Big Dutch Mike

[Railway Man]

That's a fascinating photo.  Thanks for sharing it.

Some observations:

1. [snip] All boxcars as far as the eye can see but no consistency in car height.  Must have been fun for the dock foremen never knowing exactly what kind of empty boxcar might show up.

RWM

I don't think that one dock foreman had to worry about dealing with all of those box cars.  Railroads were pretty good about providing the cars of increased height if they were necessary for the lading,

The first car looks like something the Wabash would operate, from the lettering.  Given the height and the pair of doors, it was likely in automotive or auto parts service.  In earlier days, a car with a more extreme height like that would be a "furniture" car, or perhaps, with its two doors, an "automobile-furniture" car.  All of these different decriptions had mechanical designations of their own.  Most, if not all, of the cars in the photo had an inside length of roughly 40.5 feet.  To a dock foreman (or grain elevator operator), the height of the car (other than a "furniture" car having unnecessary cubic capacity) probably didn't make as much difference as the cleanliness of the interior.

I was thinking of lumber, canned goods, and other commodities that would cube out before they tare out.

RWM 

[CShaveRR]

That's a fascinating photo.  Thanks for sharing it.

Some observations:

1. [snip] All boxcars as far as the eye can see but no consistency in car height.  Must have been fun for the dock foremen never knowing exactly what kind of empty boxcar might show up.

RWM

I don't think that one dock foreman had to worry about dealing with all of those box cars.  Railroads were pretty good about providing the cars of increased height if they were necessary for the lading,

The first car looks like something the Wabash would operate, from the lettering.  Given the height and the pair of doors, it was likely in automotive or auto parts service.  In earlier days, a car with a more extreme height like that would be a "furniture" car, or perhaps, with its two doors, an "automobile-furniture" car.  All of these different decriptions had mechanical designations of their own.  Most, if not all, of the cars in the photo had an inside length of roughly 40.5 feet.  To a dock foreman (or grain elevator operator), the height of the car (other than a "furniture" car having unnecessary cubic capacity) probably didn't make as much difference as the cleanliness of the interior.

[Erie Lackawanna]

It looks like gravel in the pics.

[timz]

At present Amtrak is allowed 110 mph thru Princeton Jct and Hamilton on the tracks next to the high platform. Maybe other stations too, for all I know. In PRR days, 80 mph past lots of low platforms (maybe no high ones, tho). So the only unusual feature on the RDG/CNJ would be the paved-over track-- but come to think of it, it probably wasn't paved over? Just covered with gravel to near railhead depth?

[Erie Lackawanna]

The 1950 timetable shows 75 mph for steam passenger (by which they probably mean steam or diesel) with no indication that it doesn't apply to all four tracks. CNJ 1949 speed limit was 70 (or was it 75?) on the inside tracks and 60 on the outside.

That is amazing.  Guess you had to be very careful on the platforms in those days.

Could you imagine if someone designed that today? 

[timz]

the outside tracks definetely were embedded into the platforms... I have photographs of it.  It was the same on the CNJ and NY&LB.  I'd be surprised if they were doing a high rate of speed on those tracks.

The 1950 timetable shows 75 mph for steam passenger (by which they probably mean steam or diesel) with no indication that it doesn't apply to all four tracks. CNJ 1949 speed limit was 70 (or was it 75?) on the inside tracks and 60 on the outside.

in four track territory, the NYC ran what was essentially two double track railroads running parallel-2 for passenger and 2 for freight.

Lots of that between Albany and Buffalo. Elsewhere on the NY Central the passenger tracks were usually the inner of the four.

[Kevin C. Smith]

I was just reading about a major wreck on the NYC where reference was made to two adjacent tracks being passenger, and the other two were freight. (ie, P-P-F-F)  Don't have the book with me, though, and don't know if that was the practice for this particular railroad.

I seem to remember, many years back, that DPM mentioned in his column in Trains that Alfred Pearlmam was reviewing a laundry list of "cultural differences" (as we would call them today) between the NYC and PRR that kept adding to the friction of integrating the two roads. One that was mentioned was that, in four track territory, the NYC ran what was essentially two double track railroads running parallel-2 for passenger and 2 for freight. The PRR, on the other hand, kept passenger trains to the outer tracks and used the inner two for freight.

[dknelson]

As for box cars, I can't remember any wooden-side cars built beyond the late 1920s.  Somebody's bound to correct me on that, though.  As was said, some of those Milwaukee Road cars lasted through the 1960s, used mostly in low-grade service such as hides (my hometown had a tannery--we saw plenty of them!).

Yes I too recall wood outside braced boxcars in hide/tannery service, in South Milwaukee WI in the late 1960s.  I distinctly recall a friend and I being impressed with a 1919 built date and that the car had been in service for a full 50 years.  It was marked hide service only.  I do not know if there was a lower level that a hide car could be downgraded to!   What I cannot recall is if we ever saw a wood double sheethed boxcar in the 1960s at that tannery (or on the main line). 

The other thing I notice about the photo that started this thread is that very consistently the ballast does not entirely cover the ends of the ties.  Different railroads, and different track foremen, had different ideas about this practice standard.

Dave Nelson

[CShaveRR]

Car #1 and #4...both outside braced wood boxcars...they would be old even in 1947, yes?

Lots of 'composite' cars (box, gon and hopper) were built during WWII to conserve steel, so those boxes may only be a few years old.  I think the designs were the same as the all steel version built just before the war, with wood planks replacing the steel siding.

I don't recall any "World War II Emergency" composite box cars, but the hoppers and especially the gons were around for quite a while afterwards.  Most of them had their wooden sides replaced with steel during about the 1950s, but the truss design of their outside bracing was still distinctive. 

The CNW bought some old Burlington composite hoppes in the 1980s for ballast service, still with their wooden sides.  They didn't last long.

As for box cars, I can't remember any wooden-side cars built beyond the late 1920s.  Somebody's bound to correct me on that, though.  As was said, some of those Milwaukee Road cars lasted through the 1960s, used mostly in low-grade service such as hides (my hometown had a tannery--we saw plenty of them!).

[Erie Lackawanna]

I've been told that this was a two track mainline.

Like I said before, the 1950 timetable says it's a four-track main.

But the outside tracks definetely were embedded into the platforms... I have photographs of it.  It was the same on the CNJ and NY&LB.  I'd be surprised if they were doing a high rate of speed on those tracks.

 

[timz]

I've been told that this was a two track mainline.

Like I said before, the 1950 timetable says it's a four-track main.

[THE.RR]

Car #1 and #4...both outside braced wood boxcars...they would be old even in 1947, yes?

Lots of 'composite' cars (box, gon and hopper) were built during WWII to conserve steel, so those boxes may only be a few years old.  I think the designs were the same as the all steel version built just before the war, with wood planks replacing the steel siding.

[Erie Lackawanna]

I was just reading about a major wreck on the NYC where reference was made to two adjacent tracks being passenger, and the other two were freight. (ie, P-P-F-F)  Don't have the book with me, though, and don't know if that was the practice for this particular railroad.

I think the way it worked on the Reading (and CNJ, NY&LB and maybe even PRSL) in New Jersey was that the two center tracks were the mainline and the two outer tracks were "platform tracks" that actually were embedded into the platform at some stations.  I'm not 100% sure of the actual make up, but I've been told that this was a two track mainline.

Maybe someone who has the actual facts could chime in though.

Thanks,

Charles

[tree68]

I was just reading about a major wreck on the NYC where reference was made to two adjacent tracks being passenger, and the other two were freight. (ie, P-P-F-F)  Don't have the book with me, though, and don't know if that was the practice for this particular railroad.

[Anonymous]

Car #1 and #4...both outside braced wood boxcars...they would be old even in 1947, yes?

I don't know when they stopped building outside braced boxcars, but they seemed to continue in service for a long time.  In the late 1960s, the Milwaukee Road was running outside braced boxcars that were built in the mid to early 1920s.

[edblysard]

Car #1 and #4...both outside braced wood boxcars...they would be old even in 1947, yes?

[Railway Man]

That's a fascinating photo.  Thanks for sharing it.

Some observations:

1. The track has what today we would consider crap-for-ballast yet the surfacing looks mighty fine, and practically all of it done with hand labor in this era. 
2. Good drainage is evident on the two inside tracks.  Not so sure about the outside mains.
   
3. Four tracks, presumably the two inside tracks for passenger
4. Tell-tales strung on a cable for the overpass.
5. All boxcars as far as the eye can see but no consistency in car height.  Must have been fun for the dock foremen never knowing exactly what kind of empty boxcar might show up.

RWM

[Erie Lackawanna]

Here's another of my dad's pics from when he was a kid... a Reading freight running through Skillman behind an M1sa Mikado.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=222955&nseq=5

Thanks for looking and corrections are welcome.

Charles Freericks