Hello!
Does anyone know how railroads managed the coexistence of their freight and passenger lines around the years 1900-1950? I've noticed that there is a lot of resistance nowadays by the freight railroads against implementing high-speed passenger operations over their trackage-the most popular arguments I have heard include issues with scheduling and infrastructure. How were these problems dealt with back then? Are they simply coming to light now because of the higher speeds?
Thank you!
-Joe
In general the mix of traffic was very different, and also the environment. "Just-in-Time" transportation and transit time for freight was not a big concern. Before the Interstate highways transcontinental trucks were not strong competitors. Today most freight on the railroads is long haul on the main lines; in earlier times the branch lines were very active. It was not uncommon to have shipments entirely within a small region with minimal use of the busy main lines. The physical plant was designed for the mix, with lots of cheap labor to maintain it.
Today the freight traffic is mostly on the same main routes the passenger operation wants to use. Many freight shippers demand fast reliable transit time or they will switch to road carriers. For freight and passenger to coexist the capacity has to be increased, usually by adding extra tracks, either main tracks or a lot more sidings. This can sometimes be done fairly readily, but rights-of-way are limited in width and the railroad might well need that extra land for their own future freight expansion.
Economic returns are an issue. That 10,000 foot freight is bringing a good chunk of change to the bottom line. You don't want to risk losing that business by giving priority to trains that pay less well, and may even cost you money if there are problems keeping the schedule specifications.
Finally, and not necessarily leat, the liability issue is big. Potential payouts for a major accident involving a passenger train could be massive and the railroads don't want to risk having their "deep pockets" picked as a result of business they didn't particularly want in the first place.
As cx500 commented, there was not as much demand for fast freight in the first half of the 20th century as there is now–and passenger trains were generally given the right of way over freights. In the operating timetables, passenger and mail trains were usually listed as first class trains and freights were usually listed as second, or even third class, trains. Seldom was a freight superior to a passenger train--unless it were of the same class and proceeding in the superior direction (each timetable showed that movements in one direction were superior to movements in the opposite direction; e. g., trains moving north were superior to those of the same class moving south). It was possible for a train order to give a particular train the right over other trains, but usually the timetable class and superior direction showed what train was superior to another; inferior trains, of course, had to keep out of the way of superior trains. Some passenger trains were considered so important that it was not enough that an opposing inferior train be at a meeting point five minutes or so before the superior train was to arrrive; inferior trains were to be in the clear ten or fifteen minutes before the scheduled or train order time. Trains that had no schedule in the timetable were called "extras," "work extras," or "passenger extras," and they had no timetable authority, but could be given, by train order, rights over other trains.
In the fifties, railroads began giving first class status to certain freights so that they could provide faster service--and passenger trains were often delayed because of the need to move these freights faster.
Indeed, in 1971, it was common for passenger trains to be delayed by freight movements, and, when I was returning to Chicago from Portland on the City of Portland in April of that year, I was pleasantly surprised to see that we were run around an eastbound freight and commented to no one in particular that it was nice that we would not be delayed by the freight–and a lady behind me agreed. We fell into conversation--and the result of our meeting is that we still converse quite often (sometimes she calls me on an intercommunication system from upstairs, where her computer is, down to where my computer is).
Johnny
Perhaps I should have added, in my previous post, that the timetables indicated where trains were to meet or overtake and pass other trains, often with bold type for the time of day and for the number(s) of the train(s) that they scheduled to meet or pass (or be passed by). If all the trains were able to adhere to their schedules, no more information was necessary–but when have all trains been known to keep to their schedules consistently? Train orders were created by the dispatchers and sent to the engineer and conductor of each train that was affected by the necessary changes and these orders took precedence over the timetable information.
One other thing that gets overlooked about freight trains in the 'bygone' days. They were relatively short...most on the order of 3000 to 4000 feet in length and they had crewmen on both ends of the train. If the train had a mechanical malady that cause it to stop, it could be inspected from both ends of the train at the same time, and when the problem was found and resolved the person the inspected from the head end could get on and ride the caboose in the interests of expediting the movement of the train to it's next clearing point. Today's freight trains are mostly in the neighborhood of 7000 to 9000 feet in length and all crewmen are on the head end of the train. When it is stopped by mechanical problems, the train can only be inspected from the head end and if and when the problem is resolved, the person performing the inspection must return to the head end. A 3.5 mile stroll, in the middle of the night with a brakeman's lantern, on main track ballast inspecting for a myriad of mechanical issues takes time....a lot of time...time to wreck any high speed passenger schedule.
If we are EVER to have high speed passenger rail, it must be on it's own right of way and track structure. The operation of 15 & 20 thousand ton freights on track the must be maintained to the level required of truly high speed operations would put maintenance costs through the proverbial roof, irrespective of the delays for mechanical issues in the operations of those freight trains wrecking passenger schedules.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
One factor too is that many more lines were double tracked (or more) compared to now, so it was possible to run around slower freight drags with passenger trains, fewer bottlenecks. Wages for trackworkers was cheap, so mainlines were maintained to an incredibly high level compared to recent times.
SkierByTrain Are they simply coming to light now because of the higher speeds?
Are they simply coming to light now because of the higher speeds?
Higher speeds?? Keep in mind a passenger train trip from Minneapolis-St.Paul to Chicago takes several hours more now than it did in 1938....
I recall a passenger speed limit on that line slow to 90 or was it slow to 110 for a curve.
And that was done with steam, lack of nerve or fear and total dedication to the schedule to the minute. No technology in sight like we have today. MAYBE they had in cab signals to give them the room they need to knock off the 110 or whatever down to 40 or less.
In the early 20th century, passengers had the following options:
Beyond the town line freight had the following options:
Note that, for both passengers and freight, taking the train was the best, if not the only, option. Most people didn't own their own horses.
To give an idea of where rubber-tired transport was during that time, in 1919 the Army mounted a cross-country convoy of 80 vehicles. It took a day short of two months (Departed Washington, DC on July 7th, arrived in San Francisco on September 6th,) a lot of ad hoc roadbuilding and a lot of vehicle maintenance issues to complete the trip (80 vehicles started, 74 finished.) The worst-case competing freight was easily five times faster and fifty times more convenient. (To-be-president Eisenhower was one of the officers on that convoy. Later he encountered the Autobahnen. Is it any wonder that he pushed so hard for the Interstate highway system?)
Chuck
wjstix One factor too is that many more lines were double tracked (or more) compared to now, so it was possible to run around slower freight drags with passenger trains, fewer bottlenecks. Wages for trackworkers was cheap, so mainlines were maintained to an incredibly high level compared to recent times. SkierByTrain: Are they simply coming to light now because of the higher speeds? Higher speeds?? Keep in mind a passenger train trip from Minneapolis-St.Paul to Chicago takes several hours more now than it did in 1938....
SkierByTrain: Are they simply coming to light now because of the higher speeds?
To Quote LastChance: "I recall a passenger speed limit on that line slow to 90 or was it slow to 110 for a curve."
I believe that this was where the MILW crossed the EJ&E at Rondout--the passengers on the Hiawatha were not to be disturbed by a rough crossing at grade.
Somewhere in one of my books I have a pic of the "SLOW TO 90 MPH" sign at Rondout...I heard that at one time it said 100 MPH.
Interesting to think that today Minneapolis/St.Paul sees two passenger trains a day, the eastbound and westbound Empire Builders. A century ago, St.Paul Union Depot hosted around 200 passenger trains a day - not to mention all the freight traffic running past the depot too.
wjstix Somewhere in one of my books I have a pic of the "SLOW TO 90 MPH" sign at Rondout...I heard that at one time it said 100 MPH. Interesting to think that today Minneapolis/St.Paul sees two passenger trains a day, the eastbound and westbound Empire Builders. A century ago, St.Paul Union Depot hosted around 200 passenger trains a day - not to mention all the freight traffic running past the depot too.
But of course White Plains, NY, Stamford, CT, Fredericksburg, VA, New Carrolton, MD, see more passenger trains today than ever. Admittadly they are only commuter trains, but you gotta take the good with the bad.
In the early part of the century, 1900-World War I, passenger trains were a profit center. The railroads were making money on them. After WWI passenger business began to decline as cars became more common, first on short runs and eventually after WWII on long distance runs because of the airlines.. Many passenger trains kept running years after most of the passengers left just to haul the mail.
Enjoy
Paul
Prior to 1958, a lot of unpatronized locals and other trains were operated because the various state commissions wouldn't allow their discontinuance. Something about public convenience and necessity.
It is absolutely amazing that this question is posed! It really hits home that there have been so many changes in railroading in the past 25 years that for many...and too often those in the business,too...don't know and can't conceive how railroads used to operate. Neither a mainline, branchline, or shortline operation of 1950 is an old man's recollective fantasy but a reality of a forgotten past. Some of us oldsters are confused as to why you can't run "first class" passenger trains in the face of mile+ long double stacks while the youngsters of today can't figure out how a streamliner wound through and around coal drags and merchandise high ballers with speed and safety. The rules have changed, the track has changed, the rolling stock has changed, the employee and employee structure has changed, management has changed, the dynamics of the physcal structure and equipment along with the traffic have all changed so much. Would a Gould, a Harriman, a Vanderbilt or even a Shoemaker, Saunders, or Langdon recognize today's railroad business?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 It is absolutely amazing that this question is posed! It really hits home that there have been so many changes in railroading in the past 25 years that for many...and too often those in the business,too...don't know and can't conceive how railroads used to operate. Neither a mainline, branchline, or shortline operation of 1950 is an old man's recollective fantasy but a reality of a forgotten past. Some of us oldsters are confused as to why you can't run "first class" passenger trains in the face of mile+ long double stacks while the youngsters of today can't figure out how a streamliner wound through and around coal drags and merchandise high ballers with speed and safety. The rules have changed, the track has changed, the rolling stock has changed, the employee and employee structure has changed, management has changed, the dynamics of the physcal structure and equipment along with the traffic have all changed so much. Would a Gould, a Harriman, a Vanderbilt or even a Shoemaker, Saunders, or Langdon recognize today's railroad business?
Henry, I'm 78 years old and can only say "Amen" to your commentary. I can readily remember a time when railroad operations were not measured solely by their contribution to the comanies' "bottom line" as they are today. Even for a time when they were losing money, passenger trains retained their symbolism in the eyes of top management. A crack passenger train that was well maintained and ran consistently on time had great advertising value and served to convey to shippers and the general public alike that the host railroad was a well run outfit.
As a case in point I'll mention Wayne Johnston who was president of the Illionis Central in the 1940's and '50's. If the Panama Ltd. wasn't pulling into Central Station on the advertised at 8:45 am he asked where she was and the reason for the delay. His personal interest in the road's passenger trains carried down to subordinates at all levels.
Here where I live,, up until the end of passenger service around 1968, the Southern Belle and Flying Crow were still viewed with pride by all of the KCS railroaders. In its last few years of operation the Crow ran south of Shreveport as two separate three car streamliners, one going to New Orleans and the other to Port Arthur, TX. Though few passengers were riding them anymore both carried an observation, cafe lounge car in addition to their single coach and baggage/mail/express car right up to the end.
Mark
Mark, I remember reading in Trains, back when the KCS had passenger service and the MKT did not, an interchange between a MKT man and a possible customer. The essence of the conversation was that the customer gave his business to the KCS, because it was a full service road; the MKT man replied that his road was also a full service road. The customer’s response was that the MKT did not offer passenger service, so it was not a full service road.
As to the matter of not having any idea as to how passenger trains and freight trains kept out of each other's way, I remember a brief conversation with a conductor/assistant conductor on Amtrak this past spring; he had never heard of first class trains.
As to Wayne Johnston, he may have been even more passenger-oriented than Graham Claytor. He made certain that foreign-road cars and engines that ran regularly on his trains were painted the IC colors, which certainly made for a more pleasing sight.
I would hardly call Graham Claytor passenger-oriented while he was the VP-Law on Southern. He was responsible for finding loopholes in the law that allowed Southern to trim its passenger service drastically without regulatory approval. At any rate, he deserves a lot more recognition for his WW2 service as commanding officer of the USS Cecil J Doyle.
I hope the editorial staffs of Trains, but especially Classic Trains, are reading this thread closely. It outlines the genrational differences in understanding railroading as a business and as a hobby down through the generations. The major changes over the past 50 years are almost incomprhensible to the younger generation as well as to the old....today's trains ain't your daddys Oldsmobile for sure. The need for more material about how railroads operated in each of the last ten to fifteen decades in a factual rather than nostalgic way would go a long way in helping both the youngsters and the elders understand the differences in operations from one generation, decade, railroad,, etc, to the next. Weeping nostalgically for the past does not help the railfan of today to understand the yesterday of railroading nor how it arrived at today. An indepth look at a book of rules and its applications or old style Trains Magazine operations articles would be one way to go. Comparing a train and a railroad of today with one of yesterday is another idea. Much time is spent on these forums misunderstanding railroad business, railroad history, and railfanning because of these generational differences.
henry6 Much time is spent on these forums misunderstanding railroad business, railroad history, and railfanning because of these generational differences.
Much time is spent on these forums misunderstanding railroad business, railroad history, and railfanning because of these generational differences.
henry6,
I don't disagree with you, but explain, if you will, what you mean by that statement. If you could elaborate a little more, I think that would help all of us.
Rich
Alton Junction
Having experienced the railroads transition over the past 45 years from what has been described as 'Full Service' carriers to the organizations they are today.....the difference is categorized in one word 'Staggers'. Prior to the 1980 implementation of the Staggers Act, the railroads were over regulated business entities that could not make business decisions based solely on business principles. The over regulation made the almost inert when it came to seeking out business opportunities as they could not 'deal' with the shipper/consignee....they could only post a rate and watch any other carrier match the rate and then get whatever business happened to show up, no matter if the rate/business was compensating the carrier. Prior to Staggers all carriers, even the profitable ones, were not earning a return that came anywhere near covering their cost of capital; the unprofitable carriers either went away (MILW, CRIP) or got folded into ConRail, which was really expected to be a financial black hole when it was formed.
Since Staggers the carriers have been able to work with their customers to develop transportation/logistical services that fit the customers needs at prices the carriers can make a profit on. Today's carriers have near equal footing with their customers to carry on a true business relationship....where neither can be their best without the others cooperation.
In the pre-Staggers era, changes to physical plant (other than to tear it up and sell the reclaimed materials for scrap) were rare. Today's carriers are repeatedly investing in capacity enhancement projects....(yes - they may be restoring facilities that were removed 30/40 years ago, but to have maintained those facilities for the 30/40 year period that they have not been needed would have put all the carriers in red ink positions). I personally have seen more capacity enhancement projects with my carrier in the last 10 years than I saw in the 35 that preceded. Traffic markets that are putting significant return to the bottom line did not even exist when I hired out. Rail traffic will continue to evolve as time goes on.
Rich...I don't want to start a war, etc. Another thread on this same topic just got locked over on Trains. Railroading as a business is different than railroading as a hobby, although there is lots of crossovers. Plus there are differences in ages and experiences mixed with parochialisms and regionalisms. Thus you get a new railfan or a very young railfan trying to match words and wisdom with longtime historians and/or rairoaders and neither side understanding the other. With that arguements ensue. I just posted a comment or explanation on the topic about running several sections of The Twentieth Century Limited at Trains. My explanation included the use of train orders, flags, lights, timetable schedules, timetable rights, books of rules, and local railroad operations. It is a greatly different way of operating a railroad than today's NORAC rules. It is often misunderstood that NORAC rules are the successor rule to the AAR Code. Some can't fathom that the Code is no longer in existance while others can't fathom that it ever existed. Thus the misunderstandings in operations.
Historically railroads today are the result of merging, acquiring, or otherwise combining of one or more railroads which were inturn the results of earlier mergers, acquirings, and combinings. Or the result of spinoffs, abandonments, acuisitions, etc. Not knowing these histories causes confusion which often seems to lead to "misunderstandings". Some don't realize the number of books, magazines, and societies where knowledge of history and understanding of railroads are available.
Then there are professional railroaders whose perspective is much different than a non railroader. Sometimes impatience overtakes on making comments, thus misunderstandings erupt.
Some believe railroading is running trains up and down tracks. Others deeply beleive it is a business in which there is (or should be) an opportunity to earn a return on investment. Not knowing or understanding both parts of this paragraph has lead to misunderstanding.
Various levels of knowledge of (or education in) railroading business, operations and history; political beliefs, geographical location, age, a passenger or shipper or not, and a whole bunch of other things, all come into play to cause misunderstandings to occur. It is what makes the internet.
henry6 Rich...I don't want to start a war, etc. Another thread on this same topic just got locked over on Trains. Railroading as a business is different than railroading as a hobby, although there is lots of crossovers. Plus there are differences in ages and experiences mixed with parochialisms and regionalisms. Thus you get a new railfan or a very young railfan trying to match words and wisdom with longtime historians and/or rairoaders and neither side understanding the other. With that arguements ensue. I just posted a comment or explanation on the topic about running several sections of The Twentieth Century Limited at Trains. My explanation included the use of train orders, flags, lights, timetable schedules, timetable rights, books of rules, and local railroad operations. It is a greatly different way of operating a railroad than today's NORAC rules. It is often misunderstood that NORAC rules are the successor rule to the AAR Code. Some can't fathom that the Code is no longer in existance while others can't fathom that it ever existed. Thus the misunderstandings in operations. Historically railroads today are the result of merging, acquiring, or otherwise combining of one or more railroads which were inturn the results of earlier mergers, acquirings, and combinings. Or the result of spinoffs, abandonments, acuisitions, etc. Not knowing these histories causes confusion which often seems to lead to "misunderstandings". Some don't realize the number of books, magazines, and societies where knowledge of history and understanding of railroads are available. Then there are professional railroaders whose perspective is much different than a non railroader. Sometimes impatience overtakes on making comments, thus misunderstandings erupt. Some believe railroading is running trains up and down tracks. Others deeply beleive it is a business in which there is (or should be) an opportunity to earn a return on investment. Not knowing or understanding both parts of this paragraph has lead to misunderstanding. Various levels of knowledge of (or education in) railroading business, operations and history; political beliefs, geographical location, age, a passenger or shipper or not, and a whole bunch of other things, all come into play to cause misunderstandings to occur. It is what makes the internet.
This is good stuff. Thanks for taking the time to write.
Even today, freight railroads face subsidization of truck competition, which still does not begin to pay its fair share of highway maintenance expenses, let alone the loss of real estate taxes on the land occupied.
Interesting subject.
I DID NOT READ ALL THE POSTS SO I HOPE I AM NOT REPEATING SOMEONE
THE REASON FOR WHAT WAS THEN COEXISTENCE WAS
THE RAILS HAD THE NEARLY ALL THE PASSENGERS UNTIL THE LATE 194O'S AND
THE MIND SET WAS "DELAYING A PASSENGER TRAIN WAS MORTIAL SIN!"
NOW PASSENGERS HAVE GONE ELSEWHERE FOR THE MOST PART
AND FREIGHT IS KING & THE MIND SET HAS CHANGED
FUSE-
The big crushing blow to passenger train service (and which lead to the formation of Amtrak) was the USPS taking the mail off the trains in the sixties. At that time, many trains were making a small profit or at least breaking even only because of their mail contracts (which often had requirements regarding getting the mail cars delivered on time by the way).
Once that ended, suddenly hundreds of trains were now losing money. The railroads told the government to either let us abandon all these money-losing trains, or take them off our hands.
wjstix The big crushing blow to passenger train service (and which lead to the formation of Amtrak) was the USPS taking the mail off the trains in the sixties. At that time, many trains were making a small profit or at least breaking even only because of their mail contracts (which often had requirements regarding getting the mail cars delivered on time by the way). Once that ended, suddenly hundreds of trains were now losing money. The railroads told the government to either let us abandon all these money-losing trains, or take them off our hands.
Actually that is not true. Yes, it was the final and crushing blow. Yes, when the contracts ran out the trains were petitioned off. But the trains were already losing money, the automobile had taken over commuting traffic and airplanes took the long distance travelers. The trains were run until the mail contracts ran out.; the trains did not all of a sudden start losing money. As pro passenger as I am, I understand why railroads wanted to and had to get out of the passenger business when they did.
Handling people was labor intensive and expensive. For a long time it was a loss leader, an advertisement to potential shippers, a requirement or obligation of charter, a fullfullment of a the US Post Office contract. There really was little a railroad could do to get back the passenger at the time, it was time to cut their losses and go where the money was: freight. Let the government pay for the roads and airways, let private railroads take the freight and hope they could make it grow. It's a very simplistic answer, I know, but details are many, boring, and well hacked over on these pages.
George Drury observed in his his Historical Guide to North American Railroads that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was highly capricious in the matter of approving the discontinuation of passenger service. He then recounted how the ICC approved the abandonment of a well-patronized passenger train that was a stage in the Chicago to Florida route, but forbade the abandonment of a barely-patronized Milwaukee Road train on a route where there were several other competitors.
Dan
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter