Susquehanna Operations and
Facilities at Hanford, NJ Part 1
by John Deserto
M&U 4-4-0 #6 is resting
here in Hanford at M&U Jct. after dropping her load of cars bound for the
NYS&W. One of the unique Hanford Branch mileposts can be seen behind the
tender. This shot was taken late in the #6's career on the M&U as the
"pinwheel" has already been mounted on the smokebox. M&NJRHS archives
In the
Fall of 1913 the eyes of the world focused on the increasing tensions
between the Great Powers of Europe, within a year the greatest human
catastrophe up to that point in history would be unfolding. Scant attention
was paid to the courtroom drama between the New York Susquehanna and Western
Railroad and the bondholders of the paper railroad, Middletown, Unionville
and Water Gap. When the Erie had purchased control of the Susquehanna
Railroad in 1898 it had also assumed all of the Susquehanna's debts. Part of
this debt was the two mortgages and a costly lease on the Middletown,
Unionville and Water Gap Railroad which formed the final 14 mile leg of the
lucrative Middletown Branch of the Susquehanna that stretched north from
Beaver Lake, New Jersey to Middletown, New York. The Erie had defaulted on
the 1909 and the 1911 mortgages forcing the MU&WG bondholders to foreclose
on the property. This legal battle took several years, but on September 8,
1913, the bondholders were able to purchase the old MU&WG from the
Susquehanna for $75,000. (For more information on the M,U&WG see Volume 2,
#2-4). This new railroad was named the Middletown and Unionville and ran
approximately 14 miles from the New York - New Jersey border north, less
than a mile, through Unionville, New York, to Middletown, New York.
Instantly the piece of Susquehanna trackage clinging to the side of a ridge
through Hanford, New Jersey on the border with New York took on a much
greater role as the new terminus of the recently renamed Hanford Branch.
Hanford also became one of the main battlegrounds between the
Erie and the M&U. M&U General Manager J.A. Smith mentions several references
to the Erie and S&W trying to run the new railroad out of business in order
to regain this 14 mile connection between the two at a bargain bankruptcy
price without the expensive lease agreement. While no written evidence has
been found from the Erie or S&W on this matter, the actions of these two
railroads when dealing with the M&U seemed designed to put the maximum
financial pressure on the fledgling railroad for over a decade.
This article is an off shoot of the "Unionville Engine
Facilities" article that Lee Steele and I wrote, Volume 4 #2, and
information concerning the Middletown and Unionville's activities in this
area are detailed in it. In the course of researching that article a number
of questions became obvious as well as a good deal of information concerning
the S&W's operations and facilities at Hanford. I hope to answer some of
these questions, raise others and generally illuminate all the information
about Hanford Jct. that has been collected so far.
Hanford by any other name would still be State Line
A brief word about the name of this location is in order. The
local place name of this area was originally Hanford, the locals being the
handful of people living in this area, (many of whom are named Hanford). It
was also known and referred to as State Line by the railroads, this being a
more descriptive and precise name for this point. Officially, the point
where the Middletown and Unionville Railroad interchanged with the
Susquehanna Railroad was known as M&U Junction. In this article I use the
name Hanford the most often but will also slip in State Line and M&U Jct. to
help confuse readers. In letters, timetables, waybills, legal documents etc.
from both of the railroads, all three of these names are used in reference
to this area. Presently, this area with the addition of the town of Sussex
is known as the Township of Wantage. Non-railroad people at the Sussex
County Hall of Records will look at you funny if you mention any of the
three railroad names.
Opening Day Jitters
While most railroads evolve from the construction phase into
the operational phase, the M&U had to hit the ground running, serving all
the passenger and freight customers between Middletown and Unionville that
the Susquehanna had formerly had. An engine, freight and passenger cars
needed to be purchased, timetables setup, on line shippers had to be
contacted, crews and agents hired, even forms and tickets needed to be
printed, all before the big day. Prior to the December 1, 1913 start-up of
M&U operations, M&U General Manager J.A. Smith negotiated a deal with the
Erie RR for the two roads to share car inspectors at Middletown and
Unionville. In the agreement dated Dec. 5, the Erie would provide the
inspector for the M&U's "DG" yard in Middletown for which the M&U would pay
$25 per month. Conversely, the M&U would provide the Unionville inspector
and the Susquehanna would pay half of this inspector's expense. Mr. H.S.
Elmer was employed by the M&U to fill the Unionville inspector's position.
Elmer's reports concerning the operations of the S&W around Unionville/M&U
Jct. serve as a basis for this history.
While this car inspector deal seemed to signal a cooperative
attitude between the S&W (Erie) and the M&U, the real sign of things to come
was the scorched earth policy the S&W undertook when vacating the M&U's new
property. The S&W refused to turn over maps of the right-of-way and
associated properties and any engineering data on the line. The neglected
state of the bridges under S&W ownership was of particular anxiety because
the engineering data would be needed in order to decide how best to maintain
or replace them. All of the records from the stations along the line were
removed so the M&U agents and managers had no idea of the business situation
with any of their new customers. Finally, absolutely every removable bit of
material was taken, from the freight house in Middletown to the tools, ties
and even extra spikes. The Grinch left more in Whoville than the S&W left
for the M&U!!
While the M&U had purchased a second hand engine, several
passenger cars and milk cars, only one coach was delivered in time for the
M&U's opening day and this left General Manager Smith in a bind. He quickly
made arrangements with the Susquehanna to lease their #126, a 35 year old
former Erie camelback consolidation which was in very poor condition. By
December 6th the M&U crew was fed up with the leaky S&W engine and General
Manager Smith again arranged with the S&W for replacement. The S&W replaced
the #126 with the #38, a former Erie camelback 10-wheeler that was if
anything worse than the original engine. The #38 was only 17 years old but
was also very leaky and had a small switcher tender to boot. The net result
being that this engine needed water at both ends of its 14 mile journey
between Middletown and Unionville. M&U General Manager J.A. Smith noted that
even this moderately kind act by the S&W was tainted by the fact that S&W
managers threatened to take back the engine, leaving the M&U literally
powerless unless the M&U allowed the S&W free access to Unionville. This
threatened blackmail collapsed when the O&W delivered the M&U's own engine
and the M&U signed a deal with the O&W to lease their engines at anytime for
$10 per day. (For more on this arrangement see Peter Brill's article in
vol.1 #3) The Susquehanna's mail car #52 from train #903 was run through to
DG yard in Middletown to protect the mail contract because the car that the
M&U had purchased had not been delivered yet and the PRR replacement car had
been rejected by postal authorities as too small. This run through operation
continued until the M&U's own wayward car arrived on February 23, 1914. The
whole situation with the engines caused M&U General Manager Smith to note
that the S&W was just playing horse with them. This was the type of
relationship the two companies would have and it usually played out in the
Unionville - Hanford area.
S&W #27, former Erie #896,
taking water on 9/4/1916. This engine made infrequent visits to Hanford over
the years. Slide from the Ray Brown Collection.
As
mentioned in the Unionville article, when the M&U began operations, the
interchange between the M&U and the S&W occurred up in Unionville, not at
Hanford. The Susquehanna kept up a lively schedule of six 1st class trains
that traveled to and from Unionville. J.A. Smith requested that the joint
M&U - S&W car inspector at Unionville, Mr. H.S. Elmer, make a report to him
about the S&W's use of M&U trackage, facilities and interchange traffic at
Unionville presumably for negotiations with the S&W concerning trackage
rights and joint facilities use. This report serves as a basis for the
following abridged table and provides interesting insights into the S&W's
operations in and out of Unionville. As the whole report covered hundreds of
engine movements and would take over 30 pages to reproduce here I have taken
the liberty to present an abridged version here. The two days shown were
picked because the NYS&W Train Register showed all the trains and crews,
they were very average days and Mr. Elmer's report listed the car numbers
for the trains that day.
Abridged List of S&W
Trains into Unionville NY
This
abridged report shows the daily ebb and flow of S&W first and second class
trains into Unionville and later Hanford Jct. in December 1913 and January
1914. It is interesting to note that crews and engines seemed to stay close
together during this time on the Susquehanna, and the same engineers and
conductors were paired even closer together. The whole report detailed only
the two months of S&W operation into Unionville because the M&U was
collecting data so they could bill the S&W for using their terminal. In
February of 1914 the S&W stopped crossing the state line into New York and
forced the M&U to interchange freight, express and baggage at the newly
created M&U R.R. Jct. in Hanford New Jersey. It seems a safe assumption to
believe that this same operational pattern of S&W trains continued unchanged
after this move to Hanford.
