If the list could be narrowed to that size...what would they be? After browsing several threads over the last week my interest has been piqued. If I were to be only able to get 10 books on RR history (general-why some lines thrived/died, mergers, etc) what would my best bets be?
Dan
The only histories of specific railways I think are worthy of a top 10 list are:
Books on my bottom 10 list are anything by Albro Martin.
RWM
I thought the American Heritage book by Jensen was an excellent broad and general history, excellent for the beginner or novice. From this book one can seek and direct oneself to specific areas of interest. By that I mean specific railorads, specific geography, specific technology, specific business or other aspect of railroads histories. Also I suggest books by those who know railroads and histories and not a hack who wants to rip railroads, managements and politics apart nor those authors/editors/compilers or photographers or publishers who put together books just to make a quick buck. Again, each person's tastes and interests are going to be the guage by which a list would be made.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
My own short list would include:
Railroads Triumphant (Maury Klein)
Canadian Pacific East (Omer Lavallee)
The National Dream (Pierre Berton)
The Big Four (Oscar Lewis)
Canadian Steam! (David P Morgan)
Magnetic North (Cook/Zimmerman)
Steam, Steel, and Stars (O Winston Link)
The Nickel Plate Road John A. Rehor, Kalmbach Publishing, circa 1964.
It's more than just a history of a regional railroad - it really interweaves with the settling and industrial development of the upper Midwest US from the late 1800s through 1950 - the book itself goes up to the N&W-Wabash merger in 1964, but I didn't get as much out of the post-WW II years portion. Its strong points are the detailed histories of the early years of all the constiutent lines; the account of the Van Sweringen brothers' ownership and control via their Allegheny Corporation of the NKP, C&O, and Pere Marquette and their development projects in Cleveland (Terminal Tower); their Joint Mechanical Committee that developed the specifications that led to the NKP's 700-series Berkshires; the history of the Berkshires themselves, as well as the NKP's other steam power and passenger trains; photos and captions tied into the text from the 1920s through the 1950s that make that era of history - beyond the railroad itself - really understandable. It's really a microcosm of the railroading business and the entire country during that time frame, and if you want to "drill down" and go for "depth" instead of "breadth" in a history of at least 1 railroad and 1 region, I'd say this is a good one with which to do it.
- Paul North.
I'll admit I haven't read 10 RR history books (I have a large collection of what I call "picture books" meaning Morning Sun-type books).
But I'll submit one for certain:
The Wreck Of The Penn Central
Great reading - couldn't put it down at times.
WIAR I'll admit I haven't read 10 RR history books [/snip]
I'll admit I haven't read 10 RR history books [/snip]
Neither have I and I'd like to start doing so. I guess I've turned somewhat of a page in my interest from "Hey a train" to "Where is that going, why there, and what did 'they' used to do here (and elsewhere)?"
Add George Hilton's American Narrow Gauge Railways in there somewhere.
Now only if that Big Four book was about the railroad (CCC&StL) instead of the left coast schlepps...really tired of reading about PRR and NYC from the Allegheny mounds eastward. The books on th Vandalia & the Panhandle are about to be printed, but Big 4 is still under-represented.
Rehor's book could have been better as could have Heimendinger's Wabash effort in the text, but both are in my reference library.
I hate to disagree with you but I think everyone with an interest in rail history, er even american business history should read and understand Albro Martin's "Enterprise Denied" as it tells the tale of how the industry got on the road to rack and ruin.
Mac
I really enjoyed New Haven Railroad by Peter E. Lynch it covers the New Haven from it's beginning to it's merger with Penn Central, also it is loaded with photos.
PNWRMNMRWM I hate to disagree with you but I think everyone with an interest in rail history, er even american business history should read and understand Albro Martin's "Enterprise Denied" as it tells the tale of how the industry got on the road to rack and ruin. Mac
I agree it's a great idea to study regulation and its consequences. I just don't particularly like that Martin felt it was OK to:
Martin's books are opinion. Not history.
It's useful to read Martin's books to learn about Martin and the political viewpoint he espoused, like you would read the platform of the Democratic or Republican party. But as far as railways go, that's just a lens from which to view his politics.
I don't always disagree with Martin's politics, but his claim that he was writing history I find false.
I would add "Burlington Route", by Richard Overton.
RWM said
RWM:
I hope I did the quote thing correctly as I have never tried it before.
I am having difficulty accepting your claim that Enterprise Denied is something other than history.
As to #1. Having a hypotheses and attempting to prove or disprove it is long accepted scientific/historical proactice. It seems to me that Martin is one of the very few to propose, let alone test, the hypotheses that government actions against the carriers had consequences. Most other authors take as a given that whatever actions the government took were "good" and therefore had no consequences. That too is a political choice/bias. What "accepted method" did he not use?
As to #2. The book is extensively footnoted, thereby divulging the sources. Are you refering to something that happened after the book was published?
As to #3. My perception is that this charge would be more accurately laid against the "standard" historians, very few of whom consider alternative actions and outcomes.
As to #4, the earnings data are what they are and earnings fell off consistently after 1906. That is entirely consistent with his hypothesis.
Martin is the only author I know of who has tried to assess the adverse impact of government policy on the rail industry. This is a critically important subject, for the entire economy, not "just" the railroads. It is a subject no one in the media will address, and I am unaware of any other historian who has made the attempt.
Those very facts are among the set of facts that make me glad I was born no later than I was. My personal opinion is that this country is in for a terrible time due to government policy. The current financial panic is due to the Federal Government demanding that financial institutions allow everyone to own a home whether they can pay the mortgage or not. The real villans are the Democratic Congress, Fanie Mae, and Freddy Mac. I have yet to see anyone in the media point out this simple truth. The near destruction of the railroad industry is only the tip of the iceberg, a canary in the coal mine if you will.
PNWRMNMRWM said I agree it's a great idea to study regulation and its consequences. I just don't particularly like that Martin felt it was OK to: refuse to use accepted methods of historical inquiry refuse to divulge his sources, and in fact disparage anyone who requested them substitute opinion for reason selectively use only facts that supported his opinions Martin's books are opinion. Not history. I don't always disagree with Martin's politics, but his claim that he was writing history I find false. RWM RWM: I hope I did the quote thing correctly as I have never tried it before. I am having difficulty accepting your claim that Enterprise Denied is something other than history. As to #1. Having a hypotheses and attempting to prove or disprove it is long accepted scientific/historical proactice. It seems to me that Martin is one of the very few to propose, let alone test, the hypotheses that government actions against the carriers had consequences. Most other authors take as a given that whatever actions the government took were "good" and therefore had no consequences. That too is a political choice/bias. What "accepted method" did he not use? As to #2. The book is extensively footnoted, thereby divulging the sources. Are you refering to something that happened after the book was published? As to #3. My perception is that this charge would be more accurately laid against the "standard" historians, very few of whom consider alternative actions and outcomes. As to #4, the earnings data are what they are and earnings fell off consistently after 1906. That is entirely consistent with his hypothesis. Martin is the only author I know of who has tried to assess the adverse impact of government policy on the rail industry. This is a critically important subject, for the entire economy, not "just" the railroads. It is a subject no one in the media will address, and I am unaware of any other historian who has made the attempt. Those very facts are among the set of facts that make me glad I was born no later than I was. My personal opinion is that this country is in for a terrible time due to government policy. The current financial panic is due to the Federal Government demanding that financial institutions allow everyone to own a home whether they can pay the mortgage or not. The real villans are the Democratic Congress, Fanie Mae, and Freddy Mac. I have yet to see anyone in the media point out this simple truth. The near destruction of the railroad industry is only the tip of the iceberg, a canary in the coal mine if you will. Mac
Mac: I don't have the book in front of me and it will be several more weeks on the road before I can see it again. So I apologize that I am working from the last time I studied it in detail, which was a couple of years ago.
I have some formal educational background in the historic method, which to some probably taints me. I have always viewed history if properly practiced to be a science. Ironically a lot of the historians that I trained with held that against me as they viewed history if properly practiced as a form of philosophy or teleology. So I am unpopular with both the people inside academia and those without. (Just like at the railway, everyone thinks I'm a jerk since I refuse to be a partisan.)
My view of Martin is that he had a political agenda and a political conclusion in hand when he started, and the book was simply an exercise in supporting that agenda, not illuminating the subject. Martin is hardly the only academic to study this subject. Others include Gabriel Kolko, Edward Z. Ripley, Alfred P. Chandler, and Maury Klein.
No one denies that regulation had consequences. Martin's hypothesis was that it was bad consequences for the nation. He might have proved the point, but, since I couldn't wade through the ad hominem attacks on all that weren't of his political stripe, and see if beneath them there were any actual facts or coherent logic, I never found out. His hypothesis to be proven would need to question what the nation considered a bad consequence, because "good" and "bad" are value judgments only relative to those who make them. It's not natural law. The nation for a long time thought regulation was a pretty good deal for them; if they didn't, they sure had a funny way of voting for things they didn't actually want. I don't buy the argument that the masses are asses; I think the public is pretty smart at knowing what it wants and seeing that they get it.
I think that views about who might be responsible for the current financial crisis as well as discussions, except as how they cause outcomes for railways, are best left for another forum. I think this forum should start with premises such as "given the political climate in Washington, and current policy, ______ effects will occur on railways. Backing in front of that sentence, and discussing what the policies ought to be, or fuming about, or agreeing with, the policies, for any reason including their effects on railways, I don't want to do.
At any rate, since I don't have the book in front of me, it's not reasonable for me to offer more on the specific subject. I clearly understand your point of view from this post and others that are similar, and I appreciate your point of view and appreciate your clarity and precision. Just because we might not agree on this particular subject doesn't mean we don't remain friends. I just don't know what else I can offer up on this topic.
I'll chime in again and say start with a book about the railroad you are most interested in or the one nearest your home. If it is a picture book, so what, it may pique your interest to find out more by getting to something more serious and in depth. But find what appeals to you and start there.
I have read dozens of histories but the one's I have kept are those pertraining to my favorite roads like the DL&W, Erie, Erie Lackawanna, LIRR, NYC's Harlem Div. But I have tons of other books especially fiction about or taken place on or about railroads or trains. Some juvenile classics, others deep mysteries, others, just plain nonesense. S
Go look for what you want and see where it takes you.
PNWRMNM As to #3. My perception is that this charge would be more accurately laid against the "standard" historians, very few of whom consider alternative actions and outcomes. Mac
Things turned out the way they did. History, to my way of thinking, would be an explanation of why that happened, not of what might have happened if things were different. I enjoy finding something in a book (or forum) that challenges a pre-conceived idea in my head. It cause me to think harder. I dislike writers who throw out contrary information and don't *prove* it up. I hate writers who will write something just plain false, in order to juice up a story, or prove their own pre-conceived idea. History should not have to require suspension of belief.
I'd note two things: I enjoy reading your posts. It took me about 6 months, with a lot of coaching, to learn to quote somebody on this forum.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
RWM,
I think our only point of disagreement is whether Enterprise Denied is History or not. To me it is a more than other works I could cite but will not in the interest of time and focus. Martin accurately points out that all parties had their axe to grind. This should surprise no one who knows anything about politics, and this was big time politics of the era, which is why I believe it is important today.
My struggle in reading this book to get through the tedious detail of the regulatory process. While it is painful to read, to me it is evidence in support of his hypothesis.
Martin claims in his preface "This volume is the result of an effort to unravel the inconsistencies in the story as it has been taught to me and to millions of others." The story is the history of the "Railroad Problem." Could he be lying, that is did he start out to prove something? Certainly he could. Even if he set out to prove something, which in my personal opinion he did not, that fact does not make the thing he set out to prove either true or untrue. A thing either is or is not true. It makes perfectly good sense to me that a historian has to have a hypothesis or working theory.
You alluded to your educational background giving you an understanding of historic perspective. I would like to hear more about that as time allows.
mudchickenAdd George Hilton's American Narrow Gauge Railways in there somewhere.
Good choice and I would also recommend Hilton and Due's book on Electric Interurbans - which went into detail as to why debt financing can be a bad idea.
I would also recommend White's books on American Railroad Freight Cars (and his book on Passenger Cars) - though these might be considered more history of technology.
"A thing either is or is not true. It makes perfectly good sense to me that a historian has to have a hypothesis or working theory. "
Mr. Martin did not write a history book, but a book presenting a persuasive argument. Well written books using persuasive argument can indeed be fascinating reads. He had a viewpoint which he set out to prove.
An hypothesis leads to a theory that stands true consistenly. In other words, in scientific research, the researcher can not publish a result of his/her research without having the hard data and more importantly, replicable experiments to back that data. The theory, the scientist researcher sought to prove true has to be "true" enough that that anyone, doing the precise same experiments will come to the same conclusiion. Once the original experiments are proven to be duplicable with the same results, then, and only then, is the theory accepted as "true." And rarely is it in science, that a theory is proven true without the consensus of others in the same field of science.
The historian approaches historical research like a scientist. He/She uses facts and acceptable 1st and secondary sources to prove a hypothesis to the point that any other person researching the same history will come to the same conclusion or truth. Historians look for the "true." A historian's book can be bantored among his/her peers as being correct in assumptions or not based on the "trueness" of the facts assembled and if the research proves well known facts in a different light or if the researcher was able to obtain new information/facts that can lead other historians to challenge accepted understanding of accepted history.
In science or history, the researcher starts with a question and seeks an answer. The persuasive writer has an answer and seeks to find questions that lead to that answer. Excellence in persuasive writing is a highly valued trait. But a writer's possession of that talent does not make him/her a historian.
tina
Just for the record, I would recommend Mark Hemphill's Union Pacific Book about the Salt Lake Route. It is well writtten, has great photos and is substantial enough to drop it on a spider when a husband's work travel means there are no boots in the house available to accomplish said task.
I also liked the recommendation earlier in this post about chosing books based on your own area. Many small town libraries have books, though not always well-written ones, that chronical life in the town eons ago. And since so many small towns lived and breathed because of the railroad, there is often mention of that life in those books. They may not even be full size books but booklets, written by the local "historian" for the 50th anniversary of the town or the local church.
Murphy,
Thank you for the kind words in your post of 4/17.
In the second paragraph you said words to the effect of history is what did happen, not what might have happened. I would suggest that is a too narrow view. I would suggest it overlooks the fact that while history is what it is, fixed and cast in stone, that is true only because of what people did or did not do in their present. Had they done different things, different results whould have followed.
For a good example of a book written with this concept clearly in mind see "April 1865 - The Month that Saved America" by Jay Winik. If you don't want to buy it, you should be able to get in on inter library loan.
Most of the authors mentioned above would certainly be on my top 10 list, and I would certainly include Martin.
Basically, anything by Klein, Bain, Martin, Hilton and White.
Not mentioned previously are Klein's works on Gould and Harriman. I would include these specifically in my list.
Two books come to mind: for anyone interested in Katy history the 1953 work by VV Materson titled 'Katy & Last Fontier". This described the formation of the company and the trk construction during the 1870's across IT and into TX long before OK became a state. This is just me but I try to gain as much knowlege of a region on a rr from a history viewpoint. You would be surprised on how many of the younger generation have no understanding of rr history & tradition. That is sad. Another work is the 1980 "Rails, Rivalry & Romance by Don Banwart. This large coffee table book was mainly photo copies of rr newspaper articles covering the rrs @ Ft.Scott,KS from 1870-1980.
[This comment deleted as having been improvidently posted. - PDN.]
The overall best railroad history book I have ever read is Santa Fe,The Railroad That Built an Empire, by James Marshall.This was published in 1945.
Sunset Limited is a very good history of the Southern Pacific from the first days through 1930.Any thing by George Hilton is also good.
mbkcs Just for the record, I would recommend Mark Hemphill's Union Pacific Book about the Salt Lake Route. It is well writtten, has great photos and is substantial enough to drop it on a spider when a husband's work travel means there are no boots in the house available to accomplish said task.
PNWRMNM Murphy, Thank you for the kind words in your post of 4/17. In the second paragraph you said words to the effect of history is what did happen, not what might have happened. I would suggest that is a too narrow view. I would suggest it overlooks the fact that while history is what it is, fixed and cast in stone, that is true only because of what people did or did not do in their present. Had they done different things, different results whould have followed. For a good example of a book written with this concept clearly in mind see "April 1865 - The Month that Saved America" by Jay Winik. If you don't want to buy it, you should be able to get in on inter library loan. Mac
I'll have to check out "April 1865 - The Month that Saved America", as I've found that a lot of counter-factual history makes good, thought provoking reading, at the very least. I'm waiting for someone to write a counter-factual history about a certain period in history that I find interesting. It would be called June, 1914- They shot the wrong guy! If you're familiar with WW I history, you'll know what that means.
RJ
"Something hidden, Go and find it. Go and look behind the ranges, Something lost behind the ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go." The Explorers - Rudyard Kipling
http://sweetwater-photography.com/
And my nominees are (In no particular order):
1) "Twilight of the Great Trains" by Fred W. Frailey. Explains the "Passenger Problem" and how the railroads dealt with it.
2) "Organization and Traffic of the Illinois Central System" by the Illinois Central in 1938. Explains what each department does and how each category of traffic is handled. Defines what moves and how it needs to move. Still relavent today.
3) "The Electric Interurban Railways in America" by Hilton and Due with "American Narrow Gauge Railroads" by Hilton. Explains why these concepts were thought by some to be promising, why these railroads were built, how they were built (where did the money come from), and why they failed. If you want to understand railroading's "Place" in the transportation world these two books will give you a good start. If you want to understand why the RoadRailer concept languishes, Hilton's explination of the "Incompatibility Problem" regarding narrow gauge railroads provides insight.
4) "Piggyback and Containers" by David J. DeBoer. Written by an intermodal "Pioneer" this book explains how and why the intermodal system developed as it did. Interesting chapter on strange but true intermodal technologies that never caught on.
If you've noticed, I like books that try to explain "why" something happened as opposed to books that only explain what happened. You can agree or disagree with the "why" part. But trying to figure it out is interesting.
I also read a lot of Civil War history. Every author has a different take on things. There was a Union general named Thomas who either saved the United States or was a barely functional subordinate depending on which book you read. I've concluded that he was a competent, inovative general who knew what he needed and what he was doing. He adopted concepts such as Mounted Infantry that were new. He had the guts to tell Washington that he wasn't moving until he had what he needed and the weather was right, then he won. And he won when it counted. They actually relieved him of command once, but the telegram didn't arrive until after he had defeated Hood at Nashville. So everybody kind of forgot about the telegram. But in some books he is portrayed a nothing subordinate who was left in the rear while Sherman marched to the sea.
Understanding "Why" is very interesting, and it's critically important. But there is no perfect knowledge of "Why". So read a variety of books and form your own opinion.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.