Percentage of passenger to freight rail traffic in early part of 20th century.

[tomikawaTT]

selector

Sheldon, I have never seen it broken down, so I am stepping onto the first riser in a darkened stairway down to a black cellar.....but during the Big Exercice from 1939-1945, or perhaps only during three or four of those years, troop movements must have changed things for a few of the eastern/midwest roads.

Chuck, what say you?

Even during WWii, troop movements were mostly, 'One time, one way," not ongoing traffic.  Most freight movement, too, was one time, one way - but there was a lot of it.  A single bomber crew flying 25 missions with the Eighth Air Force would have been supplied with a couple of boxcar loads of bombs and bullets, several tank cars of fuel and a rather large and expensive aircraft (plus spare/replacement engines and repair parts.)  A single infantryman in a month of combat would have expended his own weight in munitions and several times his weight in food.  Within the continental US almost all of that would have traveled by rail - truck travel was restricted to conserve rubber.

(Interesting aside.  Gasoline for civilian consumption was never in short supply.  Gasoline rationing was imposed and speed limits were lowered to conserve tires.  That put quite a few auto travelers on trains.)

Chuck

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

one more thought - why did I loose my page formatting when I edited my post - this forum stinks Sheldon

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

selector

Sheldon, I have never seen it broken down, so I am stepping onto the first riser in a darkened stairway down to a black cellar.....but during the Big Exercice from 1939-1945, or perhaps only during three or four of those years, troop movements must have changed things for a few of the eastern/midwest roads.

Chuck, what say you?

Yes, it did, but again that was government created and funded, not private actual "demand" for passenger transportation. Even in the boom of the twenties, railroads struggled with passenger operation costs as autos cut into their market more and more. That is why the gas-electric, or doodlebug, was developed for branch line and small commuter service - operating ANY steam engine for one half full coach is a loosing proposition. Understand, some passenger service was easily profitable, and the "name trains" were expensive and done for image/advertising, but taken as a whole, even with the mail, it was basically a break even deal. Why does my spell check work here and not on the MR side????????? Sheldon

[selector]

Sheldon, I have never seen it broken down, so I am stepping onto the first riser in a darkened stairway down to a black cellar.....but during the Big Exercice from 1939-1945, or perhaps only during three or four of those years, troop movements must have changed things for a few of the eastern/midwest roads.

Chuck, what say you?

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

The other thing to keep in mind is that revenue wise, passenger service never really made much money. The exception may have been some of the commuter systems. From the 1890's to the 1950's rail passenger service in the US was highly subsidized by the Railway Post Office service. The post office paid most of the cost to run the trains - then if they sold some tickets they made a profit. During that period more than 80% of the mail traveled by rail, as did the "package" business that today is handled by UPS, Federal Express and the Post Office. The loss of the mail and the express business put passenger trains seriously in the red - in a time when the railroads could least afford to absorb the loss. Now we have Amtrak. Sheldon

[tomikawaTT]

Another factor to consider - location within the United States:

(Imaginary train movements, figures probably nowhere near accurate)

• Entire United States, 27% passenger.
• New England above Boston, 29% passenger.
• Boston-Washington, 83% passenger.
• New York-Chicago, 47% passenger.
• Deep South, 29% passenger (includes mixed trains.)
• Upper Middle West, 15% passenger.
• Northwest, 20% passenger.
• Etc...

As you can tell, it's not a single homogeneous picture.  It's a photomosaic.

Chuck

[erikem]

Revenue perhaps?  Probably a safe guess to say that freight revenues were larger than passenger revenues for most roads. A large portion of passenger train revenues were express and mail.

[ndbprr]

Well first you need to determine how to measure both. Number of trains is one way but the most accurate is probably passenger miles. Freight is usually measured in ton miles so there really isn't a direct comparison.

[ALAN THOMAS]

I would be interested in knowing what the ratio of passenger to freight business was around the time that the Penn Station was built.