The S&W had the engine from the previous evening's west bound
train #907 lay over in Unionville and later Hanford until it powered the
next morning's east bound train #904. The engine that routinely did this was
#10, a former Erie 4-4-0 built in 1896 by the Erie's Susquehanna, PA shops.
After powering the evening passenger train up the branch the engine would
run light backwards over 14 miles to Franklin Jct. then return to Unionville
or Hanford, again backwards but facing the right direction for the next
morning's passenger train. This operation was due to the lack of Susquehanna
turning facilities in Hanford until 1917. The M&U completed a wye in
Unionville in February of 1914 but the Susquehanna refused to use it,
preferring the 28 mile round trip in reverse. The NYS&W was likely planning
on running the M&U out of business and returning to their original
operations which didn't need any facilities in Hanford or Unionville.
The consist behind the #10 on trains #904 and #907 was also
very stable, with Erie baggage car #622, and S&W coaches #139, #144 and #150
being the regulars on this morning and evening passenger train. Trains #904
/ #907 were the only Hanford based round trips, all the rest of the trains
were round trips based out of Beaver Lake, at the base of the branch. This
service must have been very hard on the engines because there was no shelter
for them in Hanford that we currently know about.
Mr. Elmer, the Joint Car Inspector recorded the first and
second class trains into Unionville but the extra freight trains
interchanging between the two roads are much harder to understand. The power
for train #72, the scheduled eastbound daily local freight, came extra west
the evening before, and left in the early morning. It is currently unknown
if this engine ran light or brought cars with it. On several instances an
engine (usually the #89) would appear in Unionville as an extra west or be
noted as taking water in Unionville but would not be shown as power for
anything eastbound. Since there is no mention of these engines continuing
their westward journey over the M&U to Middletown it is presently assumed
they powered an extra local back eastward which was not recorded by Mr.
Elmer. The quantity of non-milk related interchange is difficult to judge
due to this. The daily eastbound freight #72 was cut back to three days per
week by the S&W with no notice to the M&U. This occurred on April 3, 1914
and caused the M&U a great deal of anxiety. This meant more delays to
shippers along the M&U. By April 1921 the way-freight operated out of
Hanford on a daily basis again and the amount of less-than-carload traffic
from M&U shippers warranted the M&U to increase its three days a week LCL
car to the S&W back to daily.
The milk trains were the bread and butter of the Middletown
Branch and continued to be a major money maker for the new M&U, 33% of all
revenue in 1914. The look of the S&W's milk train differed little after the
cutback of the line to the state line. Most of the milk cars were the
Susquehanna's 800 series milk cars and Erie 66000 series milk cars with a
few bright yellow M&U 200 series milk cars sprinkled in. The power on milk
train #901 came up in the morning, dropped the empty milk cars, then backed
down to Franklin and returned to Unionville or Hanford to collect the loaded
milk cars and then returned as train #908 in the afternoon. The power for
the milk train was usually engine #32, a former Erie 10-wheeler built in
1891. Most of the empty milk cars interchanged with the M&U were loaded and
returned that day with only a few showing up on the next day's eastbound
#908.
The "mail train" had the smallest consist of all the regular
trains and for a short time enjoyed a unique run through car. The power on
mail trains #903 and #906 was usually engine #24 which was an original
Susquehanna 10-wheeler. It passed postal car #52 on to the M&U around midday
then after the mail car was received back from the M&U, powered the mail
train back down. In between the #903's arrival in Unionville or Hanford and
the departure of #906, engine #24 would also make the 28 mile reverse round
trip to Franklin to face the right way for its eastbound journey. The
consist behind the #24 was very stable, S&W postal car #52, and S&W coaches
# 141 and 145.
S&W 4-4-0 #6 was a sister
to S&W #10 that laid over in Hanford to protect the morning east bound
passenger train. This was the Erie #367. Slide from the Ray Brown Collection
Interchange
The S&W use
of Unionville as their terminal lasted only two months as on January 30,
1914, the S&W finished a 900' long transfer siding and provided a boxcar
station 200 feet south of State Line. This station, named M&U Jct. by the
S&W, became the point of interchange for their baggage, express and freight
traffic with the M&U. Passengers still used the established and more
comfortable M&U station in Unionville until March 1914. The S&W requested
that the M&U pay half of the $4,466.55 expense involved with building the
interchange track that both companies would use. The M&U quickly responded
that the bill against the S&W for using the M&U tracks from State Line to
Unionville from December 1913 to March 1914 was unpaid, as was the bill for
replacing ties in Unionville burned by Susquehanna crews cleaning their
fires on the M&U mainline. They both refused to pay the other. The S&W also
declined the M&U's desire to operate passenger equipment through between
Middletown and Beaver Lake, in particular the postal car, even though they
had already done so. This refusal set the tone for all later negotiations
between the two lines and mirrored the attitude of the S&W's parent, the
Erie, in their dealings with the M&U in Middletown. In contrast the M&U and
O&W always seemed to get along very smoothly as evidenced by the engine
leasing deal discussed in Peter Brill's article about O&W power on the M&U.
A contract dated March 21, 1914 between the M&U and S&W
stated the S&W had built and was currently operating a 900' long interchange
track 293' east (south) of State Line. The M&U would then build, within 60
days of signing, a 900' long interchange track west (north) of State Line.
These tracks would be used for the interchange of cars and transfer of mail,
baggage and express. In addition, each RR was allowed 1300' of trackage
rights over the other's line to deliver cars. This was dated April 13, 1914,
signed and notarized with a map of the M&U's proposed 900' interchange track
just west (north) of the State Line. Smith later noted that this track would
cost $1,200.00 to construct.
Whether this track went in at this time or not is
speculative, yet there is no doubt that the M&U did install "new"
interchange track in 1926. The siding was completed in late June 1926 and
had the capacity to hold six cars. It was located 400 feet west (north) of
the State Line. The 1916 ICC maps show a single ended siding at that
location. These maps were updated in 1927 with other information so it is
unclear if the siding shown is the 1914 stating interchange or the 1926
version. But, either way there is no doubt that there were two interchange
tracks at M&U Jct. one on either side of the borderline.
The operation of this interchange was not very smooth or
harmonious in the early years. The M&U's General Manager J.A. Smith
complained in October of 1914 that the S&W trains were frequently late,
causing the M&U to delay its trains in order to make the advertised
connection.
The S&W
on the other hand issued a circular on February 19, 1914 that the S&W crews
were to break the connection with any M&U train that was over 5 minutes late
with no notice to the M&U. This also included the milk trains. The routing
of overhead traffic was also changed to bypass the M&U. Coal billed to
Unionville for points south and specifically from the Pittsburg, Shawmut &
Northern to Sussex and Hamburg was all rerouted to the Erie/S&W only.
Traffic from the Lehigh Valley at Jenkins Jct., Penn. to Middletown was also
diverted away. It is of no doubt that the Erie was ultimately responsible
for this anti-M&U activity because in Smith's letter of October 19, 1914, he
notes 11 other acts of "cruelty" to the M&U by the Erie alone, including
eliminating Middletown as an M&U station on through rates and thus depriving
the M&U of its fair share of the revenue.
Deteriorating Relationships
While the M&U and S&W were embroiled in the interchange
battle the one point of cooperation between the two companies was erased. On
February 2,1914, a few days after the Susquehanna created M&U Jct., the S&W
acknowledged receipt of an M&U bill totaling $27.13 for the Unionville Joint
Car Inspector and also requested a copy of the Dec. 5 Erie/M&U car inspector
agreement. Exactly what happened next is unknown but the M&U was advised to
discontinue Joint Car Inspections at Unionville on March 2. The M&U
continued to bill the Erie for February, March and April, 1914, with each
bill being $25. When John H. Mullin, Mechanical Superintendent of the Erie
wrote to the M&U on July 1, 1914 requesting to cancel the bills, M&U General
Manager Smith fired off a letter in return stating that the S&W didn't
notify the M&U until May that they wanted to cancel the agreement and the
bills stood. Mullin wrote back that the Erie had contacted the M&U's Auditor
in early March and again requested cancellation of the March and April
bills. To this the M&U agreed. This interaction was typical of the M&U/Erie
(S&W) relationship during this period.
Hanford Station
The basic reason for Hanford Jct.'s existence was to spite
the M&U, the clearest example of this can be seen in the handling of
passenger business. For three years after its creation Hanford Jct. was just
a passing track and a boxcar which served as an agent's office. There was no
shelter for passengers waiting for trains nor were there the basic
facilities for engine service. There wasn't even a passable road that
reached the S&W boxcar in Hanford due to the steep valley wall the tracks
were carved into. Meanwhile, less than a mile up the tracks all these things
existed in Unionville, NY on the M&U. As noted in the Unionville article,
M&U General Manager J.A.Smith was desperately trying to coax the S&W into
using Unionville as their terminal or running through passenger cars in the
hopes of protecting the passenger revenue for people going to New York City
or northern New Jersey. When the S&W stopped bringing their passenger trains
up to Unionville the M&U was forced to make the passenger connection down at
M&U Junction in Hanford. The S&W train would occupy one track and the M&U
train would pull up beside it. The space between the trains was too narrow
to accommodate passenger movement on the platform so planks were placed
across the gap which the transferring passengers gingerly crossed. Obviously
not a customer friendly situation.
While M&U connecting passengers on S&W trains in the morning
and afternoon trains were inconvenienced, westbound travelers arriving in
Hanford on the S&W's evening train #907 were ignored. According to the M&U's
J.A. Smith, the Susquehanna train was frequently late, which caused the
waiting M&U train to also be late at greater cost to the M&U. The cost of a
connecting passenger train for the M&U was $250 per month. In addition, many
Unionville bound customers would only buy tickets to Hanford then walk the
last quarter mile to Cemetery Road crossing. This left only a few passengers
bound for Westtown or Middletown on the M&U train which amounted to less
than half the cost of the train in ticket receipts. Smith tried numerous
times to interest the S&W in run-through service with the M&U's passenger
cars which had just been repaired and were in "first class condition".
Failing in this, the issue of using Unionville as the connection point was
again raised by the M&U and again declined by the S&W (the bills to the S&W
for using the Hanford to Unionville section of track in December 1913 and
through till March 1914 were still unpaid). The M&U even inquired of the S&W
about making Quarryville, NJ the interchange point. This too was refused. In
response to this the M&U stopped connecting with the #907 on June 29, 1914
and the M&U's last west bound train left Unionville at 5:35 PM, two hours
before the #907's arrival in Hanford.
The result of this lack of cooperation in Hanford between the
M&U and S&W was a hearing before the New Jersey Public Utilities Commission.
Passengers disembarking from #907 in Hanford grumbled about their walk up
the tracks to the grade crossing in Unionville as there was no road into the
S&W's station at Hanford. The trek included crossing State Line Creek;
stepping on the timbers of the deck bridge over the 35-40 foot ravine.
During the summer this was done in the impending gloom of dusk, but by the
fall and winter this was done in pitch darkness with the tracks covered by
ice and snow. The sight of a mother carrying a small child across the bridge
which had no walkway or railings on a dark snowy night must have been very
disconcerting. The situation did not escape the attention of George O. Sayer,
an attorney in New York City and resident of Westtown, NY on the M&U. His
complaint to the M&U, S&W and the New Jersey Public Utilities Commission
resulted in a hearing to get to the bottom of the situation.
This hearing in the winter of 1914-1915 was just what the
M&U's General Manager J.A. Smith wanted, an impartial body with the power to
make the S&W "play nice" with the fledgling M&U. He and the M&U's lawyers
worked diligently to show the M&U's willingness to smooth out the problems
with the S&W and the lengths the S&W had gone to make business between the
two as hard as possible. The list of unpaid bills to the S&W was prepared
and the quality of the M&U's passenger equipment and its Unionville
facilities highlighted in the hope that a change in interchange points or a
run through agreement would result in a more satisfactory situation for the
passengers. The issue of engine facilities in Unionville was also raised and
the M&U pointed out the cost to the S&W of running their engines 28 miles
round-trip in reverse to Franklin Jct. to turn them not only was detrimental
to the engines' flues and dangerous to the crews running these engines but
was not cost effective. Smith noted that it cost the S&W $19.44 per day for
labor and coal to turn their engines at Franklin where the M&U was offering
the S&W the rate of $.50 per turn and $.50 per tank of water. This amounted
to $4 per day, $120 per month, and combined with the M&U's offer to give
trackage rights from Hanford to Unionville for $250 per month, it would have
cost the S&W $370 per month to use the more convenient facilities in
Unionville in comparison to the $583.20 the S&W was currently paying to turn
in Franklin. The S&W would rather lose over $200 per month to spite the M&U
than to help its own customers, crews and bank account.
The result of all the M&U's research was moot, the S&W's
lawyer successfully limited the hearing to the adequacy of the S&W's Hanford
passenger facilities. The S&W agreed to put in a road to allow Unionville
passengers to avoid walking the tracks. A station was also constructed in
February of 1915 to the south of the agent's boxcar that served as M&U Jct..
The walls of the valley flattened out somewhat in this area which eased the
construction of the road to the station. It is unknown currently if this
station was an enclosed building or a three walled passenger shelter. The
work was estimated to cost $200-$300 and included a platform. M&U trains
continued to connect with S&W trains here, except the #907 of course, whose
passengers still faced a long walk to Unionville.
Litigation
By June 1915, the bills to the Susquehanna for trackage
rights over the M&U's line between Hanford and Unionville and the S&W's use
of the Unionville station for four months from December 1913 through March
1914 were over a year old and the S&W wasn't making any moves to settle up.
The issue then went to the M&U's lawyers, Wollman and Wollman in New York
City, who decided to sue for payment on July 2, 1915. The complaint stated
that $2795 was owed by the S&W to the M&U for use of the M&U's tracks
between Hanford and Unionville during the period mentioned above. The second
amount was $3845 for occupying M&U property in Unionville (presumably the
station). The suit requested $6,640 to satisfy these bills. By May 11, 1916
the issue was settled when the S&W agreed to pay the M&U $750 to satisfy the
M&U's claim. In a correspondence to the S&W J.A. Smith of the M&U complained
that every bill to either the S&W or the Erie was challenged, changed,
partially paid or just ignored. Wollman and Wollman must have had good
clients in the M&U.
"1917: The Trench"
While America had entered World War One in April and
doughboys were beginning to experience the terror of trench warfare in
France, the Susquehanna and M&U were fighting their version in the woods of
Hanford, New Jersey. With a return to the Middletown facilities looking more
unlikely, the S&W decided to build proper turning and watering facilities in
Hanford during the summer of 1917, after three years of routinely running
backwards 28 miles to Franklin Jct and back in reverse to have the engines
of eastbound Hanford trains pointed in the right direction. This late
summer's project turned into a six year legal battle that left neither side
able to claim victory. This conflict's roots run far into both railroad's
past when the dream of the "Great Midland Route" from the Great Lakes to New
York City was still vivid. In 1870 the Oswego Midland, the predecessor of
the NYO&W, leased the M&U's predecessor, the Middletown, Unionville and
Water Gap in order to reach its sister railroad in New Jersey, the New
Jersey Midland (which became the Susquehanna). While the Water Gap ran into
Unionville a final mile of land needed to be acquired to reach the New
Jersey Midland at the State Line. The Oswego Midland purchased most of the
land needed except for two small tracts that stretched into both New York
and New Jersey. The Water Gap acquired these pieces from George Babcock on
September 5, 1870 after they were condemned. The tract actually used by the
New Jersey Midland's tracks was presumably turned over to them at some point
but the Water Gap kept title to the other tract that paralleled the right of
way to the east side.
Almost half a century passed and when the M&U became independent they also
got title to this strip of land in Hanford.
When the
Susquehanna decided in 1917 to put in a turning facility in Hanford it
seemed wise to erect a water tower to alleviate any need to use the M&U's
rudimentary watering facility in Unionville. The Susquehanna tracks in
Hanford were perched on the west side of a valley and the only water source
was a small creek down the hill to the east. Work crews arrived in Hanford
in the summer of 1917 charged to install a turntable and water tank with a
pipeline to a pumping station down in the creek. M&U General Manager Smith
got wind of this activity in Hanford and stationed a watchman on the M&U's
New Jersey land, which stood between the Susquehanna tracks and the creek.
Less than two weeks after the watchman went on duty he notified Smith that
on July 31, the Susquehanna crew had begun to excavate a trench and lay
water pipe across M&U land. This was done without any permission at all.
Smith sprung into action, taking a crew and driving down to
the scene they removed the offending pipeline. The undaunted Susquehanna
crew tried again the next day but was again repulsed, but this was just the
opening attack in a very long battle. A bill soon arrived at the
Susquehanna's office for $307.85, the costs incurred by the M&U for the
watchman, labor in tearing out the pipe, attorneys' fees, automobile hire
and assorted other costs. The Susquehanna ignored the bill.
A week later on August 8, the whole matter looked like it
would be quickly solved. Mr. Edward Carr of the Erie's District Land and Tax
office met with General Manager Smith in Middletown. During the course of
the conversation Mr. Carr admitted the error and took responsibility for it.
He also stated that the Erie Railroad (which owned the Susquehanna) would
settle the M&U's damage claim. Terms of a contract were also worked out that
day between the two men. The details are presented in a paraphrased format.
1) Stated the facts in the case about the nature of the incident and the
trespass
2) The cost of the incident to the M&U was $307.85
3) The M&U would allow the S&W to use this land if they got permission from
the M&U before they did anything
4) Paid the M&U $5 annually as rent
5) That the S&W can use the M&U's water and turning facilities in Unionville
in emergencies
6) That the M&U can use the S&W's water and turning facilities that they
were currently building in Hanford in emergencies
7) This contract would become effective August 1,1917.
Smith and Carr met again four days later at the Erie's
offices in New York City where Carr requested that the M&U's $307 bill be
slimmed down to $200 and in return the Erie would promptly pay. More than
one and a half years later the $200 bill was still unpaid. On February 7,
1919 the M&U changed the bill back to its original amount. The water tower
was presumably in place but empty as long as the pipe was not connected to
the pump house down in the creek. During this time the turntable, which was
built completely on S&W property in August of 1917 was in operation and
eliminated the 28 mile reverse light engine move to Franklin and back which
had taken 1 hour and 20 minutes on average.
Interestingly, the S&W requested to lay the pipe to the
Hanford water tank in April of 1919, only two months after the original bill
was reinstated. In the same letter they gave the M&U permission to layover
their engine at Hanford from 4 PM to 8AM. A few days after the letter from
the S&W arrived, the M&U asked the S&W if they could use the S&W's water
tank in Hanford when it became available to which the S&W had a positive
response but noted that the work would not be done at an early date. Two
months went by and the Susquehanna again contacted the M&U stating its
approval to layover the M&U's engine at Hanford and again asked permission
to lay the water pipe across M&U property (the M&U had not responded to that
question earlier). Being that the bill to the Susquehanna was still unpaid
it was unlikely that General Manager Smith would allow the pipeline to be
completed. Both railroads agreed to start the laying over of the M&U engine
in Hanford on June 15, 1919. The pipe issue was not mentioned again until it
was in the hands of the M&U's lawyers, Wollman and Wollman. Between 1921 and
1923 several correspondences have surfaced that show that the Erie had not
and probably never did, pay the M&U anything for the trespass incident and
the trench. This also means that the S&W most likely never did get water to
its Hanford water tank. In the end the battle was a draw.
The background for the M&U's request to layover an engine at
Hanford is unknown at this time, the M&U did layover their engine at
Unionville for several short periods in the 1920's. One possible explanation
could be that M&U General Manager Smith was trying to evolve a deal with the
S&W to share engine facilities at Hanford. It was fairly obvious that he had
wanted the S&W to share the use (and the cost) of the M&U's Unionville
facilities before the S&W had created the Hanford facilities. It was a great
burden to the M&U's finances to maintain the Unionville facilities alone and
a joint use agreement such as the one between the M&U and the Erie in
Middletown for DG yard would save the little railroad plenty of money.
The conclusion of this article will cover the easing of
tensions between the S&W and M&U in the 1920's, the changes brought about by
the Great Depression and Hanford Jct's use until the 1958 abandonment.
