In the early 20th century, passengers had the following options:
Beyond the town line freight had the following options:
Note that, for both passengers and freight, taking the train was the best, if not the only, option. Most people didn't own their own horses.
To give an idea of where rubber-tired transport was during that time, in 1919 the Army mounted a cross-country convoy of 80 vehicles. It took a day short of two months (Departed Washington, DC on July 7th, arrived in San Francisco on September 6th,) a lot of ad hoc roadbuilding and a lot of vehicle maintenance issues to complete the trip (80 vehicles started, 74 finished.) The worst-case competing freight was easily five times faster and fifty times more convenient. (To-be-president Eisenhower was one of the officers on that convoy. Later he encountered the Autobahnen. Is it any wonder that he pushed so hard for the Interstate highway system?)
Chuck
I recall a passenger speed limit on that line slow to 90 or was it slow to 110 for a curve.
And that was done with steam, lack of nerve or fear and total dedication to the schedule to the minute. No technology in sight like we have today. MAYBE they had in cab signals to give them the room they need to knock off the 110 or whatever down to 40 or less.
One factor too is that many more lines were double tracked (or more) compared to now, so it was possible to run around slower freight drags with passenger trains, fewer bottlenecks. Wages for trackworkers was cheap, so mainlines were maintained to an incredibly high level compared to recent times.
SkierByTrain Are they simply coming to light now because of the higher speeds?
Are they simply coming to light now because of the higher speeds?
Higher speeds?? Keep in mind a passenger train trip from Minneapolis-St.Paul to Chicago takes several hours more now than it did in 1938....
One other thing that gets overlooked about freight trains in the 'bygone' days. They were relatively short...most on the order of 3000 to 4000 feet in length and they had crewmen on both ends of the train. If the train had a mechanical malady that cause it to stop, it could be inspected from both ends of the train at the same time, and when the problem was found and resolved the person the inspected from the head end could get on and ride the caboose in the interests of expediting the movement of the train to it's next clearing point. Today's freight trains are mostly in the neighborhood of 7000 to 9000 feet in length and all crewmen are on the head end of the train. When it is stopped by mechanical problems, the train can only be inspected from the head end and if and when the problem is resolved, the person performing the inspection must return to the head end. A 3.5 mile stroll, in the middle of the night with a brakeman's lantern, on main track ballast inspecting for a myriad of mechanical issues takes time....a lot of time...time to wreck any high speed passenger schedule.
If we are EVER to have high speed passenger rail, it must be on it's own right of way and track structure. The operation of 15 & 20 thousand ton freights on track the must be maintained to the level required of truly high speed operations would put maintenance costs through the proverbial roof, irrespective of the delays for mechanical issues in the operations of those freight trains wrecking passenger schedules.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Perhaps I should have added, in my previous post, that the timetables indicated where trains were to meet or overtake and pass other trains, often with bold type for the time of day and for the number(s) of the train(s) that they scheduled to meet or pass (or be passed by). If all the trains were able to adhere to their schedules, no more information was necessary–but when have all trains been known to keep to their schedules consistently? Train orders were created by the dispatchers and sent to the engineer and conductor of each train that was affected by the necessary changes and these orders took precedence over the timetable information.
Johnny
As cx500 commented, there was not as much demand for fast freight in the first half of the 20th century as there is now–and passenger trains were generally given the right of way over freights. In the operating timetables, passenger and mail trains were usually listed as first class trains and freights were usually listed as second, or even third class, trains. Seldom was a freight superior to a passenger train--unless it were of the same class and proceeding in the superior direction (each timetable showed that movements in one direction were superior to movements in the opposite direction; e. g., trains moving north were superior to those of the same class moving south). It was possible for a train order to give a particular train the right over other trains, but usually the timetable class and superior direction showed what train was superior to another; inferior trains, of course, had to keep out of the way of superior trains. Some passenger trains were considered so important that it was not enough that an opposing inferior train be at a meeting point five minutes or so before the superior train was to arrrive; inferior trains were to be in the clear ten or fifteen minutes before the scheduled or train order time. Trains that had no schedule in the timetable were called "extras," "work extras," or "passenger extras," and they had no timetable authority, but could be given, by train order, rights over other trains.
In the fifties, railroads began giving first class status to certain freights so that they could provide faster service--and passenger trains were often delayed because of the need to move these freights faster.
Indeed, in 1971, it was common for passenger trains to be delayed by freight movements, and, when I was returning to Chicago from Portland on the City of Portland in April of that year, I was pleasantly surprised to see that we were run around an eastbound freight and commented to no one in particular that it was nice that we would not be delayed by the freight–and a lady behind me agreed. We fell into conversation--and the result of our meeting is that we still converse quite often (sometimes she calls me on an intercommunication system from upstairs, where her computer is, down to where my computer is).
In general the mix of traffic was very different, and also the environment. "Just-in-Time" transportation and transit time for freight was not a big concern. Before the Interstate highways transcontinental trucks were not strong competitors. Today most freight on the railroads is long haul on the main lines; in earlier times the branch lines were very active. It was not uncommon to have shipments entirely within a small region with minimal use of the busy main lines. The physical plant was designed for the mix, with lots of cheap labor to maintain it.
Today the freight traffic is mostly on the same main routes the passenger operation wants to use. Many freight shippers demand fast reliable transit time or they will switch to road carriers. For freight and passenger to coexist the capacity has to be increased, usually by adding extra tracks, either main tracks or a lot more sidings. This can sometimes be done fairly readily, but rights-of-way are limited in width and the railroad might well need that extra land for their own future freight expansion.
Economic returns are an issue. That 10,000 foot freight is bringing a good chunk of change to the bottom line. You don't want to risk losing that business by giving priority to trains that pay less well, and may even cost you money if there are problems keeping the schedule specifications.
Finally, and not necessarily leat, the liability issue is big. Potential payouts for a major accident involving a passenger train could be massive and the railroads don't want to risk having their "deep pockets" picked as a result of business they didn't particularly want in the first place.
Hello!
Does anyone know how railroads managed the coexistence of their freight and passenger lines around the years 1900-1950? I've noticed that there is a lot of resistance nowadays by the freight railroads against implementing high-speed passenger operations over their trackage-the most popular arguments I have heard include issues with scheduling and infrastructure. How were these problems dealt with back then? Are they simply coming to light now because of the higher speeds?
Thank you!
-Joe
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter