Any thoughts of the Tier being upgraded are pipe dreams. It isn't going to happen.

Even in the CR days, when a train such as MAIL-8 had to be rerouted via Buffalo and Selkirk due to a derailment, the transit times Chicago to North Bergen were comparable.

bioyans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NYSWSD70M Wrote:
>
> > The Middle Division was never the issue. It
> was
> > capacity across New Jersey.
>
> Which has been long addressed with double track in
> Conrail Shared Assets, the addition of 2 passing
> sidings in NJ on NS, bi-directional signaling on
> the Lehigh Line between Allentown and Easton, and
> soon-to-be-activated bi-directional signaling on
> the Reading Line. If they need any more speed, it
> would be cheaper and easier to upgrade NJ to
> Harrisburg to 60 MPH from its current limit of 50.
> Any thoughts of the Tier being upgraded are pipe
> dreams. It isn't going to happen.
>
> Even in the CR days, when a train such as MAIL-8
> had to be rerouted via Buffalo and Selkirk due to
> a derailment, the transit times Chicago to North
> Bergen were comparable.

Agreed. I never said it would happen. I just pointed out what it would take.

Posted from Android