On page 27 there is an image of the Cincinnatian with a clamed date of "June 1947", only there is a shinny GP-7 in the image. GM did not start building GP-7s till 1949, October 1949 if you believe Wiki. 1957 would be more believable as B&O was still packing steam late in the game. (You may need to start hiring Railfans for your staff)
The more stunning one is on page 25, top of far right column under the cool image of a AC&Y engine at work. "The positive benefits of federalization led Congress to pass the Transportation Act of 1920".
This is why I worry about the future: there were no benefits to federal control, except for the USRA equipment designs which were excelent and repeated through the 20's. The USRA ran the railroads into the ground, imposed traffic routings that often made no sense, and bought large groups of equipment on the railroads dine that was surpluse to their needs. It was so bad that congress had to pay damages in 1920 and it was not repeated in WWII a much bigger and longer conflict. Beyond what was taugh in school once upon a time, every road specific rail history I've read had endless complaints by the people who lived through it about the wreckage done by the USRA. Every one.
How could Trains miss their own published history on this?
LensCapOn On page 27 there is an image of the Cincinnatian with a clamed date of "June 1947", only there is a shinny GP-7 in the image. GM did not start building GP-7s till 1949, October 1949 if you believe Wiki. 1957 would be more believable as B&O was still packing steam late in the game. (You may need to start hiering Railfans for your staff)
On page 27 there is an image of the Cincinnatian with a clamed date of "June 1947", only there is a shinny GP-7 in the image. GM did not start building GP-7s till 1949, October 1949 if you believe Wiki. 1957 would be more believable as B&O was still packing steam late in the game. (You may need to start hiering Railfans for your staff)
Have not seen the picture of The Cincinnatian - It entered service in January 1947 between Baltimore & Cincinnati. It was switched to a Detroit & Cincinnati route in 1950. If there are head end cars in the picture, the picture would have been after the 1950 change of route. On the Baltimore-Cincinnati route the streamlined steam engines were maxed out with the 5 cars the train was built with. On the Detroit-Cincinnati routing more cars could be handled.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
One thing I liked about the issue: someone I "know". I used to hear John Marty's voice on the scanner before he retired, as he often dispatched the line next to my home. I even ran into him watching trains in his hometown one evening. He had a reputation for letting them run, often stacking trains in many sidings, then letting them go like falling dominoes. I hope he wrote other stories before he died.
LensCapOnThe more stunning one is on page 25, top of far right column under the cool image of a AC&Y engine at work. "The positive benefits of federalization led Congress to pass the Transportation Act of 1920". This is why I worry about the future: there were no benefits to federal control, except for the USRA equipment designs which were excelent and repeated through the 20's. The USRA ran the railroads into the ground, imposed traffic routings that often made no sense, and bought large groups of equipment on the railroads dine that was surpluse to their needs. It was so bad that congress had to pay damages in 1920 and it was not repeated in WWII a much bigger and longer conflict. Beyond what was taugh in school once upon a time, every road specific rail history I've read had endless complaints by the people who lived through it about the wreckage done by the USRA. Every one. How could Trains miss their own published history on this?
The "By Line" on the article explains it. The article was written by H. Roger Grant. He leans left, really left. I would not be surprised if he fell over from time to time from leaning so far left.
People can certainly have their own views and leanings. But it upsets me when Grant distorts reality because of his leanings.
I've seen him do it before. In a Classic Trains article he wrote that the Interstate Commerce Commision was very open to the railroads operating trucking services and integrating such services with their rail operations.
Nothing could be further from the truth. By God I've researched it and wrote about it. The ICC threw up barrier after barrier to rail-truck integration. But Grant will always cover for government economic regulation. It's kind of a warm, fuzzy Teddy Bear for him.
As to why Trains would publish such a thing: Hey look, they're just some more left wing journalists in a world dominated by left wing journalists. Wrinn, et al probably saw no reason to check or verify what Grant wrote. I mean if the government did it it had to be correct and good. Especially if it was done under the "Progressive" President Wilson.
I wonder how he defends the ICC decision to stop development of container services on rail?
The state governments were also concerned with TOFC robbing the states of highway use taxes and tolls.
At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare... Lord Acton
Erik_Mag The state governments were also concerned with TOFC robbing the states of highway use taxes and tolls.
That is an interesting point that needs much more research. Could it have been states influence on the ICC to prevent RR TOFC ?
What states got before the ICC to slow or stop TOFC ? Leave it to others to give us information.
I'm not absolutely sure I believe that but some states attempted to require CGW to obtain a motor carrier certificate when TOFC was established in 1937 but the courts blocked that. Also remember that North Shore Line established TOFC in 1926 and it continued until shortly after WW2.
CSSHEGEWISCH Also remember that North Shore Line established TOFC in 1926 and it continued until shortly after WW2.
Also remember that North Shore Line established TOFC in 1926 and it continued until shortly after WW2.
I don't remember the source, but I distinctly remember reading about comcerns that the North Shore's TOFC service reducing revenue for the highway departments.
rrnut282I wonder how he defends the ICC decision to stop development of container services on rail?
He, H. Roger Grant, doesn't defend it. He ignores it.
I see it as a critically important, very wrong, regulatory decision that put the dead hand of government on the neck of US intermodal development for 50 years.
Read it and weep: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2911162&view=1up&seq=454
In Grant's false history of rail-truck integration in the US he just leaves it out. He leaves out other ICC restrictions which made no sense.
If someone reading his work doesn't already know about these things, they'll get a totally false picture of the history of intermodal development in the US. Courtesy of H. Roger Grant.
Edit to add. You have to go to page 377 to find the beginning of "In the Matter of Container Service."
I have every hope and expectation that Jim will be on the lookout for such distortions of truth in the future. Certainly his own writings, both in the magazine and in blogs here, do not appear to me to involve political bias in reporting railroad events, past, present, or future, and hopefully he will be more careful when any government matters reach his desk for publication. I expect he will.
I feel the same way about the major columnists, and Classic Trains as well.
I once had a problem with both magazines in printing interesting stories where freight pilferage was included with nothing negative said. My "job" seem to have of offended some three to the extent of accusations of violating guidelines, but it was my "job" that impelled me to raise objections to printing such stories, and they have not been printed since. Thanks.
Ah yes, the peanut gallery chimes in with ad hominem attacks on a very respected writer, researcher, professor and railfan, H. Roger Grant, author of about 21 books. Why? Because he doesn't agree with Greyhounds' master's degree thesis on the ICC and trucking?
Academic freedom means the right and duty to challenge others' interpretatations of events, but based on his claims about the superiority of his research, Greyhounds dismisses by fiat Grant's. That's not the way it works.
And others dismiss Trains articles that are leftist. I guess once again we can discern their worldview, but I will abstain from the use of a political label.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.