Many a comment appears in this forum about delays getting rail freight through Chicago. Watching this film from 1943 brought something to mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-Pi-INZizY
How was essential rail traffic expedited through Chicago during a true national emergency?
Victrola1Many a comment appears in this forum about delays getting rail freight through Chicago. Watching this film from 1943 brought something to mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-Pi-INZizY How was essential rail traffic expedited through Chicago during a true national emergency?
The one thing that those talking about getting traffic through Chicago tend to overlook is that there is also a high volume of traffic that terminate in the Chicago industrial area. The story of getting traffic through Chicago is determined by the trains being built in locations away from Chicago.
The current Class 1's of yesteryear, complicated the Chicago conundrum by being voluminous in number. Today's Class 1's by comparison, are few in number and have been working for years to expedite traffic through the gateways where the carriers intesect - Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans being the primary gateways. Most carriers have agreed to pre-blocking each others trains so that at the gateway location the only thing that is required is a crew change as the train rolls from one property to the next.
Expediting is the typical 'squeaky wheel' principle. Those that cry loudest, longest with the most financial incentive will get their traffic expedited.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Balt makes a valid point about the volume of traffic that originated in Chicago during that era on top of whatever was passing through.
sciloverI would imagine it must have been difficult and dangerous operating a freight train at that time period! But I guess they didn’t have a choice as it’s essential during war.
I would opine that it wasn't really difficult or dangerous - by then most railroads had their traffic control down pretty well. From a crew point of view, it was business as usual (albiet a lot more of it).
The dispatchers and planners/schedulers certainly had their hands full, but they knew their plant and what it could handle.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I remember reading that after being caught short during WWI, the Pennsy greatly increased its facilities so as to meet any future demand. I've wondered if that decision was instrumental in its meeting the challenge during WWII?
That helped, but a lot of that was essentially yards and storage (Enola, for one).
The real credit belongs to the electrification and its locomotives, esp. the 139 GG1s. Also the advanced signalling system.
- PDN.
Paul_D_North_JrThat helped, but a lot of that was essentially yards and storage (Enola, for one).
A number of authors have commented on the most meaningful of the changes in operation between those snowballing in 1916 and 1917 and railroads avoiding any need for nationalization even with the ODT et al., the clever lad-grant scam, and the ridiculous X-priority fiasco. Some of this did involve better locomotives, improvement in signaling, and heavier track and equipment... but I think operations and execution were more significant.
The main reason Chicago did not choke during WWII was manpower and equipment. Lots of redundant trackage, many alternative routs still in place, and no shortage of power and no shortate of employees.
But riding long-distance passenger trains during WWII, except New York - Washington, was as much an adventure regarding schedule keeping as it is toay with Amtrak and VIA.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.