N & W The Norfolk and Western

[Anonymous]

nanaimo73 asketh:

"Why was the Wabash included in the 1964 merger?"

NKP had the best route east to Buffalo, but the Wabash was best to St. Louis. Plus, the Wabash was the only eastern carrier (that went east of Chicago) that had a line to Kansas City. The two routes complimented each other, and were naturals to go together. Wabash had much more automobile traffic than NKP.

Old Timer

[Murphy Siding]

The 1964 merger took in Wabash,Nickel Plate and Pittsburgh&West Virginia. It would seem that these 3 roads were not "coal roads". Was this merger done to expand the reach of N&W, or to alter the mix of traffic? Surely, these were friendly connections before the merger? At the time, wasn't N&W in pretty good shape, so that merger wasn't a neccesity, the way NYC and PRR thought theirs was? Thanks

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

The 1964 merger took in Wabash,Nickel Plate and Pittsburgh&West Virginia. It would seem that these 3 roads were not "coal roads". Was this merger done to expand the reach of N&W, or to alter the mix of traffic? Surely, these were friendly connections before the merger? At the time, wasn't N&W in pretty good shape, so that merger wasn't a neccesity, the way NYC and PRR thought theirs was? Thanks

Yes, the merger was done to alter the traffic mix of the N&W. No the N&W did not directly connect with any of the roads listed, they had to buy a section of Pennsylvania Railroad to connect to their new acquisitions. BTW both NKP and P&WV hauled and originated coal out of the coal fields in eastern Ohio.

[gemperfilm]

Jumping in here late, can't control myself. Big time N&W fan here and grew up in Portsmouth, Ohio in 60's and 70's.

The N&W had various classes of steam (and I admit I am doing some of this information sharing from memory. I do have some books for further clarification). The big 3 classes were the A, the J and the Y6b.

The A was the simple articulated dual engine freight locomotive for fast freight heavy trains and pinch hit passenger and troop trains. It is not a mallet. It was a 2-6-6-4. This loco arrived on the scene in the late 30's. Ed King's book the Mercedes of Steam is an exceellent book about the A. The last 5 made had roller bearing rods just like the J's. I believe there were 42 or 43 A's made. The 1218 is the only example left.

The J was the most famous. Only 1 remains of the 14 that were built. The best 4-8-4 built with the only close rival was the Delaware Lackawana Pocono. There was a war-baby J which was the J-1 There were 5 made 605-609. They had clunky side rides and tore the crap out of the rails. The N&W convinced the War Board to change the rods but it was close to the end of the War. After WWII the 605 - 609 were streamlined to look like their brothers. Also, the early J's at least up through 607 had spoked leading truck wheels. After 1950 when the 610-613 came out with solid leading truck wheels the other Js had there leading trucks switched over to solid. There were also the Baby J's which were in fact streamlined k class mountains. After they got the J type streamlining these 4-8-2;s were classified as K-1's.

The Y was the most numerous and confusing of the class. The Y-3 model was the longest lived. The Y-3 came out in the late 20's early 30's and were the most numerous of the Y's. Some of them were rebuilt to become Y-5's. I am not sure how many pure Y-6's there were but the Y-6's above number 2171 were Y-6b's. There is one Y-3 left in the Illinois Transportation museum and a Y-6a 2156 sitting in The St. Louis Transportation Museum.

As for diesels. The N&W started with some RS-3s then they split the next order between the RS11's and GP-9's The N&W was not fond of cab units having leased some for passenger service when they removed the J's. The N&W decided that the cab units were not good on switching so they went with passenger geeps. The main reason was management (Stuart Saunders) did not want a passenger diesel sitting up at Columbus for a whole 8-12 hours doing nothing. They needed switching power up there and decided a passenger geep could do the duties.

The N&W was the largest owner of Fairbanks Morse locomotives and it never bought one new from FM. They got FM's from the Virginian, Wabash, AC&Y, P&LE and NKP. They did not dump these units, and some FM trainmasters were active up into the mid seventies. They paired one up with the N&W bicentenial unit for an excursion in 74 or 75. Some other Trainmasters were traded to ALCO for the 628's and 630's. I believe the last C-630's came equipped with the trucks off the trainmasters because the N&W hated the trucks ALCO used.

I think I covered enough for now.

[gemperfilm]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PBenham

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

How did the N&W manage to design the A, J and Y ?
Did they get a lot of help from Alco, Baldwin and Lima ?

They most certainly did talk to the big three builders,but the builders knew that they weren't going to get any orders from N&W, so they likely did not tell them very much. But, N&W had very highly skilled design engineers, some of whom had talents equal to that available at any of the commercial builders. The performance of the As, Js and Y5/6s are all the proof one needs to prove their design engineers skills!

During the 1930's the N&W remained profitable when everyone else was hurting. This was mainly due to their coal field holdings. The President of the N&W at the time new the depression would not last forever and if the country was going to rebound it would need the railroads. The N&W wanted to keep its talent, so when other builders were laying their designers the N&W kept theirs and probably hired a few of the out of work designers from other locomotives. The N&W had been building locomotives since the late 1800's. Sure it bought some from Baldwin and ALCO, but they also had their own shop the Roanoke Locomotive Works which was later brought into the N&W fold.

There is a credible theory that the N&W kept the Pennsy afloat, because the Pennsy owned a large interest in the N&W. Pennsy was smart enough to let the N&W take care of itself and just reap the dividends. This ownership led to cooperation, especially in the late 40's early 50's when both roads experimented with each other's engines. Anyway when all the mergers and restructuring took place in the mid 60's, Pennsy had to divest its share of N&W stock and leased the Waba***o the N&W. This was in order so the infamous Penn Central could be stillborn. The Penn Central no longer had dividends to help offset its bleeding.

[gemperfilm]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by BigJim

QUOTE: if they could buy good, used steam, at pennies on the dollar, it wouldn't have worked?

Actually Murh, they did just that. They bought the C&O's 0-8-0's. They liked them so much that they went on to copy the design and the last steam engine built for a Class 1 RR was N&W 0-8-0 #244.

I figured C&O would have had at least some similar topography that would have produced similar steam designs.

N&W new a good deal when it saw one. The only role topography played with the switcher was that the C&O and N&W were neighbors.

Don't forget, N&W dieselized its shop forces with modern facilities almost 15-20 years before the first diesel arrived on property. The N&W could take a steamer just fresh off a train, and clean the fire, drop the ashes, fill up the tender, and lubricate it in about 45 minutes. It other roads 3-8 hours to do something similar. The N&W designed its facilites and locomotives for keeping the engines out on the road. They came in had their fired cleaned/ashes dropped, lubricated tender topped off in assembly line fashion. They had modern lubritoriums similar to today's jiffy lube only better. The lubritoriums were well lit and the N&W locomotives had different fittings for each type of lubrication, so no lubrication mistakes could be made. The later classes of Y's, A's and especially J's had modern self lubricating mechanisms to further reduce maintenance time. In the mid 50's the N&W's operating ratio, percentage of locomotives available and in use and profits were better than a lot of roads that had fully dieselized.

Why did they dieselize, the N&W knew its fleet was getting old. So over a period of 5 years they slowly dieselized, getting every last hour of flu life it could out of its remaining steamers before ordering more diesels.

[gemperfilm]

QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Did the N&W study electrification during the late 1950's when the merger with the Virginian was being planned ?

Both the N&W and the Virginian had short electrifications over their toughest grades.

N&W considered extending the electrification, but the economics just didn't work out
The Virginian even had 12 modern rectifier electrics Class EL-C. N&W wrecked one following the takeover of the Virginian, and then following the removal of the electrification the 11 survivors were sold to the New Haven as their model E33C most of them survived to the Conrail era.

The N&W was the only class one railroad to replace electric with steam. N&W had a stiff grade over Elkhorn mountain with one long nasty tunnel that would aphixiate the steam engine crew. In the early 50's the grade over this mountain was reduced and a new tunnel was put in place thereby eliminating the need for electrics.

When they merged with the Virginian, the N&W almost kept the Virgininian line electric. In the short term electric was cheaper, but the N&W wanted to take advantage of the Virginian easier eastbound grades and use the N&W main for westbounds. This traffic pattern played into the final economics and the lines were taken down.

[nanaimo73]

agemper-
Thanks for the posts.
Murphy and I (and probably dozens of quiet members) would certainly like to read anything more you want to tell us about the N&W.
Would you, feltonhill or Old Timer know if the N&W looked at belpaire fireboxes for their modern steam ? The PRR liked them, and was sort of a parent.

[daveklepper]

I agree with this posting comletely, and the N&W experience is one reason I can say that USA railroading switch from steam to diesel made sense. If there was any railroad that knew how to get the most out of steam technology, its was the N&W. The merger took place both to reduce it being a one-commodity railroad and also to be ina good position when other railroads merged which seemed inevitable. From what I understand, the N&W first had experience with diesels when Southern E units operated over the line during a coal strike, Bristol-Lynchburg. Then later they decided to by road switches for a branch line instead of rebuilding the line to take the weight of more modern steam power. Their experience with those diesels indicated profits would be increased if the railroad were diesilized and they set about doing so in rational and workmanlike manenr. Although orders were split, they ended up with more GP-9's then any other type (possibly more than all others put together) at the time the final steam locomotive was retired. And the GP-9's were the longest lasting. And like the B&M, they used passenger road switchers in freight as well as passenger service. The passenger GP-9's were painted red to match the coaches.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by agemper

Jumping in here late, can't control myself. Big time N&W fan here and grew up in Portsmouth, Ohio in 60's and 70's.

[:D] Thanks

[waltersrails]

I also like the old coal trains and the class J.

[Murphy Siding]

agemper: Do you mean to tell me, that with all the photos I've seen of J's, that there were only 14 built? They must have really gotten around.[:)] Much has been written about N&W being almost exclusively freight and almost no passenger trains. Yet, there were several named passenger trains in their mix. How extensive was N&W passenger service? Thanks

[Anonymous]

nanaimo73 asks:

"Would you, feltonhill or Old Timer know if the N&W looked at belpaire fireboxes for their modern steam ? The PRR liked them, and was sort of a parent."

The Belpaire firebox had its advantages, among which were having the crown staybolts all the same length. But flanging the "shoulders" at the front end made it more expensive to manufacture, and evidently N&W didn't feel the advantages offset the cost. PRR was sort of a parent, all right, but wisely didn't interfere with N&W's operating practices or mechanical policies.

Murphy Siding asks: "How extensive was N&W passenger service? Thanks."

In the heyday of passenger service, N&W had four Norfolk-Cincinnati passenger trains. In addition, there were three Southern trains that operated between Monroe, Va. (Lynchburg) and Bristol. By the time the J came along, the Norfolk-Cincinnati service had shrunk to three each way. All these trains were Pullman and head-end traffic heavy except the Powhatan Arrow. The Js were cycled in these services; if you can get hold of Prince's N&W book, the engine cycles are in there. The longest run was Norfolk to Cincinnati, 676 miles, and the cycling (as well as other factors) enabled N&W to get 15,000 miles per month out of the Js; lots of other roads in that era didn't get that much out of their diesels.

In addition, there were two trains between Roanoke and Hagerstown, and Portsmouth and Columbus; these rated streamlined 4-8-2s after WWII. There were also locals on the main line and the Bristol line, and other passenger and mixed services on branches.

Old Timer

[BigJim]

QUOTE: They had clunky side rides and tore the crap out of the rails

AJG,
I'm sure you mean "clunky rods", but, may I ask where you got the information about them tearing up the rails? I knew they had a little trouble with some rod bearings, but I've never heard of them tearing up the rails.

[rrnut282]

Didn't N&W build the J's with light-weight aluminum-alloy side-rods to reduce pounding and rail wear?

[feltonhill]

I believe there's some mixup regarding the Y3 and Y5. The Y3's were a USRA design and were not rebuilt into Y5s. The Y5 was an separate design, the first with a larger grate area and 300 psi boiler pressure. However, they were initially built with fabricated frames, which were not up to the stresses exerted by the machinery. As a result, all of the Y5's received cast frames and roller bearings. The front engines were reused on a like number of Y3's (about 9-10??). They can be spotted by the A-shaped bridge pipe above the LP cylinders. The orignal Y3's didn't have that feature.

Also the K1's were not streamlined although they were modernized over the years. The K2's were USRA heavy 4-8-2's and were streamlined just after WW2.

[samfp1943]

Old Timer, Feltonhill, agemper; If any of you could provide information. In many place in this thread is a mention of a Pennsylvania RR/Norfolk and Western tie-in, I know there was mutual ownership lthrough stock ownership, but both railroads were considered to be mechanically well operated and equiped with excelent home grown motive power. The Pennsy was considered to be "The [ Nation's] Standard Railroad" and N&W had a fine rep for its operating dept.
Question: Which railroad was the senior partner in the stock ownership area?
Question: Was this influence carried practically into the operations/mechanical area?
Question: Was there a crossin of management lines, from one road to the otrher?
Question: When the Southern Rwy and N&S merged, which was the senior partner?
Question:
The Southern employees whom I have spoken to seem to be divided on their feelings about management. Engineers and firemen seemed not to think much of management and most of the others seemed to be pro management. What was your impressions?
Thanks, Appreciate all the info on this thread. Sam

[Anonymous]

Sam asks:

"Old Timer, Feltonhill, agemper; If any of you could provide information. In many place in this thread is a mention of a Pennsylvania RR/Norfolk and Western tie-in, I know there was mutual ownership lthrough stock ownership, but both railroads were considered to be mechanically well operated and equiped with excelent home grown motive power. The Pennsy was considered to be "The [ Nation's] Standard Railroad" and N&W had a fine rep for its operating dept.

Question: Which railroad was the senior partner in the stock ownership area?

The PRR bought 39% of N&W common stock, enough for control, in 1901 and kept it until forced to divest before N&W's 1964 merger and PRR's merger with NYC. During that period, N&W paid PRR $408,000,000 in dividends (that's almost half a BILLION dollars), not missing a dividend even during the Great Depression. Therefore, a good case can be made that N&W paid for PRR's status as the Standard Railroad of the World. One can also make the case that N&W's dividends helped keep PRR afloat; it was going under anyway, but after it was cut off from N&W's money, it went faster.

Question: Was this influence carried practically into the operations/mechanical area?

PRR exercised negligible influence on N&W's operations or mechanical policies. It was interested in the money, and didn't mess with N&W's ability to make it. This is the second smartest action PRR ever took; the smartest was to buy the N&W stock and keep it.

Question: Was there a crossin of management lines, from one road to the otrher?

No. There were PRR people on N&W's BOD and Director's meetings were held in Philadelphia, but there was no cross-movement of managers.

Question: When the Southern Rwy and N&S merged, which was the senior partner?

N&W was by far the most wealthy partner.

Question:
The Southern employees whom I have spoken to seem to be divided on their feelings about management. Engineers and firemen seemed not to think much of management and most of the others seemed to be pro management. What was your impressions?

Don't have any input, except that Southern's management didn't like or understand N&W's way of marketing coal; they ignored the fact that that was a great factor in N&W's profitability over the years; it made them several billion . . . Southern folks were hipped on running unit coal trains, but N&W didn't have any customers that could receive coal in that manner.

Thanks, Appreciate all the info on this thread. Sam"

Old Timer

[beaulieu]

The Pennsy's reputation was made by the end of the Samuel Rea era. He was the one who bought the N&W stock. The leaders that came after him were fair to poor and the railroad started sliding. W. W. Atterbury was a decent leader. Those after him allowed the property to run down. Symes was more socialite than railroader. Saunders was the last Chairman of Pennsy, when he became Chairman of Penn Central he lost control of the company and you know what happened.

[ValleyX]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Sam asks:

"
Question:
The Southern employees whom I have spoken to seem to be divided on their feelings about management. Engineers and firemen seemed not to think much of management and most of the others seemed to be pro management. What was your impressions?

Don't have any input, except that Southern's management didn't like or understand N&W's way of marketing coal; they ignored the fact that that was a great factor in N&W's profitability over the years; it made them several billion . . . Southern folks were hipped on running unit coal trains, but N&W didn't have any customers that could receive coal in that manner.

Thanks, Appreciate all the info on this thread. Sam"

Old Timer

You're not often going to find T&E people who will profess to be fond of management, that would be across the board, whether you're talking to N&W people, UP people, MP people, SP people, C&O people, B&O people, etc, etc. If you talk to N&W T&E people about this merger, you'll get an opinion diametrically opposed to the opinion you would get from Southern T&E people. I would say that is true systemwide and you would also get a lot of opinion from hearsay and second-hand information, we're far enough away from that 1982 event that I have to wonder what the percentage of the total employees are that worked for either Southern or the N&W.

[Murphy Siding]

I'm re-reading The wreck of the Penn Central, by Peter Binzen. The history that leads up to the PC mess is quite interesting. Among other things, it's mentioned, that in 1895, a total of 169 railroads with 37,855 miles of track were in receivership. Included were: B&O, NP,UP, Erie,SF Reading, and Norfolk & Western! That surprised me. I knew that the country went into a depression in 1893, but never knew that N&W went through receivership.

[waltersrails]

I got a real cool athrean coal car it says virgian on it then right on top of it it says Norfolk Western. it real cool.

[ValleyX]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

I'm re-reading The wreck of the Penn Central, by Peter Binzen. The history that leads up to the PC mess is quite interesting. Among other things, it's mentioned, that in 1895, a total of 169 railroads with 37,855 miles of track were in receivership. Included were: B&O, NP,UP, Erie,SF Reading, and Norfolk & Western! That surprised me. I knew that the country went into a depression in 1893, but never knew that N&W went through receivership.

That's when the Norfolk and Western Railroad became the Norfolk and Western Railway.

Virginian hopper with Norfolk and Western written over top of it? As in above it? Never saw one like that, it is not authentic, remember seeing newly repainted Virginian hoppers that, at the right angle, you could still see the Virginian underneath the black paint.

[Anonymous]

beaulieu sayeth:

"Saunders was the last Chairman of Pennsy, when he became Chairman of Penn Central he lost control of the company and you know what happened."

Saunders never really had control. There was no control to be had; each of the two factions were determined not to let the other dominate. Saunders had no real administration experience; he was a lawyer and a merger architect, as noted earlier. When he was on the N&W he could depend on his managers to run the railroad efficiently for him. At PC he had no managers who were interested in doing anything but fighting with each other.

It took the formation of Conrail under USRA (not the WWI one, but the 1970s one) to get the railroad shaped up and everybody pulling in the same direction. Anybody who wants to take Saunders to task for the failure of PC after he took over needs to let us know what administrator, available at the time, could have done any better.

PC was a catastrophe waiting to happen, and with the ICC and everything else going on at the time, it didn't have a chance. And don't let the partisans fool you; neither NYC nor PRR could have made it on their own. Too much railroad, too little business to support it, too many employees to run it. It took USRA and the changes in regulation that came with it, and the abandonment of a lot of redundant track, to make any difference.

Old Timer

[SALfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

ook the formation of Conrail under USRA (not the WWI one, but the 1970s one) to get the railroad shaped up and everybody pulling in the same direction. Anybody who wants to take Saunders to task for the failure of PC after he took over needs to let us know what administrator, available at the time, could have done any better.

You have a good point. My guess is that even the redoubtable D. W. Brosnan (Southern) would have had his hands full trying to run PC. It sure would have been interesting to watch, though; someone once said of Brosnan, "There was no status quo with him - you either moved up or moved out". My guess is that those managers from the NYC and PRR camps who refused to work together would have been booted out, quickly.

Not to point the thread in a different direction, but from what I've gathered the NYC management team was better than that of PRR. Is that accurate?

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

beaulieu sayeth:

"Saunders was the last Chairman of Pennsy, when he became Chairman of Penn Central he lost control of the company and you know what happened."

Saunders never really had control. There was no control to be had; each of the two factions were determined not to let the other dominate. Saunders had no real administration experience; he was a lawyer and a merger architect, as noted earlier. When he was on the N&W he could depend on his managers to run the railroad efficiently for him. At PC he had no managers who were interested in doing anything but fighting with each other.

It took the formation of Conrail under USRA (not the WWI one, but the 1970s one) to get the railroad shaped up and everybody pulling in the same direction. Anybody who wants to take Saunders to task for the failure of PC after he took over needs to let us know what administrator, available at the time, could have done any better.

PC was a catastrophe waiting to happen, and with the ICC and everything else going on at the time, it didn't have a chance. And don't let the partisans fool you; neither NYC nor PRR could have made it on their own. Too much railroad, too little business to support it, too many employees to run it. It took USRA and the changes in regulation that came with it, and the abandonment of a lot of redundant track, to make any difference.

Old Timer

What possessed Saunders to leave the N&W, which must have been a good gig, and go to NYC,which he must have known had some problems on the horizon?

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

beaulieu sayeth:

"Saunders was the last Chairman of Pennsy, when he became Chairman of Penn Central he lost control of the company and you know what happened."

Saunders never really had control. There was no control to be had; each of the two factions were determined not to let the other dominate. Saunders had no real administration experience; he was a lawyer and a merger architect, as noted earlier. When he was on the N&W he could depend on his managers to run the railroad efficiently for him. At PC he had no managers who were interested in doing anything but fighting with each other.

It took the formation of Conrail under USRA (not the WWI one, but the 1970s one) to get the railroad shaped up and everybody pulling in the same direction. Anybody who wants to take Saunders to task for the failure of PC after he took over needs to let us know what administrator, available at the time, could have done any better.

PC was a catastrophe waiting to happen, and with the ICC and everything else going on at the time, it didn't have a chance. And don't let the partisans fool you; neither NYC nor PRR could have made it on their own. Too much railroad, too little business to support it, too many employees to run it. It took USRA and the changes in regulation that came with it, and the abandonment of a lot of redundant track, to make any difference.

Old Timer

What possessed Saunders to leave the N&W, which must have been a good gig, and go to NYC,which he must have known had some problems on the horizon?

Murphy, Stuart Saunders went to the Pennsylvania RR (Pennsy) not the New York Central (NYC).

Old Timer, I agree that the Penn Central was likely to fail, it became a certainty with the inclusion of the New Haven. I do think that Saunders should have made a choice much earlier regarding who was going to lead the railroad and end the infighting. The chairmanship of the Pennsylvania RR is the key to high social standing in Philadelphia Society and I believe that this is what Stuart Sunders wanted and why he left the N&W. But he also allowed through poor oversight things like the Executive Jet fiasco to happen.

As to which company had better management you only have to look at how many people from each company's upper management went on to have successful careers after PC. Al Perlman went to Western Pacific and turned it around. Mike Flannery went with Perlman to WP and later was VPO of Union Pacific. Harry Bruce went on to become CEO of Illinois Central RR, Wayne Hoffman became Chairman of Tiger International which merged with Federal Express. Earlier Perlman rescued John Barriger's career from languishing and made him President of the P&LE.

[Anonymous]

Murphysiding asketh:

"What possessed Saunders to leave the N&W, which must have been a good gig, and go to NYC,which he must have known had some problems on the horizon?"

Simple. He wanted to be head of the largest railroad in the world. He made it there. It wasn't to his liking, though. Perlman was generally recognized as being a fine manager as has been noted, but he wanted nothing to do with the merger or Saunders. I don't know if that was Saunders' doing or Perlman's, but in either case it was a waste of Perlman's talent. It still wouldn't have saved the day, though.

There's a good point about Brosnan; the trouble with him would have been that by the time he got finished firing everybody there wouldn't have been enough of them left to run the railroad. A lot of the people he fired on the Southern didn't stay fired very long; the people he'd have fired off PC would have stayed fired.

The comment has been made about the side rods on the J. They were made of a lightweight alloy known as "Timken High-Dynamic Steel" (no aluminum); the steel was provided by Timken and the rods manufactured in Roanoke Shop. The first five Js were equipped with it but for the six wartime engines it was not available, hence the wider "clunky" looking rods. They were replaced with the Timken rods when rebuilt and streamlined after WWII. The biggest problem with the wartime rods was that the War Production Board did not allow them to be equipped with roller bearings; they had standard brasses, which weren't up to the job. But neither the wartime rods or the others produced the effect of being hard on the track. Of course, the last three Js were built with the Timken Alloy rods. The only N&W engines that were hard on the track were the ten K-3 4-8-2s of 1926.

Old Timer

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu

Murphy, Stuart Saunders went to the Pennsylvania RR (Pennsy) not the New York Central (NYC).

Duh! I must have been asleep at the key board.[:I]

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

• Reply