Trains.com

Why was Dearborn Station so Run Down Looking?

5695 views
16 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2006
  • 776 posts
Why was Dearborn Station so Run Down Looking?
Posted by wabash2800 on Friday, October 24, 2014 1:34 PM
If I were the Santa Fe and I was running my flagship trains out of there I would have been ashamed. It had to be the worst looking station in Chicago. (I know the Santa Fe had separate facilities for servicing its trains, but its trains still originated and terminated there.) Dearborn was owned by the Chicago & Western Indiana correct? And in turn the C&WI was owned by about five trunk line RRs. Did that have something to do with it? Were there ever plans to fix it up? Victor A. Baird http://www.erstwhilepublications.com
  • Member since
    September 2006
  • 776 posts
Posted by wabash2800 on Friday, October 24, 2014 5:00 PM
Folks, I did a little research and found out the station suffered a terrible fire in 1922 and was downgraded. But one would think with the economy in the roaring twenties that this would have been the perfect opportunity to make a statement. There were plenty of famous architects out there at the time who would have been more than happy to do a make-over. Again, were there any plans for something better? Victor A. Baird http://www.erstwhilepublications.com
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,485 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, October 27, 2014 10:07 AM

CWI's owner railroads were all pretty small-time passenger operations.  This may go a long way in explaining the overall appearance of Dearborn Station after the rebuilding.  There was a modernization of the waiting room and ticket areas after WW2 but the station always seemed small and cramped.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 1,471 posts
Posted by NKP guy on Monday, October 27, 2014 10:31 AM

   Chicago is a curious town for major buildings.  I agree that Dearborn Street Station was quite run down and always seemed dark to me.  Likewise, LaSalle Street was not worthy of the New York Central; Union Station, however, was a fine PRR structure, similar to Pennsylvania Station.  Perhaps it was that Chicago had several stations downtown that mitigated the need for a huge, grand Union Station for other roads.

   But Chicago never built a large an magnificent cathedral for either the RC Church or the Episcopal Church. Notice how these two cathedrals are often the finest and largest buildings in most American cities, especially those that were significant in the 1920's.  What in Chicago compares with either St. Patrick's or St.John the Evangelist cathedrals in NYC?

   Of course it has all those important and beautiful office buildings, but when it came to railroad stations & cathedrals Chicago somehow didn't quite measure up, in my humble, narrow opinion.

   I always think of Dearborn Street Station as the place Al Capone left from on his way to the federal slammer.  

 

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Monday, October 27, 2014 11:53 AM
We must remember that Santa Fe was a tenant, not a part owner, so it had little to say concerning the appearance of the station. xxx new paragraph--That the station had a dreary appearance made it an appropriate place for Mr. Capone's departure to a dreary existence.

Johnny

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 1,471 posts
Posted by NKP guy on Monday, October 27, 2014 8:48 PM

Correction:  In NYC the Episcopal cathedral is St. John the Divine, not St. John the Evangelist.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,029 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 5:19 AM

Chicago does have at least one very beautiful and monumental church, the Rockefeller Chapel at the Universilty of Chicago.   And its 17th Church Christ Scientist is far more beautiful (andmuch better acoustically) than the Christian Science "Mother Church" in Boston.   Harry Weese was the architect, a railfan, who also designed the Washington, DC Metro Stations with their blinking platform lights on approaching trains.  Both these churches have fine organs with good concert programs.

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,052 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 5:52 AM

CSSHEGEWISCH

CWI's owner railroads were all pretty small-time passenger operations.  This may go a long way in explaining the overall appearance of Dearborn Station after the rebuilding.  There was a modernization of the waiting room and ticket areas after WW2 but the station always seemed small and cramped.

From everything that I have read, that is the exact reason that the station was always in bad shape after that fire.  Too many small owners and no large, prominent owner.  Santa Fe was strictly a tenant.

The other reason was the constant threat by Chicago political leaders to tear down the station and use the property for other purposes.  So, the station and its train shed was never the subject of modernization.

