More Pics of the Cannonball along the route:
Accelerating from the stop at Brookfield heading Westbound for Watertown (long ago Brookfield was formerly Brookfield Jct).....
Boarding at Brookfield in the morning on the way into Milwaukee (Eastbound):
Again westbound shot at the Nashotah Depot (unusual as it was built into a hill and it was still standing on my last trip to Nashotah not too long ago).
Last Run Ticket:
Train at Ocauchee Lake Stop (probably spelled that wrong):
Approaching the Watertown Depot and crossing the old stone arch bridge there that is still in use by Canadian Pacific......
Here is a good article on the Milwaukee Roads effort at commutter services in Milwaukee. This particular train ran until early 1972 I believe. The article starts two pages before at the then relatively new Milwaukee Depot in downtown Milwaukee (article from 1967). Patronage on this train remained about the same or dwindled to a few less but it still warranted between 2 and 3 cars in 1972 pulled by an E or F unit (FP7).
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19670327&id=6WAqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1U4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=7310,5238038&hl=en
An attempt was made to revive the train in the early 1980's via a small grant obtained by Rep Henry Reuss but the money only lasted a week, the community raised funds for a second week. Milwaukee Road was in bankruptcy at the time and stated it while it was supportive of efforts to bring the train back it could not contribute financially due to the trustee's objection........they did however contribute an extra coach, which was sealed off from the riding public. Milwaukee had concerns that an SPV by itself would not trip the CTC signals so it required an extra car from the Milwaukee Business fleet. Here is a picture of the resurrected train at Wauwatosa stop (looks like the concrete from the depot foundation). Ran for two weeks then stopped. I bought a roundtrip ticket and rode it just for the heck of it.
Milwaukee management was pretty friendly to both commutting public and railfans at the time. Almost like a second family to be around Milwaukee Road employees.
I heard that the train either appeared or almost appeared a third time in the 1990's under then Governor Thommy Thompson (R) as a relief while I-94 was being reconstructed. Then it was run by Amtrak and mostly amfleet I guess. Not sure if that last part is true or not since I was not living in the state at the time. Just heard it ran for a Summer then stopped again. It is a very popular train and every historical society along the route mentions the train in their written history of the town it seems......very interesting how a passenger train can grab a hold of people.
Yes; when I first saw these fares (along with the schedules) back in the mid-fifties, I knew that they were beyond the reach of most people--the average coach fare in the South sixty years ago was about three cents a mile (the Eastern roads charged more and the Western roads charged less). When Scarlett O'Hara Hamilton went to Atlanta in 1862, there was no problem in her going by train for she then had no worries about money--of course, when she left Atlanta about two years later, there was no passenger train available to take her and her sister-in-law down to Jonesboro.
Johnny
Those listed fares would translate into a lot more than what it costs today to go either by train [where it still exists], bus or car! The average person in 1852 would not have been able to afford to take the train very often if paying out of their own pocket.
Buslist CSSHEGEWISCH The abandonment of Chicago Aurora & Elgin and the North Shore Line probably also helped C&NW's ridership. There are those that would argue that the modernization of the NorthWestern service sealed the fate of the 2 interurbans.
CSSHEGEWISCH The abandonment of Chicago Aurora & Elgin and the North Shore Line probably also helped C&NW's ridership.
The abandonment of Chicago Aurora & Elgin and the North Shore Line probably also helped C&NW's ridership.
There are those that would argue that the modernization of the NorthWestern service sealed the fate of the 2 interurbans.
The generally accepted view is that the CA&E was doomed by the building of the Congress Street Expressway, which meant two things. One, more commuters switched driving their cars; and two, commuters who stayed had to switch at Des Plaines Ave.in Forest Park in 1953 to the Garfield Pk. L line, rather than ride one seat to Wells/Quincy in the Loop. It abruptly ended passenger services in that black day, July 3, 1957.
The CNW didn't start to add its gallery coaches until 1955, still used steam until 1956 and didn't have push-pull until 1960. By 1962, commuter operations were losing money again.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1962/07/19/page/37/article/n-w-commuter-fares-to-go-up-10-pct-aug-1
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
rfpjohn Strangely enough, many early railroads were built primarily for passenger service. Quite a few shortlines relied more on passenger revenue well into the twentieth century. My home road, the RF&P recieved only about 16% of it's revenue from freight service in 1870! In the late 1860's they only ran two freights per week. One in each direction! Four thru passenger jobs ran daily (to a steamboat wharf at Aquia Creek) and one local passenger job turned to Richmond out of Milford. Transit and commuter systems were considered moneymakers in local markets up til the auto revolution. Tack on increasing labor costs (those ingrates wanted a living wage!), fuel costs, taxes, more taxes, oh, and taxes and insurance and liabilty costs and suddenly that fare box is running dry!
Strangely enough, many early railroads were built primarily for passenger service. Quite a few shortlines relied more on passenger revenue well into the twentieth century. My home road, the RF&P recieved only about 16% of it's revenue from freight service in 1870! In the late 1860's they only ran two freights per week. One in each direction! Four thru passenger jobs ran daily (to a steamboat wharf at Aquia Creek) and one local passenger job turned to Richmond out of Milford. Transit and commuter systems were considered moneymakers in local markets up til the auto revolution. Tack on increasing labor costs (those ingrates wanted a living wage!), fuel costs, taxes, more taxes, oh, and taxes and insurance and liabilty costs and suddenly that fare box is running dry!
Now, translate those fares into what inflation has made them today.
Deggesty Indeed, when the railroads began running trains that catered to the public that would use them to travel into town to work and use them again to go home after work, the railroads commuted, or reduced, the fares in order to attract riders. (So, the railroads, not the riders, were the original commuters.) Even now, those who ride such trains regularly pay less per ride than others, such as I, who use them only occasionally--as when I was in Chicago this spring, I rode the Burlington out and back to visit a nephew and his wife who live near one of the stops.
Indeed, when the railroads began running trains that catered to the public that would use them to travel into town to work and use them again to go home after work, the railroads commuted, or reduced, the fares in order to attract riders. (So, the railroads, not the riders, were the original commuters.) Even now, those who ride such trains regularly pay less per ride than others, such as I, who use them only occasionally--as when I was in Chicago this spring, I rode the Burlington out and back to visit a nephew and his wife who live near one of the stops.
The same principle of 'commuted fares' also applies to the various toll bridges and tunnels in my area - those that have to use the facilities multiple times a day have available to them a fare structure that costs them less per trip than is does those who are passing through town and only use the facilities once in a great while.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
KBCpresidentEither way, commuter trains never had these perks to my knowledge, so what reason did railroads have to run these. Wouldn't they have been money losers from the get go?
You need a greater historical context. Commuter trains of old (when run by railroads) were indeed profit makers since they did not replace the automobile but rather replaced a horse.
Even in the 1950s most families only had one car, mom kept that at home, and dad took the train into the city. Maybe (if she was nice) she would drive him to the station, otherwise he would have to take a bus to the station. Mom always drove dad to the station since he went to work before the bus driver got up, but he always took the bus home from the station.
Later, commuters reailzed the convience of the train over the car. Given that a car (at today's prices) costs 55c/mile, plus tolls, plus parking... Figure $48.00 a day by car plus traffic agrivation. Commuters *LIKE* their trains! Today the government subsidizes the commute, first to please the voters who commute,a nd second to save wear and tear on the highways and reduce congestion.
What the heck, The just rebuilt all of the platforms at Belmont Park, now able to berth eight 10 car trains, and that for ONE commuting day per year!
Subways and early commutation did make money, but as a service is far too important to growing commuter coridors as per witness the development of new Commuter lines in the muddle of nowhere.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
The profitability (or not) of C&NW's suburban service in the Heineman era may have depended a lot on allocation of expenses. There is a difference between "solely related" and "fully allocated" expenses that can affect the bottom line of a specific operation without making a difference for the organization as a whole.
schlimm Heineman was NOT a railroad guy. His concern was strictly making money so I am pretty sure the commuter operation at least generated a positive cash flow for a few years that helped him turn CNW into Northwest Industries, a diversified conglomerate. Otherwise, he wouldn't have leased all that new equipment and scrapped the antique passenger cars used for so many years.
Heineman was NOT a railroad guy. His concern was strictly making money so I am pretty sure the commuter operation at least generated a positive cash flow for a few years that helped him turn CNW into Northwest Industries, a diversified conglomerate. Otherwise, he wouldn't have leased all that new equipment and scrapped the antique passenger cars used for so many years.
I remember hearing about the C&NW being profitable with its services. CB&Q I heard did OK as well. Milwaukee Road didn't do too bad because they tried to sell Milwaukee on Commuter Service by running the Cannonball service between Milwaukee and Watertown for a full year after Amtrak was up and running. Probably would have been 2-3 years but some idiot in a Cement truck hit a trestle and caused the train to jump the tracks in Brookfield, WI. Bad press at the injuries and probably a nervous Corporate Counsel fearing lawsuits caused the train to be yanked, shortly after the derailment.
Deggesty Perhaps my meory is faulty, but I have a memory of the North Western's receiving a fare increase when it replaced the old cars with new cars.
Perhaps my meory is faulty, but I have a memory of the North Western's receiving a fare increase when it replaced the old cars with new cars.
My memory agrees with yours. Since the service was so much of an improvement, that fare increase did not drive away (pun intended) much patronage. But later increases and a strike did.
As to LD services: on some lines, there may have been a profit at times. But keep in mind, even in the Golden Age (1882), with no real competition, William Vanderbilt said that passenger trains always lost money. He had said this in the same interview in Chicago (discussed on a thread last year) in which he probably uttered his famous quote, "Accommodation of the public? The public be damned! We run them because we have to. They do not pay. We have tried again and again to get the different roads to give them up; but they will run them and, of course, as long as they run them we must do the same."
As others have already pointed out, the actual cost of running passenger trains was often shared between the passenger, express and mail revenue streams. Losing even one leg of that three legged stool would seriously weaken the economics, and as we know, two of the three disappeared.
A second point to remember is that for many years rail had a virtual monopoly on long distance passenger transportation, and the fares reflected that. The prices may look attractive when we look at old timetables, but not if we were earning the wages of the time. By the end of the steam era airlines and automobiles were seriously cutting into passenger numbers, and the railroads had to cut fares (in relative terms) if they wanted to retain at least some revenue. Often the "cutting" was by not raising fares to reflect the inflationary spiral on costs.
Commuter trains in at least some jurisdictions had their fares controlled by local politicians. And we know how politicians love to meddle when it is someone else's money and a move popular with the voters. Again, some of their costs were shared with the long distance passenger trains in the coach yards and maintenance side. Equipment could be shared, and often the commuter cars were cast-offs from the premier trains rather than expensive new ones.
John
Ulrich Around here commuter trains are an absolute necessity. Without them the roads would be so blocked up nothing would move. I really don't know if they make money or not, but not having them would be even less cost effective. I would find it hard to believe that they don't at least cover a significant part of their cost if indeed they don't turn a profit.
Around here commuter trains are an absolute necessity. Without them the roads would be so blocked up nothing would move. I really don't know if they make money or not, but not having them would be even less cost effective. I would find it hard to believe that they don't at least cover a significant part of their cost if indeed they don't turn a profit.
+1 Absolutely!! Without Metra, Chicago commutes would be impossible. There really isn't any land for additional the lanes of expressways and toll roads that would be needed to replace.
schlimm[C&NW] turned a profit on commuter operations for a number of years
As I recall, the C&NW under Ben Heineman modernized its commuter operations starting in the late 50's (diesels, new gallery coaches, eliminated some stops). Consequently, it turned a profit on commuter operations for a number of years before they became part of the RTA (Metra).
KBCpresident Alright. Please, correct me if, at any point I say something that is incorrect. I have read in a few places (including this forum) that passengers are not a profitable cargo. The only time passenger trains made a profit is from Mail contracts and other such bonus, but ticket sales themselves did not cover the cost. (Off topic, if anyone k nows: Do they cover the cost for airlines?)
Alright. Please, correct me if, at any point I say something that is incorrect.
I have read in a few places (including this forum) that passengers are not a profitable cargo. The only time passenger trains made a profit is from Mail contracts and other such bonus, but ticket sales themselves did not cover the cost. (Off topic, if anyone k nows: Do they cover the cost for airlines?)
I view that as an opinion based almost entirely on hearsay comments made by some railroad officials. Other railroad officials disagree with it. The problem is that most railroads in their annual reports when they were still running passenger trains never did a line item accounting of them........so how do you get to the facts from that? While it is true some passenger trains lose money continually, even in Amtrak's stable, some passenger trains make money.
If passenger trains never made a profit, were passenger trains before highways and airlines just a community service? They could have just run profitable mail trains, and passed on passengers? Either way, commuter trains never had these perks to my knowledge, so what reason did railroads have to run these. Wouldn't they have been money losers from the get go? -Steven
Either way, commuter trains never had these perks to my knowledge, so what reason did railroads have to run these. Wouldn't they have been money losers from the get go?
-Steven
Long answer to the second part. Most railroads were also development companies. So for example in Northeastern Texas on the former T&NO line called the Houston and Texas Central, that ran from Galveston to the Red River Valley. They would create a station in the middle of nowhere usually for a watering stop or for a conjunction of stage coach lines and they would plot out a small city with different lots........they would do the zoning on those lots as well. Some lots would be reserved as future rail customers, some lots would be sold for residences and some lots would be sold for businesses around a central business district. The railroad would then entice new immigrants or citizens that lived in other parts of the country to buy the lots and build on them and relocate promissing passenger service to the larger cities as well as frieght service to haul their goods to market. Not only that but these same people that moved to these communities were also used as a future source of funding for the railroads expansion and rail bonds were sold to them using their newly bought land or newly built buildings / businesses as collateral. This is how railroads initially got the term "robber barons" applied to them because when a financial panic would hit, they would traditionally wipe out the investors in favor of the creditors and sometimes the creditors were the former railroad owners or their close friends. Cycle would happen more than once with some railroads.
The answer varies, sometimes passenger trains were seen as a extension of the freight marketing department, other times they were viewed as a necessity to build online traffic and to develope or expand cities and towns along the line. Other times passenger traffic was seen as a cheap way to add to traffic on the line and increase public goodwill. Sometimes it was trully profitable.
Commutter Rail services. Some lines were built solely for Commutter rail service the Milwaukee Road's Fox Lake Line is an example. Fast and frequent train service in a densely populated area is more a money maker than most long distance trains but my own belief is the railroads did the commutter service in the first place to build on their developments in and around the city and make them more valuable by providing the economic activity (traffic) for them to prosper. In the old days commutter service was done with really old second hand passenger equipment that otherwise would be retired.........so to me they kept the fixed costs fairly low as compared to today. My guess is that initially most commutter services were profitable and the profits is what drove the line construction throughout the suburbs.
Mail contracts are a complex issue in my view. Some of the early mail contracts were the result of payback of the land grants by the Feds and the mail was carried at a discounted rate. I am not sure when the point of morphing occured where the mail became a revenue commodity. Also early passenger trains were mixeds as well. I know two of the Passenger trains from Dallas Union Station to the Red River Valley were sponsored by the Dallas Morning News as part of their distribution of newspapers to North Texas. Beyond that sponsorship they carried other mixed frieght like packages from Sears Roebuck, farmers utensils and implements, etc.....along with mail and passengers.
Some commuter lines were built by developers in order to funnel people to their developments (the beginning of the suburbs). Memory may not fully serve me here, but I think if you check on the Insulls and Cleveland Union Terminal you'll find that to be the case there.
Of course, at the time many people worked either "downtown" or in the industrial section of the cities, so there was a concentrated base on both ends of the lines.
Rubber tires have turned that on it's ear - now people work and live hither and yon, and a transit system (on rails) to carry them around would be a complex mess.
I suspect that some number of modern-day transit systems may cover the cost of operations at the farebox. What they probably don't cover is the cost of construction in the case of new lines - and almost all modern-day systems are new construction. An investor (other than local governments) would not be happy.
A common thread in the stories of recent mass transit (commuter) lines is that they become popular beyond the wildest dreams of their advocates and ridership has soared.
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...
(1) Back when labor was cheap and regulation was light, they were profitable. Then those rubber tired things showed-up. Many commuter trains were also development tools. (try reading about the CRIP Chicago Beverly line (now Metra)and the Van Swearingen's fun in Cleveland for openers)
(2) Once regulators got their political claws in the operating roads in more recent pre-Amtrak history. Plenty of commuter lines were forced to run at huge losses which sped up the advent of PC and the USRA edicts.
If passenger trains never made a profit, were passenger trains before highways and airlines just a community service? They could have just run profitable mail trains, and passed on passengers?
The Beaverton, Fanno Creek & Bull Mountain Railroad
"Ruby Line Service"
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.