BNSF snap switches at Rochelle???

[Anonymous]

I was at Rochelle six hours and did notice all
Chicago traffic had the rails farthest away from
the park. Like wise all northbound's were on the
rail closest to the park. Is that standard practice?

[Anonymous]

A majority of railroads run on the right-hand side of the tracks. This tradition dates way back to the first railroads. Since the BNSF westbound rail is closest to the railpark, then all outbound traffic would run on that main.

However, the Union Pacific line through Rochelle (and all the way to Omaha) is the former Chicago & North Western mainline. Way back in the early days of the C&NW, someone in the road decided to run the trains on the left-hand side (There is a story about this but it escapes my mind). When UP bought the C&NW, the people in Omaha decided to keep this, since everything on the line was built for left-handed operation. This would put the outbound UP traffic on the line closest to the railpark as well. Of course, as we say in the railfanning world, any train can come down any track at any time.

[Soo2610]

Definitely not standard practice in Rochelle. Actually most of the BNSF traffic runs on the track closest to the park. The other track is more of a passing siding and is also used for local traffic.
However, as Steve said, in Rochelle you can expect a train going in any direction on any track at any time on either railroad.

[alangj]

I recall seeing two completely different explanations in various books for the C&NW's left-hand running. I have absolutely NO idea which one is correct (if either), but to my "ear", the first one sounds slightly more plausible than the second. See what you think:

1) One "explanation" was that the founders of the C&NW were bankrolled by English/French interests, and so the original design and construction of the C&NW lines followed the European precedent of left-hand running.

2) Another "explanation" claims that when the C&NW was originally laid out, most of the stations (passenger platforms, I presume) were built on what would be the left-hand side of the majority of the trains, and the trackside signals were oriented in a similar manner. When the single-track sections were later converted to double-track, the "new" track had to be positioned to the opposite side of the existing one, as viewed from the station platform point of view. Instead of repositioning all of the platforms, signals, etc., it was decided to adopt the "wrong-way" sort of running instead. (The reason I don't feel this explanation "holds water" is that presumably, there'd be approximately as many trains running in each direction over the original single-track line, so in that sense, right from the word "go", half of them would have the station platforms on the "wrong" side, and half would have them on the "right" side.)

If I had to guess, I'd say that I found these bits of (mis)information in the photo books of Lucius Beebe and Don Ball Jr, among a few others.

[CShaveRR]

The "official" explanation is the second one. Think about it this way: the stations are used more by people getting on a train than by those getting off one, especially around Chicago, which is where the railroad had its origin. So it would make sense for the track nearest the stations to be used by trains handling the most boardings...usually bound for Chicago. On the west line, for example, the stations were built to the north of the tracks, so the northernmost track (the one on the left) would be the logical one for trains headed toward Chicago.

There are probably railroads with a lot more foreign connections than the C&NW had, and it didn't affect the way their trains moved.

[alangj]

OK, but..........

If there were more people getting on the C&NW's trains at the outlying stations than were getting off at them, where were the people ending up? Unless they were consistently returning to their "starting points" via some other RR, or by some other means of transportation entirely, it would seem that Chicago should have been overflowing with C&NW passengers. Regardless of the configuration of a passenger station's facilities with respect to either single- or double-track, roughly half of the passengers will be using a platform on the "opposite" or "wrong" side.

Not that it's any proof either way at this point, but I'm looking at the picture of a C&NW WWII wartime freight on page 59 of Lucius Beebe's 1945 book entitled "Highball - A Pageant of Trains". The last sentence of his caption under this picture reads:
"Notice the left-hand operation, typical of all the trackage on the road, which was financed by British capital, and which has ever since its inception retained this characteristic English convention of traffic."

At least, after a bit of searching my bookshelves, I was able to find this reference, so I know I wasn't hallucinating yesterday and making things up out of thin air. While Mr. Beebe's comment certainly isn't conclusive, I'm sure that somewhere, there's some truly "official" written documentation in their archives that would provide the "true" explanation, other then just "because".

Alan

[alangj]

OOPS!
Shoulda' been "than" not "then" in the last line.
AGJ

[CShaveRR]

When they get off the trains from Chicago, and go straight to their homes, cars, friends, whatever...they have no need to go into the station building. Stations are more for people getting on trains than getting off.

[Anonymous]

I've heard both versions of the CNW left-hand running, and I'm more inclined to believe the "More people use the stations going into Chicago than coming out" theory. I believe this has been the "official" story from the company, but I don't know if there is one single story.