You might think that the Santa Fe would want better, more modern facilities for its eastern terminus, but a move to someplace like Union Station would not be practical because of the huge ATSF coach yard just south of Dearborn Station.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 13,793 posts
Posted by wjstix on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 11:24 AM

Remember too that in the 1920's, even before the Crash of 1929, passenger train ridership had been declining for a decade. WW2 caused a spike, but the downward trend continued soon after. Part of the reason railroads went to streamliners and diesels in the 1930's was to try to stem the downward tide of ridership. In that context, spending a huge amount of money fixing up a passenger station may not have made good business sense.

Stix
  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:03 PM

wjstix

Remember too that in the 1920's, even before the Crash of 1929, passenger train ridership had been declining for a decade. WW2 caused a spike, but the downward trend continued soon after. Part of the reason railroads went to streamliners and diesels in the 1930's was to try to stem the downward tide of ridership. In that context, spending a huge amount of money fixing up a passenger station may not have made good business sense.

 
Good point by wj about the early onset of declining ridership.
 
For me, as a visitor to all the Loop stations between trains (mostly at LaSalle) 50 years ago, the redeeming feature of Dearborn was that picture window on the shed and all the arrivals and departures. Made up for a lot!

 

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,052 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:39 PM

Dearborn Station may have been the shabbiest of the six downtown Chicago passenger stations, but only Dearborn Station and Union Station still remain in place whereas the other four stations were long ago demolished.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,984 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:23 AM

richhotrain

You might think that the Santa Fe would want better, more modern facilities for its eastern terminus, but a move to someplace like Union Station would not be practical because of the huge ATSF coach yard just south of Dearborn Station.

Rich

Santa Fe's Archer Avenue coach yard was easily accessible off of the 21st interlocking from Union Station.  It was used for a while by Amtrak for ex-Santa Fe trains until all operations were consolidated at the current ex-PRR location.  GM&O hauled their trains through 21st St. out to Brighton Park for servicing, and B&OCT hauled trains from Grand Central out to Robey St., near Western Avenue.  More likely AT&SF didn't want to fight for space with PRR and CB&Q on Union's south side.

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,052 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:36 AM

One of the many interesting points about the Santa Fe tenancy at Dearborn Station is that Santa Fe did its own switching with its own switchers, whereas C&WI switched the five owner roads with C&WI switchers. 

Santa Fe always did its own thing at Dearborn Station,so it wasn't about to share a coach yard or servicing facilities with another railroad.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 455 posts
Posted by aricat on Friday, October 31, 2014 3:53 PM

The westbound connecting times between Pennsylvania and NYC trains from New York and Santa Fe trains at Dearborn were unusually long; especially for the San Francisco Chief and Super Chief/ El Capitan. Santa Fe trains were always the leaders in the markets they served in spite of this. Was it an advantage for RI to connect with NYC at LaSalle Street? How many traveled on the 20th Century Limited then rode the Golden State?

I also feel that Burlington would not have wanted Santa Fe in Union Station even though the only market the really competed for was Kansas City- Chicago.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,029 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, November 1, 2014 3:00 PM

one could and did connect from the PRR or NYCentral trains to the RI at Englewood.

  • Member since
    September 2006
  • 776 posts
Posted by wabash2800 on Saturday, November 1, 2014 6:04 PM
I still think it would be interesting to know if any plans had been made to revitalize Dearborn Station after the fire though it sounds like a remote possibility. For example, the same architect that designed St. Louis Station, Theo Link, designed a large Wabash station with train shed for Toledo in the early 1900's, but it never left the drawing board. Chicago-Toledo-Pittsburgh traffic for the Wabash never met expectations and it soon found itself beset in financial problems with its ill fated and heavily debt burdened Wabash-Pittsburgh Terminal. Victor A Baird www.erstwhilepublications.com

SUBSCRIBER & MEMBER LOGIN

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FREE NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter