Change of train numbers

[Vermontanan2]

rcdrye

All three trains operated separately from the GN station in Minneapolis to SPUD, with GN, NP and CB&Q crews and numbers, from where they were either combined or fitted with appropriate marker to run as sections under the Black Hawk's number.

 

 

Yes, all the trains operated as Great Northern trains as this was the GN from Minneapolis to St. Paul.  Usually, the GN train number in the timetable was different than the train number used by the foreign railroad.  (In 1953, for example, the Black Hawk was trains 923 and 930.)

 

https://www.gn-npjointarchive.org/GN%20Timetable%20Scans/GN%2019530927%20ETT%20302%20TWIN%20CITY%20TERMINALS.pdf 

 

Same thing in the early 1950s on CB&Q between St. Paul and Chicago:  Great Northern timetables (and in the Official Guide) refers the Western Star as trains 3 and 4 between Chicago and St. Paul, but the CB&Q employee and public timetables referred to the Western Star as trains 53 and 54.

[Vermontanan2]

wjstix

No, I chose not to quote like an entire page. It says the trains ran separately before 1953, were combined 1953-59 as described, then all three normally went together from 1959 on. 

Again quoting the Strauss book:

"Although the plan for the Mainstreeter originally called for it to be operated between Chicago and St. Paul as CB&Q Nos. 51 & 50, shortly after it entered service it was combined with Burlington Route's Black Hawk for the overnight Chicago-St. Paul runs."

The Mainstreeter began in late 1952 and throughout all of 1953, NP timetables show the Mainstreeter as trains 47 and 48 (Black Hawk) between Chicago and St. Paul; CB&Q timetables indicate the Western Star as trains 53 and 54 from 1951 through 1953.  Therefore, there were two such trains in each direction, the Western Star and Black Hawk, with the Black Hawk handling the Mainstreeter’s cars when it started operating.  It’s unlikely and illogical that CB&Q would change their method of operation in 1953 and still operate two trains (the claim in wjstix's book), but use one number in each direction, but two sections.  It would seem that if the book is as flawless as wjstix claims it to be, its authors would note this significant change, and explain why.

wjstix

Sections normally ran a few minutes apart, in this case 15 minutes.

If they wanted the trains 15 minutes apart, they would be on different schedules and no timetables from 1953 to 1959 indicate that.  Spacing of 15 minutes would be possible by train order, but not in this territory (see below).  It could also be done by “M” message or holding the train at a control point, but this would be cumbersome.  In reality, the second section would simply show up after the first section, maybe 15 minutes later, maybe 30 minutes later, or maybe just on block following the first section.   

wjstix

From what I understand of dispatching (and I'm sure many folks know more) the 'train' was not considered to have passed a station or tower until the last section had gone by. It wouldn't be marked 'on the sheet' until then. So let's say train A was ordered to take a siding until train B went past. They'd have to wait until all sections of train A had passed them by. 

 

Not the case.  If you had three sections of train 47, they would be individual trains in on the train sheet, train register, receiving clearance and reported (OS’d) at stations.  They would be First 47, Second 47, and Third 47.  The first and second sections would display green signals and the third (and last) second no signals.  An intermediate station would OS the first train as: “First 47, Eng 1234, green signals, by at 459 AM” and the dispatcher would place the time “on sheet” at that station in the column for First 47, which would be on a separate column from any other sections on his/her train sheet.  This would indicate to the dispatcher that that train was by said station in its entirety.  The second section would be similarly OS’d, and the third section, “Third No. 47, Eng 3456, no signals, by at 615 AM.”  “No signals” indicates that this is the last section of this regular train.  Each section of this regular train has equal timetable authority, but how they interact with other trains on the railroad does not have to be the same.

I can’t say how CB&Q operated sections of regular trains, but as a train dispatcher, in this particular territory it would seem most logical to operate anything other than the first section as an extra because here movement is authorized by signal indication which supersedes the superiority of trains and no train order authorization would be necessary.  Authorizing extra sections by train order would be superfluous.

Where this would not be the case (like dark territory or single-track non-CTC, for example), multiple sections (Second, third, fourth sections, etc.) could be authorized by train order, and indeed could operate well apart and meet and pass other trains at different locations than the other sections.  The only limitation is that all the movement would need to occur within 12 hours at each station where time was shown for that regular train.  This type of operation would usually use the “run late” order: “Second No. 47 Eng 2345, run 2 hours late C to J, and 1 hour 30 minutes late J to Z.”  This would allow inferior trains to move against Second No. 47 even after meeting or being passed by First No. 47 operating on time.

[/quote]

 

[rcdrye]

All three trains operated separately from the GN station in Minneapolis to SPUD, with GN, NP and CB&Q crews and numbers, from where they were either combined or fitted with appropriate marker to run as sections under the Black Hawk's number.

[wjstix]

No, I chose not to quote like an entire page. It says the trains ran separately before 1953, were combined 1953-59 as described, then all three normally went together from 1959 on. 

Sections normally ran a few minutes apart, in this case 15 minutes. So say the Black Hawk / Western Star was one section, and the Mainstreeter was the other. Each would be a section of the Black Hawk. Since they did this combining every day 1953-59, it made sense to assign all three trains with the same train number in the schedule. 

From what I understand of dispatching (and I'm sure many folks know more) the 'train' was not considered to have passed a station or tower until the last section had gone by. It wouldn't be marked 'on the sheet' until then. So let's say train A was ordered to take a siding until train B went past. They'd have to wait until all sections of train A had passed them by. 

[timz]

wjstix

"In 1953, the GN's Western Star rode the Black Hawk eastbound, followed 15 minutes later by the NP's Mainstreeter. Westbound the Mainstreeter and Black Hawk were combined with the Western Star running separately. In later years the three were combined."

That's all the book says about when the combining happened?

If so, no indication that the author thinks Western Star was scheduled to run separately in 1954 or later. He's just describing the situation in 1953.

Yes, of course Q could run the train in sections -- any railroad could run any train in sections. If you want to claim they're "separate trains", you have to show separate schedules.

By the way: operators would OS each section by, wouldn't they? If there were seven sections, they wouldn't keep the dispatcher in the dark for hours until a section finally appeared with no signals?

[Vermontanan2]

wjstix

The irony here is the timetables / schedules you refer to don't contradict the book I'm quoting from - if anything, they appear to confirm what it says. It's just a problem of (mis)interpretation of what is there.

No, they do contradict.  You’re the one attempting disinterpretation.

wjstix

Since you asked about why the timetables don't show the sections, I suspect maybe you don't understand what I mean so let me explain.

Nobody asked this.  And as a train dispatcher with nearly 10 years experience with timetable and train order operation, I would have no need to.

wjstix

Let's say in 1955 a railroad had a train 33 that left it's starting point at 8 am, and could hold 300 passengers. Suppose one day - maybe a busy holiday time - 850 people wanted to ride the train. The railroad could add a few extra cars to the train, but not enough to get everyone onboard. So they would make up let's say two complete additional trains, each with their own engines and such. 

The two added trains aren't 'extra' trains, they're all train 33. Each would make the same stops etc., but be running about 10-15 minutes apart. If you were working in a signal tower or station, train 33 would begin to pass by when the first engine of the first section went by, but it would not have passed you and put "OS'd" (reported as having passed your location) until the last car of the last section went by. 

Since the railroad didn't know ahead of time it would be running sections of train 33 that day, it would not put anything in the schedule. Besides, the sections are not separate trains, they're all train 33. 

As an experienced train dispatcher, I totally understand how this works.  But that’s not the point.  Yes, a scheduled train could operate in multiple sections, but that doesn’t mean it did.  It is incumbent on you to provide evidence that this was the preferred method, and you also must provide evidence that your interpretation was the what the authors of the quote you indicated meant.  And, you also need to provide evidence that the trains were indeed operated as sections instead of extra trains.  In this territory specifically (mostly CTC or 251-254 territory), operating the trains as extras would have the same effect, operationally speaking.  What’s missing is your evidence that this happened often enough to be the rule instead of the exception, and why the CB&Q changed its operation showing the Western Star as trains 53 and 54 (in both public and employee timetables) to the train operating as trains 47 and 48 (the Black Hawk) even though they were separate trains? We await your evidence-based response.

wjstix

Between a date in 1953 and a date in 1959, the Black Hawk, Western Star, and Mainstreeter had the same train number and schedule on the Burlington. Does this mean all three were combined into one long train? No, not between those dates. In that time, the westbound Western Star ran by itself, and the Mainstreeter and Black Hawk ran together as one train. However, by timetable, train order sheets, etc. the Burlington considered them to be one train - the Black Hawk - but running in two sections. 

It also doesn’t mean the trains WEREN’T consolidated, either.  During peak periods even into the 1960s, second sections were possible.  And, again, why did CB&Q change its operation from showing the Western Star as trains 53 and 54 to indicate its cars were operating as trains 47 and 48? 

wjstix

As far as why I'm quoting this book...well, first it's the first comprehensive book on the subject (as noted in the Fall 2023 Classic Trains magazine's review), and most importantly, the people involved. The author, Aaron Isaacs, is a noted an respected railroad author and historian, as are the book's editorial contributors - Don Hofsommer for example. The book is published by one of the most respected railroad historical societies in the US. I can't believe all these people could have combined to just make up something out of thin air, or that they wouldn't be able to read a timetable and understand what it means.

Well, name-dropping is usually what people do when they lack evidence, and in this case, the text you provided doesn’t provide elaboration.  And you just contradicted yourself.  Since your claim is that the trains operated in multiple sections, then a timetable would not indicate that one way or the other.  And such an authoritative book, one would think, would logically explain why the Western Star and Mainstreeter were combined with the Black Hawk in only one direction respectively.  Why?

wjstix

If I really wanted to - and I don't - I could waste a lot of time going through other books to get corroboration. But that isn't going to change things, the trains still ran the way they ran.

Response as expected.

[wjstix]

The irony here is the timetables / schedules you refer to don't contradict the book I'm quoting from - if anything, they appear to confirm what it says. It's just a problem of (mis)interpretation of what is there.

Since you asked about why the timetables don't show the sections, I suspect maybe you don't understand what I mean so let me explain.

Let's say in 1955 a railroad had a train 33 that left it's starting point at 8 am, and could hold 300 passengers. Suppose one day - maybe a busy holiday time - 850 people wanted to ride the train. The railroad could add a few extra cars to the train, but not enough to get everyone onboard. So they would make up let's say two complete additional trains, each with their own engines and such. 

The two added trains aren't 'extra' trains, they're all train 33. Each would make the same stops etc., but be running about 10-15 minutes apart. If you were working in a signal tower or station, train 33 would begin to pass by when the first engine of the first section went by, but it would not have passed you and put "OS'd" (reported as having passed your location) until the last car of the last section went by. 

Since the railroad didn't know ahead of time it would be running sections of train 33 that day, it would not put anything in the schedule. Besides, the sections are not separate trains, they're all train 33. 

Between a date in 1953 and a date in 1959, the Black Hawk, Western Star, and Mainstreeter had the same train number and schedule on the Burlington. Does this mean all three were combined into one long train? No, not between those dates. In that time, the westbound Western Star ran by itself, and the Mainstreeter and Black Hawk ran together as one train. However, by timetable, train order sheets, etc. the Burlington considered them to be one train - the Black Hawk - but running in two sections. 

As far as why I'm quoting this book...well, first it's the first comprehensive book on the subject (as noted in the Fall 2023 Classic Trains magazine's review), and most importantly, the people involved. The author, Aaron Isaacs, is a noted an respected railroad author and historian, as are the book's editorial contributors - Don Hofsommer for example. The book is published by one of the most respected railroad historical societies in the US. I can't believe all these people could have combined to just make up something out of thin air, or that they wouldn't be able to read a timetable and understand what it means.

If I really wanted to - and I don't - I could waste a lot of time going through other books to get corroboration. But that isn't going to change things, the trains still ran the way they ran.

[timz]

Forgot about this one

https://wx4.org/to/foam/sp/maps/zukasETT/1953-09-27CB%26Q_LaCrosse68-TimZukas.pdf

and a 1956

https://wx4.org/to/foam/sp/maps/zukasETT/1956-04-29CB%26Q_Chicago-Aurora45-TimZukas.pdf

 

 

[Vermontanan2]

wjstix

The timetables / offical registers show that when running on the CB&Q, the Mainstreeter and Western Star had the same train numbers and arrival/departure times as the Black Hawk. Now yes, that could mean (as it did in the 1960s) that it was in fact one long train with all the cars pulled by one set of diesel locomotives...however, it could also mean that, when on the Burlington, those two trains ran as sections of the Black Hawk. Each train running separately, with it's own locomotives, but running on the schedule of the Black Hawk.

Or it could mean that they operated as shown in the timetable.  Multiple sections of any scheduled train were always a possibility, but that doesn't mean that was the intended operation or the normal operation.  And if "the book" you are touting is so beyond reproach, one wonders why it did not specifically indicate that multiple sections were operated.  And it should be noted that sections of a train have equal timetable authority and operated on the same times in the schedule (unless directed differently by train order).  But in 1953, the Western Star operated as trains 53 and 54 on CB&Q between Chicago and St. Paul, but the Black Hawk-Mainstreeter was 47 and 48.  If the predominate method of operation was with sections, why did the trains have different numbers?

wjstix

Or as actually happened:

"In 1953, the GN's Western Star rode the Black Hawk eastbound, followed 15 minutes later by the NP's Mainstreeter. Westbound the Mainstreeter and Black Hawk were combined with the Western Star running separately. In later years the three were combined."

-pg. 76, Shore Line Interurban Historical Society Dispatch Number 14, "The Most Competitive Passenger Corridor: CHICAGO - TWIN CITIES" by Aaron Issacs.

While your devotion to this single source is your prerogative, the material issued by the actual operating entities (the railroads) doesn't support this.

Again, the Streamliner Memories site shows three NP timetables for 1953 covering the entire year.  Throughout the entire year, those timetables uniformly show the Mainstreeter and Black Hawk as one consolidated train between Chicago and St. Paul.  The GN timetable from the same year shows the Western Star on a different schedule between St. Paul and Chicago.

Contrary to what "the book" says, an Official Guide of the Railways from 1953 (the year of the quote from "the book") shows the westbound Western Star departing Chicago at 1050 PM, arriving in St. Paul at 715 AM the following morning.  The westbound Black Hawk-Mainstreeter departed Chicago at 1100 PM, and arrived in St. Paul at 740 AM the following morning.  

Eastbound, the Western Star departed St. Paul at 1115 PM arriving Chicago at 720 AM the following morning, and the Black Hawk-Mainstreeter departed St. Paul at 1145 PM, arriving in Chicago the following morning at 800 AM.

Note that the Western Star is faster in each direction than the Black Hawk-Mainstreeter, most notably to do work at Savanna.  However, being a bona fide streamliner (that the Mainstreeter never was), the Western Star had conditional stops at East Dubuque, Prairie du Chien, and Winona Jct.   And again, the two trains have different schedule numbers (each way).

Moreover, the claim by "the book" "In 1953, the GN's Western Star rode the Black Hawk eastbound " is especially ridiculous because the Western Star arrived in St. Paul 30 minutes before the Mainstreeter, so it would seem more than odd that the Western Star would hold in St. Paul for the Black Hawk departing yet another 30 minutes later.  Obvious conclusion:  It just didn't happen.

And repeating, the Western Star and Mainstreeter were not comparable trains.  With completely streamlined equipment and always operating with more cars to/from Chicago than the Mainstreeter, that the train with superlative equipment and simply much more equipment each trip would then be consolidated with the CB&Q workhorse in any direction (during 1953, the year quoted in "the book") would seem illogical as well as in contrast to ALL the schedules indicated by railroad-issued timetables and entries in Official Guides as indicated by those operating railroads.  By 1955 (the year NOT quoted by "the book"), reduced demand obviously resulted in the three-way consolidation which lasted into the 1960s.

[wjstix]

timz

 wjstix

the Black Hawk combining with the Western Star one direction and the Mainstreeter the other began in 1953, and ran that way until about 1959.

 

 

Take a look at page 1034 of the 10/55 Guide

 

Timetable World

timetableworld.com doesn't have a 1954 Guide; I didn't check the later ones, but maybe you misread your high-quality book?

 

OK, I think that helps explain the confusion here.

The timetables / offical registers show that when running on the CB&Q, the Mainstreeter and Western Star had the same train numbers and arrival/departure times as the Black Hawk. Now yes, that could mean (as it did in the 1960s) that it was in fact one long train with all the cars pulled by one set of diesel locomotives...however, it could also mean that, when on the Burlington, those two trains ran as sections of the Black Hawk. Each train running separately, with it's own locomotives, but running on the schedule of the Black Hawk.

Or as actually happened:

"In 1953, the GN's Western Star rode the Black Hawk eastbound, followed 15 minutes later by the NP's Mainstreeter. Westbound the Mainstreeter and Black Hawk were combined with the Western Star running separately. In later years the three were combined."

-pg. 76, Shore Line Interurban Historical Society Dispatch Number 14, "The Most Competitive Passenger Corridor: CHICAGO - TWIN CITIES" by Aaron Issacs.

[timz]

wjstix

the Black Hawk combining with the Western Star one direction and the Mainstreeter the other began in 1953, and ran that way until about 1959.

Take a look at page 1034 of the 10/55 Guide

Timetable World

timetableworld.com doesn't have a 1954 Guide; I didn't check the later ones, but maybe you misread your high-quality book?

[Vermontanan2]

wjstix

 

 

According the book I referenced (put out by a historical group noted for their research quality) the pattern of the Black Hawk combining with the Western Star one direction and the Mainstreeter the other began in 1953, and ran that way until about 1959. Western Star running by itself before that time, and all three running together as one after that, is I believe correct.

Official Guides of the Railways I have from 1956, 1957, 1958, and 1959 all show both the Mainstreeter and Western Star through Chicago cars riding the CB&Q Black Hawk between St. Paul and Chicago.

If you check out this link:

https://streamlinermemories.info/?page_id=7140

you can access NP timetables from 1953 (the Winter-Spring version just a few months after the Mainstreeter was inaugurated), 1954, 1956, and 1957.  In each case, these timetables specifically show the Mainstreeter between Chicago and St. Paul as CB&Q trains 47 and 48, the Black Hawk.

On page 14 of John Strauss's Northern Pacific Pictorial, Volume Five, it states, "Although the plan for the Mainstreeter originally called for it to be operated between Chicago and St. Paul as CB&Q Nos. 51 & 50, shortly after it entered service it was combined with Burlington Route's Black Hawk for the overnight Chicago-St. Paul runs."

On page 20 of the same book detailing a Black Hawk-Mainstreeter consist out of Chicago: "The Burlington Route continued to combine the Mainstreeter's through cars with its Black Hawk between Chicago and St. Paul during 1953; this was true even though through cars were added to the Mainstreeter's consists during the Park Season."

On pages 79 and 84 of John Strauss's Great Northern Pictorial Volume 4, it indicates that the Western Star was consolidated into the CB&Q Black Hawk between Chicago and St. Paul in the fall of 1955.

So, to recap:  The only time the Mainstreeter operated as a separate train between Chicago and St. Paul was for a very short time after its creation in late 1952; thereafter (and until through cars ended in the 1960s), through cars moved in both directions on the CB&Q Black Hawk, and during this time (as was the case from 1951 to 1955) the Western Star operated as a separate train between Chicago and Seattle.

Therefore, the preponderance of evidence shows that the claim made by the book you reference is false.

[wjstix]

Vermontanan2

And also, just because it's in a book.....

Which works both ways of course! However, I don't know that our facts are in contradiction. According the book I referenced (put out by a historical group noted for their research quality) the pattern of the Black Hawk combining with the Western Star one direction and the Mainstreeter the other began in 1953, and ran that way until about 1959. Western Star running by itself before that time, and all three running together as one after that, is I believe correct.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

wjstix

I may well be wrong on that, I know the Milwaukee's super-slow local Twin Citites - Chicago train (56/59 IIRC?) carried mail, maybe it had NP's mail cars? Main thing I was thinking is NP and GN passengers went to Chicago on the CB&Q, but the mail went on the Milwaukee Road.

I don't mean to be a nitpicker but the local was MILW 55/58.  it was the subject of a lead editorial in TRAINS relative to the inconsistency of the ICC with train-off petitions.  The local had lost its mail contracts and the ICC turned down the discontinuance petition despite minimal ridership while allowing C&EI to discontinue its portion of the "Humming Bird/Georgian" between Chicago and Evansville despite the number of through passengers from L&N.

[Vermontanan2]

wjstix

 

My source re the combining of the Western Star and Mainstreeter with the Black Hawk was the book "The Most Competitive Passenger Corridor: CHICAGO - TWIN CITIES", published earlier this year by the Shore Line Interurban Society. What I said is correct beginning in 1953 according to the book (pg. 76), but it is correct that at a later point all three were combined.

Well, I don't have that book, but my Official Guides from 1951 to 1953 show the Western Star as a separate train to/from Chicago.   I would guess that the three-way consolidation happened shortly thereafter and definitely by 1955.  But as Mr. Strauss pointed out, during periods of heavy volume, the Mainstreeter was consolidated with the Black Hawk and Western Star operated separately.  I consider this to be the most logical simply because the Western Star was far the larger train than the Mainstreeter, and therefore the Mainstreeter would be the better candidate for consolidation.  And also, just because it's in a book.....

[wjstix]

Vermontanan2

wjstix BTW the Mainstreeter's mail cars went from St.Paul to Chicago on the Milwaukee Road's Fast Mail. That would be awkward because the eastbound Mainstreeter was scheduled to arrive in St. Paul late evening about 1000 PM or so, but the MILW Fast Mail departed St. Paul eastbound around 800 PM, which means a 22-hour layover each day. 

I may well be wrong on that, I know the Milwaukee's super-slow local Twin Citites - Chicago train (56/59 IIRC?) carried mail, maybe it had NP's mail cars? Main thing I was thinking is NP and GN passengers went to Chicago on the CB&Q, but the mail went on the Milwaukee Road.

My source re the combining of the Western Star and Mainstreeter with the Black Hawk was the book "The Most Competitive Passenger Corridor: CHICAGO - TWIN CITIES", published earlier this year by the Shore Line Interurban Society. What I said is correct beginning in 1953 according to the book (pg. 76), but it is correct that at a later point all three were combined.

[Vermontanan2]

Aurora SL 1

I envy you, wjstix, have tried without luck to find a copy of Kuebler's book. (Well, one I can afford, anyway). 

For those who are looking at getting this book, just a word or two of caution about what it is and is not:  While I think it is worthwhile getting, it is not a definitive history of the North Coast Limited.  The book is focused only on the years 1954 (when the train got dome cars) through 1967 (until the observation car was removed).  There is little reference to the before or after or to other trains NP operated which is important because no passenger train operated in a vacuum; others that may have provided connections or supplemental service or the competition and their effect are not mentioned.  For the years it does cover, it is very detailed.  Just so you're aware of the book's scope.

[Vermontanan2]

wjstix

And yes, GN's Western Star only ran on GN to St. Paul, St. Paul to Chicago was CB&Q tracks/engines. Eastbound from St. Paul the Western Star was combined with the CB&Q's Blackhawk, westbound it ran on it’s own. The Mainstreeter did the opposite - eastbound it ran on it’s own, westbound it was combined with the Blackhawk.

Not the case.  After the Mainstreeter was inaugurated in November of 1952, its cars operated on the Black Hawk between Chicago and St. Paul.  The Western Star continued as a separate CB&Q train between those same two cities as was the case since the creation of the Western Star in June, 1951.

Over the decade, the Western Star was indeed consolidated with the Black Hawk between Chicago and St. Paul (which also handled the Mainstreeter cars) during off seasons, but also operated as a separate train as demand required.  It’s important to remember that the Western Star and Mainstreeter were in no way comparable; The Western Star was a bona fide streamliner into the 1960s (the Mainstreeter was not) and was always the much larger train.

The late John Strauss’s book “Northern Pacific Pictorial Volume Five” provides a good example of this on page 89 with a 1959 summer season consist for CB&Q’s Black Hawk-Mainstreeter-Western Star.  The consist is 21 cars departing Chicago, but only three of the cars continue west of St. Paul on the Mainstreeter whereas eight cars continue west of St. Paul on the GN Western Star.  The Mainstreeter cars were one baggage car, one coach, and one sleeping car.  The Western Star through cars included one baggage car, three coaches (two reserved, and one non-reserved, all to Seattle), three sleeping cars (two to Seattle, one to Portland), and the Buffet-Lounge-Observation car.  There’s also this notation: “During the 1959 Summer Season, when the Mainstreeter and/or Western Star had ‘extra’ through coaches and/or sleeping cars that carried tours to and from Glacier Park, Yellowstone Park, and the Pacific Northwest, Burlington Route operated this train in two sections, ‘the Black Hawk-Mainstreeter Section’ and ‘the Western Star Section,’ between Chicago and St. Paul Union Depot.” 

wjstix

BTW the Mainstreeter's mail cars went from St.Paul to Chicago on the Milwaukee Road's Fast Mail.

That would be awkward because the eastbound Mainstreeter was scheduled to arrive in St. Paul late evening about 1000 PM or so, but the MILW Fast Mail departed St. Paul eastbound around 800 PM, which means a 22-hour layover each day.  By 1968 (when NP had posted the Mainstreeter for discontinuance), the Mainstreeter schedule had been changed to arrive St. Paul in mid-afternoon, but by then any mail was gone.  As stated earlier, Great Northern had the primary mail contract west of St. Paul, and starting 1960 when the GN Fast Mail was consolidated with the Western Star over the entire route (consolidation in segments began in the mid-1950s), its schedule was changed for a mid-afternoon arrival in St. Paul which connected with the eastbound MILW Fast Mail that same evening.

[Overmod]

eBay has used copies (probably 1st edition) for $65.90 and $73.00, both with free shipping, when I searched at 5:30 Monday afternoon (Oct 23, 2023).  It's possible that if you put this in a watchlist, the seller will offer a discount...

This might be an option depending on what shipping to Australia is if you buy it via Stix's method.

[Aurora SL 1]

Thanks Stix, will follow up on that suggestion. I appreacite the suggestion. 

[wjstix]

Don't know how much postage would be to Australia, but NPRHA has them for $65 US; $59.80 if you're a member....

https://store.nprha.org/vista-dome-ncl/

 

[Aurora SL 1]

Hi Stix, I'm in Australia and most copies I have seen online are approx. $200.00 - $270.00 AUD, including postage. Might have trouble justifying that one to my (very patient) other half.  

[wjstix]

Hmmm, didn't know it was that expensive now? Mine cost $34.95 back in 2007. I believe list was $74.95.

[Aurora SL 1]

I envy you, wjstix, have tried without luck to find a copy of Kuebler's book. (Well, one I can afford, anyway). 

[BaltACD]

wjstix

Just some additional / better info. I reviewed my copy of Bill Kuebler's excellent book "The Vista-Dome North Coast Limited". It notes that even after F-units began pulling the NCL after WW2, it still maintained it's 'steam era' schedule, stopping at many small towns, so took several hours more than the recently upgraded GN Empire Builder or Milwaukee Olympian Hiawatha.

The upgraded / faster early fifties NCL was faster mainly because NP scheduled it to have far fewer stops than before. It was the towns that got passed over that complained. In response, NP created the Mainstreeter and had it run on the old NCL schedule, using the original NCL train numbers (1 and 2). 

Also, from the book (page 15):

"Some historians have said the Northern Pacific chose those train numbers (25 and 26) because the New York Central's famous Twentieth Century Limited trains...operated with the same numbers. (B)ut according to Richard Mossman, former Passenger Traffic Department Vice-President...this is not true. NP and the Chicago Burlington and Quincy (CB&Q) simply found a number pair they could share without conflicting with other train numbers."

25 & 26 were the schedule numbers of B&O's Vista-dome, streamlined Columbian when it ran as a separate train.

[wjstix]

Just some additional / better info. I reviewed my copy of Bill Kuebler's excellent book "The Vista-Dome North Coast Limited". It notes that even after F-units began pulling the NCL after WW2, it still maintained it's 'steam era' schedule, stopping at many small towns, so took several hours more than the recently upgraded GN Empire Builder or Milwaukee Olympian Hiawatha.

The upgraded / faster early fifties NCL was faster mainly because NP scheduled it to have far fewer stops than before. It was the towns that got passed over that complained. In response, NP created the Mainstreeter and had it run on the old NCL schedule, using the original NCL train numbers (1 and 2). 

Also, from the book (page 15):

"Some historians have said the Northern Pacific chose those train numbers (25 and 26) because the New York Central's famous Twentieth Century Limited trains...operated with the same numbers. (B)ut according to Richard Mossman, former Passenger Traffic Department Vice-President...this is not true. NP and the Chicago Burlington and Quincy (CB&Q) simply found a number pair they could share without conflicting with other train numbers."

[wjstix]

Great Northern had the Twin Cities - Seattle postal contract, so don't know the post office would be involved with NP changing the NCL schedule.

GN's top passenger train was the Fast Mail, only the top men in seniority could run it. Higher status for engineers than the Builder. Later, the Fast Mail was combined with the Western Star (1960 IIRC). 

[Overmod]

I wonder if 25/26 were chosen to invoke the NYC Twentieth Century Limited?

[rcdrye]

The Post Office may have had something to do with it as well.