freight before passengers on mixed trains

[markpierce]

Summer 2003's issue of S.P.Trainline discussing the Imperial that when the train went from passenger only to mixed service that California law required any passenger cars to be at the end of the train, behind all the freight cars. I would like to know when this law became effective, why the law was created, and whether other states, particularly Nevada had a similar law. Because of the law the S.P. had to install a space heater in a new lightweight coach serving as the rider car on the train. I also wonder if the law would allow having a passenger car behind the locomotive (before the freight cars) if a separate caboose was at the end of the train.

[egmurphy]

Can't speak to California or Nevada law, but the only mixed train I ever rode on had its one coach just ahead of the caboose. Made sense to me, as otherwise every time the train stopped to make a pickup or setout they'd be switching the coach with the cars they were switching around.


Regards

Ed

[Anonymous]

Interesting question. I also recall there were state laws in some jurisdictions regulating mixed train equipment--and it seems to me some states required passenger cars to be carried ahead of freight cars, rather than behind.

From a safety standpoint, it definitely was preferable to handle the passenger cars ahead of the freight cars, due to the slack run-in and run-out which will be generated by only a handful of freight cars.

Current state statutes and administrative regulations are unlikely to address the issue. These laws are revised and updated periodically, and the mixed train equipment issue appears to be just a matter of historical interest.

[passengerfan]

Union Pacific ran a streamlined mixed across Kansas from Denver Train left Denver Union Stattion with power and passenger cars stopped in yard on way out of Denver and added freight cars.
C&O ran several trains with piggyback flats behind passenger cars as did IC Hawkeye

[Anonymous]

While I would not call it a mixed train, Amtrac tacks on express box cars to the end of some of there trains.

I have also seen pictures of Union Pacific mixed trains with the passerger cars (more than one passenger car) in front of the freight cars. So it could be area of the country and the period that restrictions applied.

[leighant]

Fiverings mentioned "From a safety standpoint, it definitely was preferable to handle the passenger cars ahead of the freight cars, due to the slack run-in and run-out which will be generated by only a handful of freight cars."
Yes, the slack run-in problem is true, BUT there is a safety problem when a long string of freight cars is following a coach or combine. When there is a derailment, the first car may overturn and catch in the dirt and stop, but the rest of the train keeps coming, especially if the rest of the train is making up of 50+ 100 ton cars. That's bunch of momentum. Hard to stop. Like the Energizer Bunny. Keeps on coming, keeps on coming.

[passengerfan]

Another UP example comes to mind the Butte Special ran from Butte Station as apassenger train to the yard where the freight cars were added to the last sleeping car before continuing to Salt Lake City.

[markpierce]

Many thanks for your replies, and please keep them coming!

[Anonymous]

Rock Island also added freight cars to many of their passenger trains from the mid-1960s to the end of interstate passenger service. In all the photos I've seen, the freight cars were handled behind the passenger cars, and were followed by a caboose.

[Anonymous]

Bear in mind that on some older services the passenger cars would need to be next to the loco - otherwise they wouldn't be able to connect to the steam heating system (unless the freight cars were fitted with a through pipe for this, which some probably were?) More recently the only cars that can run between the loco and passenger cars on Amtrak services are Material Handling Cars - only these (and their baggage cars) are fitted with through-wiring for the Head End Power system that supplies the passenger cars. Just a couple of things that nobody's mentioned yet!

[Anonymous]

Matt makes a good point about the heating issue. The lack of steam lines on the freight cars handled ahead of the rider coach on the Imperial trains required the SP to install oil-fired heaters in the latter cars.

Express boxcars, express refrigerator cars and container flats regularly assigned to passenger trains were equipped with steam lines, air signal lines (for communication between the passenger cars and the locomotive), high-speed trucks (in most cases) and the like, so they could be handled ahead of or behind passenger cars. Most express reefers and some express boxcars were equipped with buffers to reduce slack action.

Notwithstanding the heat pass-through and other equipment on dedicated express boxcars and reefers, there was another factor which might cause a railroad to operate passenger cars ahead of the "freight-type" cars in a train--ease of operation. If the passenger-carrying cars and the mail and express cars which might need to be "worked" at intermediate stations were placed near the locomotive, it would be easier for the train crew to pass signals to the engine crew, and more convenient for the loading and unloading of passengers, mail, baggage and express at station platforms.

Milwaukee Road's Fast Mail train No 56 often ran with 2 or 3 coaches just behind the locomotive, followed by a "working" express car staffed by an express messenger, followed by the Railway Post Office cars, followed by mail storage cars, and then by a long string of baggage-express cars, express boxcars, express reefers, flexi-van flats and the like. The last (or close-to-last) car would be a rider car for the sole use of the flagman (the other train crew members --the conductor and brakeman--would work the coaches). The rider might be a standard coach, a baggage car with a flagman's compartment or a rebuilt baggage-dormitory, equipped with an oil stove.

[reklein]

Does anyone know where I can get plans complete enough to build a model of Milwaukees little Joes?

[route_rock]

Also you have to look at buff forces. A light passenger car in front of all that weight couls casue a serious problem. Can we say toast popping up? THats why on trains of xx tonnage you usually have to have 10 loads on teh head in so the run in of slack is aganst heavy cars and not something light and easy to get moved out of place.

[jecorbett]

I have another question about a caboose on a mixed train. I believe I read somewhere about a mixed train in which the crew road in a passenger combine instead of a caboose. Which would be more typical of a mixed train, having a caboose for the crew or having them ride in a passenger car.

[egmurphy]

QUOTE: Which would be more typical of a mixed train, having a caboose for the crew or having them ride in a passenger car.

"Typical" varied form railroad to railroad. However, if you're talking about a regular coach, then I would suspect the crew would have a separate caboose to stow their gear, cook their coffee/meal, and process the conductor's paperwork. A combine serves both purposes as it can have a crew area separate from the passenger section.


Regards

Ed

[Anonymous]

Any Milwaukee Road or Santa Fe mixed trains that I ever saw had the coach or combine at the rear of the train. They had a stove on board for heat.

The Soo Line had a passenger compartment in some cabooses which were also hauled at the rear of the train.

John Timm

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Cotton Belt, and probably other roads, used a coach/caboose hybrid on their mixed trains. Its general appearance was that of a stretched caboose or an open-platform combine with a cupola and no clerestory.
My only sighting of a mixed train was on CN at Thunder Bay in 1976. It had a straight baggage car and coach behind the freight cars.

[Anonymous]

Having the coach at the end of a train with several stock cars full of (take your pick cattle/sheep/pigs) would certainly be unpleasant.

[pcarrell]

The Belfast & Moosehead Lake RR in Maine ran mixed trains. The passenger cars were always at the end of the train as it made switching easier and it gave the passengers a more comfortable ride. It was quieter sinse the loco was further away, and there wasn't as much smoke (this was obviously in the steam days an important concideration for the passengers). Heating wasn't an issue because each passenger car was equipped with it's very own pot belly stove!

[WSOR 3801]

On most of these mixed trains, there wasn't all that much traffic to begin with, and 100-ton cars would've been very infrequent (or maybe not invented yet). 40' boxcars would most likely have been the rule.