I know that long distance trains would pass sleepers through to another railroad to continue a journey. For example, the Santa Fe had arrangements to pass sleepers through to the New York Central, Pennsy, and B&O to accomodate cross country travelers. On shorter trips, would railroads pass coaches through to another railroad or would passengers switch trains at junction points?
To get the ball rolling:
Shorter than cross-contry? Sure.
The GN at Spokane and the NP at Pasco both passed coaches over to the SP&S to go down to Portland.
This only happened for the first line trains, however. For the Western Star and the Mainstreeter, coach passengers used their feetses to transfer.
It cost railroads more to transfer a car than to let the passengers cross the platform, so they likely "minimized" the event.
Ed
To echo what Ed said: very few coaches would be switched to go 'offline', and those that were would probably involve some amenity like Sleepy Hollow seats that offered a perceived higher patronage rate for the service.
What I think actually happened, in the brief flurry of passenger overspending in the half-decade or so after WWII, was that any railroad interested in 'distinctive competence' for coach passengers would either acquire its own comparable equipment or go in for a share of run-through equipment or consist that would offer a 'one-seat ride' to any run-through coach pax.
My understanding was that nearly anything that avoided a switching move of an 'inhabited' car was a Good Thing, except when it involved splitting a consist like the City of Everywhere so the individual little parts could run ACE-like to their respective destinations as trains in their own right, coaches and all.
Course, there were trains that were handled by more than one railroad - not transferring a car or two, but basically the whole train. Great Northern and Northern Pacific ended at St. Paul MN, so to get their passenger trains to Chicago they handed the train off to their subsidiary company, the Burlington Route. Similarly, trains like the Empire Builder started in Chicago on the Burlington, and was handed off to GN at St.Paul Union Depot.
I know there were passenger trains going from Chicago to Florida in the winter that went over several different railroads, basically the same train with different engines from the different roads.
I was mainly curious as to whether individual coaches might be passed from one train to another. I thought it would allow for some interesting passenger train switching. I've read a number of stories in Classic Trains about sleeper cars being transfered from one train to another on a different railroad. I guess with sleeper cars, they wouldn't ask their passengers to get up in the middle of the night to change trains. It sounds like it wouldn't be a common practice to switch a coach into another train.
There were several Florida trains that originatedin New York on the PRR that ran all the way to several cities in the south. Both prr cars and other southern rr cars ran all the way as complete trains.
John-NYBWI was mainly curious as to whether individual coaches might be passed from one train to another. I thought it would allow for some interesting passenger train switching.
Funny, I was just discussing this same thing at our club.
I'm not sure how it worked with multi-RR trains (I thought the idea of a through-service coach was to avoid switching). However, there would be switching of a given railroad's cars. This came up when a friend brought me a copy of some NYC timetable pages (sorry I don't have them handy). There were cars that would be sleeping cars that would be switched out to other trains, and sleeping cars picked up en route. One timetable mentioned somethign like "Sleepers open in Rochester at 9pm." Presumably, one boarded one's car at 9 and went nighty-night, and some time after you were sawing logs, the train came through and picked up your car. There might also be switching of express or dairy cars.
Like you, we were discussing how this could enhance operation - I have a NYC passenger train that could pick up and drop off sleepers en route. Several of our stations have stub tracks presumably for this type of operation.
HTH
Aaron
There were instances where the switching of coaches did take place, but it was done for passenger convenience in most cases. While the railroads were fighting to keep their passengers, it was realized that changing cars was a major gripe of the traveling public. Imagine the mom with three small, children or the elderly couple getting settled in a coach only having to change trains at some point, in a driving rain or blinding snow storm. There used to be an old saying in the south: When you die, it doesn't matter whether you're going to Heaven or He--, you'll still have to change trains in Atlanta.
One of my favorite railroads, the New Haven used to participate in the Washingtonian/Montrealer service between those two cities and although it didn't pickup and set out en route, it did regularly carry cars in a mixed consist of PRR, NH, CN and B&M, before that road got out the long-haul passenger business. These cars were in a pool that included coaches as well as sleeper-lounges, and pure 10-6 sleepers.
The distance being traveled by these trains comes into play also. For short trips, the combining and splitting of consists causes a longer transit time that might be avoided on other, competing modes of transportation, like automobiles and buses.
How were these sleeper pickups or setouts handled? Did the road crews do the work with their power or was a yard crew and engine on duty to do it? Were they on the rear end or cut into the train?
Some roads switched diners in a similiar manner so that they weren't hauled around overnight when nobody was eating.
Mark Vinski
mvlandswDid the road crews do the work with their power or was a yard crew and engine on duty to do it? Were they on the rear end or cut into the train?
Night Trains by Peter T. Maiken addresses many of these routes or "lines" that were chopped up and reordered throughout their journey.
Any average-sized passenger station had switch crews on duty sometimes three crews 'round the clock. Less busy stations might pull a freight yard crew to do setout and pickup duty. Road crews engaged in any switching duties usually got kicked up to a higher pay grade for the entire trip.
Generally, the road power was either being serviced or often in steam days, changed out while the train was worked. Often, too, the head-end cars were having some express, bagged mail and periodicals "worked" so they stayed put. Yes, it was common for dining cars to be pulled, usually close to mid-route (Buffalo on the NYC, Pittsburgh on the PRR, Marion on the Erie, etc.) The diner could then be assembled into the morning train in the opposite direction or vice-versa.
E-L_coach setout-Huntington-IN by Edmund, on Flickr
Sometimes the cars dropped or added were on the rear but not always and for some trains they were still carrying obsercation lounge cars on the tail-end.
In later years, through cost-cutting measures, the obs was either dropped or fitted with a diagaphram for mid-train use to avoid costly turning and switching.
CP_Montreal-1965 by Edmund, on Flickr
Pullman passengers were often allowed to stay in their car either after setout or before being cut in to a train so they didn't have to vacate their warm bed in the middle of the night. Usually this was noted in the timetable. Passenger stations always had stand-by steam heat and power for maintaining the "hotel" loads on the cars.
John-NYBWOn shorter trips, would railroads pass coaches through to another railroad or would passengers switch trains at junction points?
The Nickel Plate and Lackawanna did hand-off occupied coaches at Buffalo, both roads terminating there but offering Chicago-Hoboken coach and Pullman service.
Good Luck, Ed
New Haven's No.3, the Owl, used to pickup a 14-4 sleeper at Providence, on its way to New York's Grand Central Terminal. Because the Owl had passengers asleep in sleepers already on the train, a switcher pulled the car from its track on the west end of Providence Union Station,shoved it east, very gently, through a crossover, to an adjacent track. From the west end of the car, the switcher then backed through the same crossover to the original track, ran around the car, coupled to the east end of it in preparation for shoving it to its place at the rear of the train. Hopefully, those who had paid for first class treatment got it because if they didn't............
Because the Owl was a night train, leaving Boston's South Station at 2:01 AM, it also carried a lot of head end which made it 10 or more cars long in the 1960s. It was not desirable to try to switch with occupied equipment, especially sleepers. Besides while the hind end was being worked, more M&E was being added up front. The power simply cut off and pulled ahead to permit a switcher to shove the pickup through another crossover to a joint, then scamper back through it and out of the way.
Employee's Timetable, No. 18, Effective at 2:01 AM, Sunday, April 26,1964 allows just 12 minutes for this magic to happen. Time is of the essence, someone once said. Two points to be made: 1) It is very cumbersome to try to switch with an occuppied train, especially one with people paying dearly for the privilege of a night's rest, not to mention downright dangerous. 2) Using the road power would greatly increase dwell time, lengthening the schedule. Remember New Haven accomplished both pickups in 12 minutes.
There were trains where the road crew did the switching. No. 188, the William Penn up from Philadelphia, used to set off two or three express cars at a freight house about a quarter of a mile east of Providence Union Station, on its run to Boston. Simply cut off, run ahead, throw the switch and, shove to a spot, then pull ahead clear of the switch and back to a joint, usually with a pair of FL-9s. Time allowed: 14 minutes.
Same railroad, two different ways of switching a train, and whether it is a day or night train does matter.
For those too young to have witnessed America's railroads of that era move passengers, you have my sympathies.
NHTX It is very cumbersome to try to switch with an occuppied train, especially one with people paying dearly for the privilege of a night's rest, not mention downright dangerous.
Plus the crafts involved. A "car knocker" usually two, one on each side to break the steam connection, a trainman (brakeman) to close the end gates and make sure the vestibule curtains were retracted, then "make the cut", the switch crew probably three or four men plus operators or levermen if the switches and signals were remotely controlled.
The car inspectors would usually do a walking inspection once the train was back together plus there had to be a running brake test once under way. This scenario played out in hundreds of cities every night and day in all kinds of weather.
E-L_Marion_dropping the diner by Edmund, on Flickr
Note the trainman making the cut at the head of the diner. Generally, these points on the route were road crew change points so there may not have been anyone in the cab of the lead engine. If the road crew know the train is being "worked" they have a little time to chat on the platform before actually being called to duty.
As a side note, I miss hearing the communicating whistle in the cab of the engine. When the conductor knows all the switching is done and is ready to depart he will make two long pulls on the signal valve which translate to the peanut whistle sounding in the cab. The engineer may look back to be absolutely sure everything is in order and if the signal indication is good, answer back with two pulls of the whistle and "notch 'er out". For all the goofy sounds the manufacturers are loading on their sound decoders I'd sure like to have that signal whistle in stead of a clucking rooster or a blacksmith banging on an anvil.
Cheers, Ed
Autonerd John-NYBW I was mainly curious as to whether individual coaches might be passed from one train to another. I thought it would allow for some interesting passenger train switching. Funny, I was just discussing this same thing at our club. I'm not sure how it worked with multi-RR trains (I thought the idea of a through-service coach was to avoid switching). However, there would be switching of a given railroad's cars. This came up when a friend brought me a copy of some NYC timetable pages (sorry I don't have them handy). There were cars that would be sleeping cars that would be switched out to other trains, and sleeping cars picked up en route. One timetable mentioned somethign like "Sleepers open in Rochester at 9pm." Presumably, one boarded one's car at 9 and went nighty-night, and some time after you were sawing logs, the train came through and picked up your car. There might also be switching of express or dairy cars. Like you, we were discussing how this could enhance operation - I have a NYC passenger train that could pick up and drop off sleepers en route. Several of our stations have stub tracks presumably for this type of operation. HTH Aaron
John-NYBW I was mainly curious as to whether individual coaches might be passed from one train to another. I thought it would allow for some interesting passenger train switching.
My operating scheme already has an overnight train picking up a sleeper in route. I also have two overnight trains on diverging routes exchanging cars at my largest station.
One thing of note regarding cross country sleepers which were exchanged in Chicago is that there were 7 different stations in that city. Sleeping cars would be moved from one station to another to continue on their journey. For example, if the Santa Fe had a through sleeper for the New York Central, it would be transfered from Dearborn Station to LaSalle St. Station.
Industrial History: Santa Fe's Chicago Coach & Grape Yards and Roundhouse (industrialscenery.blogspot.com)
John,
Thats what boiler equipped RS-1s and H-12-44 TS switchers were for-those station to station moves.
Ed,
On the FL-9, New Haven had them set up so you could go straight to the eighth notch. I loved the scream of those 567Cs reverberating off of the walls of trackside buildings, attacking the grade coming right out of Boston's Back Bay Station. And waiting for the amps to fall!
gmpullman John-NYBW On shorter trips, would railroads pass coaches through to another railroad or would passengers switch trains at junction points? The Nickel Plate and Lackawanna did hand-off occupied coaches at Buffalo, both roads terminating there but offering Chicago-Hoboken coach and Pullman service. Good Luck, Ed
John-NYBW On shorter trips, would railroads pass coaches through to another railroad or would passengers switch trains at junction points?
This is kind of what I had in mind. I've added a Pennsy day train to my schedule that terminates in my principle city. My fictional railroad has two trains that originate in the same city and I thought it might be an interesting operation to pass through a coach into each of these trains.
It seems like the Nickel Plate and Lackawanna would have been natural merger partners during the merger mania of the 1950s-1970s. What I read was the Lackawanna's money losing passenger operations west of New York City were troubling to the Nickel Plate's bean counters and so they opted to merge with the Norfolk and Western instead. I believe the Wabash was also part of that merger. Lackawanna of course then turned to the Erie.
My own fictional road is based in large part on the Lackawanna so I've studied it a bit. If the Lackawanna had merged with the New York, Ontario, and Western, its map would look much like what I envision for my railroad although all the modeled towns on it are purely fictional.
Lackawanna, and every other east coast railroad that had them, was losing money over fist, on commuter trains. Both, facilities and equipment were deteriorated, outmoded and in need of replacement in most cases. Plus, the state of New Jersey had some of the most onerous taxes on railroad property in the nation at that time. That alone, was enough to scare off the NKP, which wisely came no further east than Buffalo. That's why most money-losers wound up marrying each other. It also led the local governments subsidizing these services and the establishment of that alphabet soup of operating agencies we all know so well, such as MBTA, MNCR, New York's MTA, NJTrans, SEPTA, etc. And, yes, the NKP was folded into the N&W, along with the Wabash and Akron, Canton and Youngstown-five years after it absorbed the Virginian.
But if I read the original post correctly the question regarded coach's only not sleepers being exchanged which I doubt.
ndbprr But if I read the original post correctly the question regarded coach's only not sleepers being exchanged which I doubt.
7j43k To get the ball rolling: Shorter than cross-contry? Sure. The GN at Spokane and the NP at Pasco both passed coaches over to the SP&S to go down to Portland. This only happened for the first line trains, however. For the Western Star and the Mainstreeter, coach passengers used their feetses to transfer. It cost railroads more to transfer a car than to let the passengers cross the platform, so they likely "minimized" the event. Ed
Another interesting thing about SP&S operations:
They ran a diner on train #2, from Portland to Spokane. From the positioning of it in the train, I believe it was deadheading for the trip in the other direction. "No soup for you!"
Another thing one can do for passenger operation: SP&S had "spare" cars in strategic locations (Portland and Spokane), and would occasionally sub one of those cars and pull an incoming car because of a problem. So a modeler could do the same.
John-NYBWI guess with sleeper cars, they wouldn't ask their passengers to get up in the middle of the night to change trains. It sounds like it wouldn't be a common practice to switch a coach into another train.
Note that Pullman (at least before the mid-1940's) was a separate company that railroads contracted with to furnish them with sleeping (and other) cars. The cars were lettered "PULLMAN", not for a particular railroad, and had their own Pullman conductor who collected the Pullman tickets - you had to buy one ticket from the railroad to ride the train, and one from Pullman for your sleeping accomodation. These cars could go anywhere, since they were only lettered for Pullman, so were easily transferred from one railroad's train to another. Different matter for railroad A's coach to run on railroad B.
wjstix John-NYBW I guess with sleeper cars, they wouldn't ask their passengers to get up in the middle of the night to change trains. It sounds like it wouldn't be a common practice to switch a coach into another train. Note that Pullman (at least before the mid-1940's) was a separate company that railroads contracted with to furnish them with sleeping (and other) cars. The cars were lettered "PULLMAN", not for a particular railroad, and had their own Pullman conductor who collected the Pullman tickets - you had to buy one ticket from the railroad to ride the train, and one from Pullman for your sleeping accomodation. These cars could go anywhere, since they were only lettered for Pullman, so were easily transferred from one railroad's train to another. Different matter for railroad A's coach to run on railroad B.
John-NYBW I guess with sleeper cars, they wouldn't ask their passengers to get up in the middle of the night to change trains. It sounds like it wouldn't be a common practice to switch a coach into another train.
Yes, they built the cars, leased the cars to the railroads, and staffed the cars. Pullman cars that were normally assigned to name trains on major railroads would often be painted in the livery for that railroad so the consist was homogenous. I think it was in the late 1940s that the government under the Sherman Antitrust Act forced the Pullman company to break up. They sold off their cars to the various railroads and kept the car building company. I'm guessing the Pullman employees that worked the trains found employment with the same railroads they served as Pullman employees although I can't remember having read that.
How many did something similar to what is done with the international? Where both Amtrak and via run the train and supply equipment so cross platform changes didn't need to happen.
shane
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
Pullman was required to offer for sale the cars that were regularly assigned to a railroad. I think most were bought, but not all. Pullman kept all the other cars, which I believe was a majority of them. The various cars are listed as to post "breakup" in the book "Pullman Company List of Cars 1950". Note that this list is AFTER the famous breakup!
Pullman kept their passenger car operations, however. So the "former" Pullman employees remained Pullman employees. They just did their same work on cars their company did not actually own. Or, as noted above, DID own.
7j43k Pullman was required to offer for sale the cars that were regularly assigned to a railroad. I think most were bought, but not all. Pullman kept all the other cars, which I believe was a majority of them. The various cars are listed as to post "breakup" in the book "Pullman Company List of Cars 1950". Note that this list is AFTER the famous breakup! Pullman kept their passenger car operations, however. So the "former" Pullman employees remained Pullman employees. They just did their same work on cars their company did not actually own. Or, as noted above, DID own. Ed
That's interesting. It makes me wonder what the government was trying to accomplish by invoking the antitrust act.
If I remember correctly, what happened after the antitrust ruling was that Pullman was offered a choice: build cars, or operate them. They chose to go with construction (Pullman-Standard) and rolled the sleeper etc. operations into a new 'Pullman Company' that was owned by the various railroads (someone might compare and contrast this with Trailer Train).
To the public, "Pullman" kept plugging along, but not the same thing at all as the prewar entity.
Scroll down for a timeline of the Pullman antitrust case:
https://www.utahrails.net/pass/pass-pullman.php
Regards, Ed
Overmod If I remember correctly, what happened after the antitrust ruling was that Pullman was offered a choice: build cars, or operate them. They chose to go with construction (Pullman-Standard) and rolled the sleeper etc. operations into a new 'Pullman Company' that was owned by the various railroads (someone might compare and contrast this with Trailer Train). To the public, "Pullman" kept plugging along, but not the same thing at all to the prewar entity.
To the public, "Pullman" kept plugging along, but not the same thing at all to the prewar entity.
So if I'm following this correctly, the Pullman employees would have gone to work for the new Pullman company that served the railroads that owned it and was independent from the car building company.
Ed will have the precise reference, but there were special arrangements for the so-called 24-hour and 28-hour trains from Eastern points to Chicago, some of which involved run-through consists for railroads running no further west than Buffalo but ticketing a one-seat ride to places like Chicago or St. Louis
John-NYBWThat's interesting. It makes me wonder what the government was trying to accomplish by invoking the antitrust act.
IIRC it was the railroads that wanted the change, the government didn't just do it on it's own. Pullman did things like refusing to allow it's porters to work in Budd sleeping cars, they'd only work in Pullman built (and owned) cars.
BTW re colors...It's true that Pullman would paint cars to match the scheme of their larger customers, like Pennsy, but generally it was the other way around - 19th century passenger cars were often straw yellow, brown or dark red, but when Pullman began painting their cars dark green c.1890, most railroads began painting their own cars the same color to match.
OvermodIf I remember correctly, what happened after the antitrust ruling was that Pullman was offered a choice: build cars, or operate them.
I thought it was build the cars or own them. As I understand it, the RRs bought the cars then leased them back to Pullman which operated them.