Trains.com

Chicago & Alton RR

44111 views
91 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Mount Prospect, IL
  • 60 posts
Posted by pullman jct on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 7:25 PM

Brighton Park had wyes in three of four quadrants.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 8:38 PM

Bob (Pullman Jct), track is not laid in concrete, so the configuration changes through the years.  At the time the B&O was in control of the Alton, there was a connector track in the the northwest quadrant, the one devoid of a connector in your diagram.

I have a map that shows all quadrants having connectors.  Today, none have.

Art

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Mount Prospect, IL
  • 60 posts
Posted by pullman jct on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 9:47 PM

Art, I should have said "for a period, Brighton Park had three wyes". You are right, the track configuration at many of these junctions changed considerably over the years. One of the wyes shown in the diagram is in the NW quadrant.

Bob

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 10:34 PM

Right you are, Bob.  My bad.  Thought north was at the top.  Should study before responding. 

Very good map, though!

 Art

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,280 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Thursday, July 1, 2010 6:27 AM

artschlosser

Bob (Pullman Jct), track is not laid in concrete, so the configuration changes through the years.  At the time the B&O was in control of the Alton, there was a connector track in the the northwest quadrant, the one devoid of a connector in your diagram.

I have a map that shows all quadrants having connectors.  Today, none have.

Art

If there ever was a truism relating to track work on the prototype, it is changing configurations.  Alton Junction is the perfect example.  Just from this discussion, it is unbelievable how many times, and how often, the track work figuration has changed at Alton Junction.  In fact, therein lies the reason for the confusion over the C&A tracks between 16th Street and 21st Street.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    April 2002
  • From: Nashville TN
  • 1,306 posts
Posted by Wdlgln005 on Thursday, July 1, 2010 6:16 PM



http://chicago.urban-history.org/dist/loop/chicago1.pdf


This is a great map. thanks for finding it. I like the West Side Chicago NL Ball Park near Cook County Hospital. I'd like to see the Cubs move back there. May have a better record than at Wrigley. At least more World Series Champions. Back to the C&A thread.

I forget the name of a scrap dealer in Brighton IIRC at the site of Jewel today. They had a siding to take in rail cars & ship out scrap in gondolas. I can remember seing several old GM&O F units in the scrap line there. It would make a great model!

 

Glenn Woodle
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 2, 2010 10:00 AM

Glenn, I, too, like the map and have been wishing there was more of it.  The number 1 in the url hints of more maps, and right now I think I've broken the code.
If you go to the url below and click on maps (in red) to the right, you're bound to spend a couple of hours browsing!
 
 
Art
  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,280 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Friday, July 2, 2010 1:49 PM

artschlosser
Glenn, I, too, like the map and have been wishing there was more of it.  The number 1 in the url hints of more maps, and right now I think I've broken the code.
If you go to the url below and click on maps (in red) to the right, you're bound to spend a couple of hours browsing!
 
 
Art

Art,

Very cool maps and very cool web site.

I still want to see a soutward extension of that railroad map.  Any luck finding it, if indeed it ever existed?

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • 4,190 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Friday, July 2, 2010 6:47 PM
  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,280 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Friday, July 2, 2010 9:56 PM
wanswheel

Mike,

Thanks for those photos.

If I am not mistaken, that shot of the L train is on Wabash looking north.  You can see the historic Silversmith Building on the left which is located at 10 South Wabash.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,280 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Sunday, July 4, 2010 6:17 AM

While we are on the topic of railroading in the south Loop area, I want to bring up another issue on the subject of railroad access to the south Loop passenger stations.

 

At the time Grand Central Station was completed, passenger trains approached the terminal by crossing the Chicago River from the southwest over a bridge between Taylor Street and Roosevelt Road, constructed in 1885. This first bridge was replaced by a taller structure in 1901 to accommodate larger boats and ships on the south branch of the river.

 

The photo that follows was taken at the time of the Chicago River straightening project in 1929, and it shows the Harrison, Polk, and Roosevelt Road street bridges spanning the south branch of the Chicago River.  The photo also shows Taylor Street, the street north of Roosevelt Road, with the street bridge removed that had spanned the Chicago River.  The railroad bridge can be seen just north of the Roosevelt Road street bridge running diagonally from southwest to northeast.  My understanding is that the bridge was owned and operated by the Baltimore & Ohio railroad at that time.    

 

 

 

When the Chicago River was straightened and widened in the 1930s, the United States Department of War insisted that the Baltimore and Ohio build a new bridge adjacent to that of the St. Charles Air Line Railroad which crossed the river between 15th and 16th Streets. The new bridge's location, about seven blocks south of its previous crossing, further complicated the circuitous route of the B&OCT tracks leading to Grand Central Station.

 

Both the B&O bridge, and that of the St. Charles Air Line immediately adjacent to it, were built in 1930, and both are bascule bridges. The following photo shows the bridge in its locked upright position.  Incidentally, this is the photo used in my avatar.

 

 

Today, the B&OCT bridge remains unused. However, it was not dismantled and currently sits locked in the "open" position. Because they are bascule bridges, both the B&OCT and the Air Line bridges each have a counterweight of their own, and in this case, they share a common third counterweight between them. This design allowed them to operate in unison, with an operator from the B&OCT in charge of operating both bridges. The CSX, successor railroad to the B&O, owns the bridge that it cannot abandon, because the bridge is needed to continue operating a second bridge it does not own.

 

In a somewhat related story about bridges that I found at a web site called Forgotten Chicago, there is a discussion of street bridges over the south branch of the Chicago River.  When the Chicago River was straightened, the Taylor Street bridge was removed and never reinstalled.  In the story, a picture is included showing the diagonal railroad bridge with the following caption, “Just north of Roosevelt Road, there is a bridge disconnected from a crossing, which is very likely the Taylor Street bridge in transit.”  Either the story’s interpretation of the photo is mistaken, or I am wrong about the identity of the diagonal bridge.  But, I have to believe that the story’s interpretation of the photo is mistaken.In any event, ever since first coming upon the photos of the old railroad bridge a few years ago, I have been fascinated with its origins and its demise. 

 

Can anyone shed any additional light, or provide additional information, about the history of the diagonal railroad bridge between Taylor Street and Roosevelt Road? 

 

Thanks. 

 

Rich

 

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • 4,190 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Sunday, July 4, 2010 1:58 PM

Rich, the diagonal bridge could have been used by CB&Q trains at Grand Central Station, if that ever happened.  

1905 New York Times article about James J. Hill taking control of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railway Company:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9402E6DB1F3DE633A2575BC1A9669D946497D6CF

Chicago Terminal Transfer Railway Company Bridge, between Taylor and 12th, looking north from the 12th St. Bridge. 

View from the tower of Grand Central Station.

Schlitz and Rock Island Elevators A and B

Mike

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, July 4, 2010 7:31 PM

Rich, the link below shows a bridge at about a 45 degree angle Station between Taylor and 12th leading to the Grand Central Station. 

http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/su/maps/chi1900/G4104-C6A15-1905-C5.html

No luck on finding a map that extends further south.  That map is based on many Sanborn maps. Insurance companies used them a lot because of the detail.  Each map covered a limited area.

These maps can be purchased but are in some libraries, the Chicago Public Library for one. Browse the internet for more.

When I lived in Poughkeepsie NY, I would train down to NYC and visit their library.  They would let me look at old railroad Guides that were so old the pages would shatter when turned!  If I had been in control, I wouldn't let a yokel like me anywhere close to those things!

Have you tried visiting the Chicago Library?

Art

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, July 4, 2010 7:36 PM

Oops, didn't proof read enough.  Extra word 'Station' in previous post.

Mike, the book on Union Station mentions that the CB&Q used the IC station until it moved to Union, and never mentions that they ever moved out and came back.

Art

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,280 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Sunday, July 4, 2010 10:35 PM
wanswheel

Rich, the diagonal bridge could have been used by CB&Q trains at Grand Central Station, if that ever happened.  

1905 New York Times article about James J. Hill taking control of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railway Company:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9402E6DB1F3DE633A2575BC1A9669D946497D6CF

Mike

Mike,

You are amazing !

I don't know how you keep coming up with these wonderful photos.

Thanks for sharing.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,280 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Sunday, July 4, 2010 10:38 PM

artschlosser

Rich, the link below shows a bridge at about a 45 degree angle Station between Taylor and 12th leading to the Grand Central Station. 

http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/su/maps/chi1900/G4104-C6A15-1905-C5.html

No luck on finding a map that extends further south.  That map is based on many Sanborn maps. Insurance companies used them a lot because of the detail.  Each map covered a limited area.

These maps can be purchased but are in some libraries, the Chicago Public Library for one. Browse the internet for more.

When I lived in Poughkeepsie NY, I would train down to NYC and visit their library.  They would let me look at old railroad Guides that were so old the pages would shatter when turned!  If I had been in control, I wouldn't let a yokel like me anywhere close to those things!

Have you tried visiting the Chicago Library?

Art

Wow, another neat map.  Thanks, Art.

I have not visited the Chicago Public Library for railroad photos.   However, I want to get over to the Chicago Historical Society to browse through their photo collections.  I understand that they have a lot of great stuff there.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,280 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Sunday, July 4, 2010 10:40 PM

artschlosser

Oops, didn't proof read enough.  Extra word 'Station' in previous post.

Mike, the book on Union Station mentions that the CB&Q used the IC station until it moved to Union, and never mentions that they ever moved out and came back.

Art

Art,

I agree with you.  It is not the CB&Q.  I am sticking with the B&O as the owner of the diagonal bridge routing its passenger trains into Grand Central Station.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • 4,190 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Monday, July 5, 2010 8:21 AM

I guess J.J. Hill's plan was thwarted by the B&O. Here's an excerpt from 1907 Railroad Gazette:

"Although most briefly mentioned in the report, probably the most important special event of the year was the aggressive action of the Baltimore & Ohio in connection with the foreclosure of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad. The Chicago Terminal Transfer owns the Grand Central Station in Chicago, the terminal tracks used in connection with it, and a belt line around the city. The Baltimore & Ohio, with the Pere Marquette and the Chicago Great Western, uses the Grand Central Station and terminals. Interest on the bonds of the Chicago Terminal Transfer was defaulted January 1, 1905, and on April 16, 1906, a receiver was appointed. A decree of foreclosure on February 20, 1907, advertised the sale of the property on May 3, 1907. In order to protect its lease of its passenger terminal in Chicago, which seemed likely to be bought by the Hill interests and turned over to the Burlington for its exclusive use, the Baltimore & Ohio, under its rights as lessee, came forward with an offer to redeem the Chicago Terminal Transfer bonds at par, which was generally accepted by the bondholders. By this action it appears to have safeguarded its right to occupy the Chicago Terminal Transfer property, in spite of the fact that the Hill interests held control of a majority of the Terminal stock..."

B&O bought CTTRR in 1910 and it was re-organized as the B&O Chicago Terminal Railroad.

About the diagonal bridge again, here's a 1901 article in The Bridgemen's Magazine:

The Longest Span Bascule Bridge

In the issue of The Construction News, October 11, 1899, plans with a general description were published of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge to be built near Taylor Street in Chicago by the Sanitary District for the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company. The structure has recently been completed and has the distinction of having the largest span of any bridge of its kind ever built. The bridge has a span of 275 feet center to center of bearings, and crosses the river at an angle of 36 degrees 30 minutes. The acuteness of the angle is necessitated by the property limits of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company, which lines are used by the latter company, the Baltimore & Ohio, and the Chicago Great Western roads, entering the Grand Central Station at Harrison Street and Fifth Avenue.

During the construction by the Sanitary District of the drainage canal, it was found that the section of the Chicago River at Taylor Street was too small to permit the necessary flow of water as prescribed by law. The center pier of the Taylor Street highway bridge was eliminated and the bridge replaced by a Scherzer rolling lift bridge, which was completed in January, this year. The bridge of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Company near Taylor Street also obstructed the flow to less than the required amount. The district trustees saw but one way to obtain the required section; that of constructing a by-pass such as was built at Adams Street, at which point similar diifficulties had been encountered. But Mr. F. E. Paradis, chief engineer of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Company objected to a by-pass being built under the tracks and yards of the company, as, while a by-pass would allow the required flow of water, the same obstruction to navigation would still be prevented by the center pier of the swing bridge, and suggested that a new bridge without a center pier be built. Most of the engineers of Chicago thought it impossible to build a bridge of this type of the dimensions required, and the only encouragement received was from the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Company of Chicago. The co-operation of Isham Randolph, chief engineer of the Sanitary District, was finally obtained after a very careful investigation, and contracts were entered into December 10, 1898, with the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Company, Albert H. Scherzer, president, for the designs, plans, specifications and general supervision of the construction of the bridge. The Scherzer company were also to be responsible for the successful operation of the bridge when completed. The contract for the construction of the bridge was let to the Pennsylvania Steel Company, of Steelton, Pa., through their western representatives, The Railroad Supply Company, and to the work of this company is greatly due the successful manner in which the bridge was erected and the accuracy with which the leaves closed after the bridge had been competed. Thomas Phee, of Chicago, was given the sub contract for the substructure.

The bridge contains in all about 1,500 tons of steel in addition to 700 tons of counterweights. Each moving leaf contains about two million pounds, and aside from having the longest span of any movable bridge ever built, the structure is especially noticeable in that it is built for the heaviest railroad service, carrying double tracks. The bridge is designed for a load of 10,000 pounds per lineal foot of bridge, in addition to a concentrated load of 100,000 pounds at any point on the floor of the bridge, this giving a carrying capacity of more than twice that of the next longest lift bridge in the world - the Tower Bridge of London. The latter bridge has a span of 200 feet, and is designed only for highway traffic.

In the construction of the substructure in connection with the present work difficulties were encountered in that, owing to the narrow channel at the center pier of the present swing bridge, it was necessary to construct a cofferdam of a single row of Wakefield sheeting, and to excavate to the depth of 26 feet below city datum, a feat thought by most of the river men of Chicago to be impossible. The substructure of each leaf on either side of the river is built on a foundation of 600 piles 50 feet in length, and includes 3,500 yards of Portland cement concrete mixed in the proportion of one part of cement, three parts of sand and six parts of broken stone. The two piers contain 940 cubic yards of first-class masonry.

The electrical equipment for the bridge was furnished by G. P. Nichols & Bro., of Chicago, and includes for its operation two 50-horse power motors for each leaf. The power is obtained from the electric plant at the Grand Central Station, from which point underground cables are laid to the operating houses on the bridge, which houses are connected by submarine cables laid in a trench below the bottom of the river. Each leaf can be controlled from its respective operating house, and the operating devices are also arranged so that both leaves can be controlled and operated by one man from the house on the east bank of the river. For this arrangement one controller has been placed in the west house, while in the house on the east bank two have been installed. Each of the operating houses is fitted with a switchboard, an indicator showing the position of the bridge and operating devices. Each leaf is fitted with band brakes operated with solenoids, and has electric pumps for pumping out the counterweight pits. Rail lifts are not required, as the leaves move vertically. The trusses automatically interlap and form the center lock. As shown in one of the accompanying illlustrations, one-half of the bridge is built on either bank of the river, and at no time was any hindrance whatever offered to the river traffic. The two leaves were first lowered into position on Tuesday, July 23, with gratifying results to all who were interested in any way in the construction of the bridge, and especially to the Scherzer Bridge Company, who were not only held responsible for the successful operation of the structure, but who were also looking to this bridge as a demonstration of their ability to build double-track railroad bridges of this type with spans of at least 275 feet. It is said that the first operation of the present bridge was accompanied by a smoother motion and less proportionate friction, almost without exception, than were the shorter span bridges of this type that have been built. In the preset condition of the bridge about 35 horsepower are required for its operation, and when in perfect working order it is estimated that but from 20 to 25 horsepower will be necessary. The present bridge was built with the anchorage and foundations so arranged that another double track span can be built beside it as soon as the increase in the railroad traffic makes its construction necessary. The old bridge will be removed and the entire width of the river will be available for traffic, whereas at present only about one-third of the width is clear at any one point.

The bridge was erected by the Kelly-Atkinson Construction Company, sub-contractors. Theodore Buskirk, representing the Sanitary District, was inspecting engineer in charge, and Mr. Ralph Modjeska acted as consulting engineer for the railroad company.

There's a picture of both the diagonal bridge and the old swing bridge it replaced.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xc4NAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA82#v=onepage&q&f=true

Mike

  • Member since
    April 2002
  • From: Nashville TN
  • 1,306 posts
Posted by Wdlgln005 on Monday, July 5, 2010 1:18 PM
A few years ago MRC ran a 2-3 issue series on the different Chicago bridges. If you call them they should have a Reader Service department for back issues.
Glenn Woodle
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, July 5, 2010 5:02 PM
Wow, Mike, great article on the rolling Scherzer bridge for the Chicago River.  And of course, great pictures, too. (but that's getting to be expected!).  I think the best ones are those with the rolling quadrants at track level with the counterweights dropping down when the bridge is open, blocking the right-of-way.
 
What I find amazing is the size of the motor necessary; if the counterweights are almost as heavy as the bridge structure, a 1 hp motor can do the job.  Naturally, the counterweight should not be as heavy as the bridge or it would not be stable in the down position.
 
There was something amiss in the last few photographs; they came up blank on my laptop.
 
Thanks for sharing.
 
Art
  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,280 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Monday, July 5, 2010 8:52 PM

Wdlgln005
A few years ago MRC ran a 2-3 issue series on the different Chicago bridges. If you call them they should have a Reader Service department for back issues.

 

What is MRC?

I would be interested in contacting them about those Chicago bridge issues.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Mount Prospect, IL
  • 60 posts
Posted by pullman jct on Monday, July 5, 2010 9:02 PM

Thanks for all the great photos and the link to the book. There is a photo on page 87 in the book of the PRR, CTT and CJ spans across the Sanitary & Ship Canal before the moving sections were added. In the background, the old bridges over the original South Branch channel can be seen.

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,280 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Monday, July 5, 2010 9:10 PM
wanswheel

I guess J.J. Hill's plan was thwarted by the B&O. Here's an excerpt from 1907 Railroad Gazette:

Mike

Mike,

That is a great story that you excerpted.  That provides a tremendous amount of background concerning the ownership and operation of the bridge and trackage leading into Grand Central Station.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,280 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Tuesday, July 6, 2010 8:50 AM

With all of the neat photos, diagrams, and descriptive information that has been posted on this thread, I am hoping that someone can help me answer another question.

The following photo is an aerial view of the ATSF coach yard and engine servicing facility at 18th Street just south of Dearborn Station.  The photo was taken in 1929.

 

You can see the turntable and roundhouse but nowhere do I see a coaling tower although ATSF was running steam in 1929 for sure.  Apparently, the Chicago-area coaling tower was somewhere else in the Chicago area.  Does anyone have any info and/or photos to share?  wanswheel?

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,280 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Saturday, July 10, 2010 6:47 AM

Hey guys, don't let this thread die.

It started out innocently enough, looking for info on the mystery C&A tracks, but developed into an interesting thread on the south Loop railroading in general.

Now I need info on the location of ATSF coaling towers in Chicago.  Don't make me create a separate post!

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, July 10, 2010 11:25 AM

Rich,1st - about the 4th post down on this page, Glenn/Wdlgln005 mentioned RMC; that would be the Railroad Model Craftsman, a mag that started out as Model Craftsman and changed its name. And, 2nd - why shouldn't a post die when it's original purpose has been fulfilled?  Only 'humor' or 'chatty' threads get 'life support'.

If you are interested in an ATSF coaling facility, that question should not be under a C&A thread.  Sure, they're both about South Chicago, a huge area; but someone who is interested in or knows a lot about early Santa Fe stuff isn't likely to look under a C&A thread. 

The story of how the Santa Fe got to Chicago is very interesting, and strangely enough intersects at times with how the C&A got there.

So, starting a new thread is the way to go.

Just my two cents. 

Art

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,280 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Saturday, July 10, 2010 12:21 PM

artschlosser

Rich,1st - about the 4th post down on this page, Glenn/Wdlgln005 mentioned RMC; that would be the Railroad Model Craftsman, a mag that started out as Model Craftsman and changed its name. And, 2nd - why shouldn't a post die when it's original purpose has been fulfilled?  Only 'humor' or 'chatty' threads get 'life support'.

If you are interested in an ATSF coaling facility, that question should not be under a C&A thread.  Sure, they're both about South Chicago, a huge area; but someone who is interested in or knows a lot about early Santa Fe stuff isn't likely to look under a C&A thread. 

The story of how the Santa Fe got to Chicago is very interesting, and strangely enough intersects at times with how the C&A got there.

So, starting a new thread is the way to go.

Just my two cents. 

Art

Art,

I am crushed, but I will follow your advice.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,280 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Saturday, July 10, 2010 12:54 PM

artschlosser

Rich,1st - about the 4th post down on this page, Glenn/Wdlgln005 mentioned RMC; that would be the Railroad Model Craftsman, a mag that started out as Model Craftsman and changed its name. And, 2nd - why shouldn't a post die when it's original purpose has been fulfilled?  Only 'humor' or 'chatty' threads get 'life support'.

If you are interested in an ATSF coaling facility, that question should not be under a C&A thread.  Sure, they're both about South Chicago, a huge area; but someone who is interested in or knows a lot about early Santa Fe stuff isn't likely to look under a C&A thread. 

The story of how the Santa Fe got to Chicago is very interesting, and strangely enough intersects at times with how the C&A got there.

So, starting a new thread is the way to go.

Just my two cents. 

Art

Art,

Thanks.

The original post said MRC, not RMC, and I couldn't find anything.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,280 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Saturday, July 10, 2010 12:55 PM

artschlosser

 And, 2nd - why shouldn't a post die when it's original purpose has been fulfilled?  Only 'humor' or 'chatty' threads get 'life support'.

Art

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.  Sigh

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    April 2002
  • From: Nashville TN
  • 1,306 posts
Posted by Wdlgln005 on Sunday, July 11, 2010 7:33 PM

richhotrain

Wdlgln005
A few years ago MRC ran a 2-3 issue series on the different Chicago bridges. If you call them they should have a Reader Service department for back issues.

 

What is MRC?

I would be interested in contacting them about those Chicago bridge issues.

Rich

 

 

RMC is Railroad Model Craftsman, the Carstens publication. They also publish Railfan & Railroad. Unfortunately, I don't have an easy way to find when they did a series of 2-3 issues on the Chicago area railroad bridges.  Sorry I had my mags mixed up.  There may be other photos in the back issues of Trains?

Glenn Woodle

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy