My understanding is that Conrail based their line rationalization on yards and the lines radiating from them. Hence the ex-NYC route was kept east and west of Indianapolis to access Avon yard. West of Terra Haute it wasn't needed and was a more indirect route to St Louis, going out of the way to the north. That portion of the ex-NYC from St. Louis to Pana was jointed used, C&EI had trackage rights which MoPac simply bought from Conrail when the rest of the line was abandoned.
The Pennsy had not done much for maintenance on the Terre Haute line west of Indy. The NYC was in better shape at PC mergertime. The 1905 PRR I&F line made an easy connection to Avon Yard working around the NW side of the airport.
Something about the TP&W keeps turning on a light with me. Didn't TP&W originally own track all the way to Marion, OH that Pennsy acquired?
To me, any ATSF interest in the TP&W as a Chicago bypass likely had a goal of reaching the Erie Lackawanna (or successor) for its east coast connection. I think of it as one of the great "What ifs" of modern railroad history.
It is a very big 'what if' and could have had interesting implications for high-speed transcontinental freight, including intermodal traffic. The EL was surprisingly competitive in intermodal bridge traffic in the West once dieselization made less of those repeated 1% sawtooth grades, and even using the Graham Line instead of improving Truesdale's Lackawanna it would have been a natural 'foil' to ATSF intermodal.
At least as much fun to consider as the 1925 scheme to connect the Lackawanna and the Nickel Plate for bridge traffic as part of the 'fifth system'...
Vern Moore Didn't TP&W originally own track all the way to Marion, OH that Pennsy acquired? To me, any ATSF interest in the TP&W as a Chicago bypass likely had a goal of reaching the Erie Lackawanna (or successor) for its east coast connection
I'd be interested in reading a source that credit's TP&W ownership all the way to Marion OH. Not saying that it never happened, just that I've never heard of it before.
In 1960 PRR and Santa Fe acquired joint control over the TP&W, But I believe that PRR owned the line from Logansport to the Illinois state line., so the joint control likely fell west of that point. When Conrail was created in 1976, the Logansport-Effner segment was slated for abandonment, at which point TP&W acquired the line from Effner to Logansport. In 1979 the Santa Fe acquired PRR's share of the TP&W giving them control all the way to Logansport.
Conrail was also abandoning the Eel River line at about the same time, which had Santa Fe acquired would have given them an easy connection from Logansport to the Erie.
However, I believe the prevailing mindset at the time of eastern railroading in general would have viewed the prospect of doing so as "Kryptonite". (just my humble opinion)
AFAIK, the TP&W ran only to Effner but it was affiliated with the Pennsy since 1918.
charlie hebdo was affiliated with the Pennsy since 1918.
I saw that too, but "affiliated" could leave a lot to interpretation.
Even in context with our other discussion about the Panhandle, and even with the early development of the predecessors of the P, FW,&Chi the PRR often was an investor in the construction and physical ownership of these lines, while not being the nominal operator. So, the exact meaning of "affiliated" I would be reluctant to speculate.
A lot of these connected lines had a dramatic change in posture in the period 1916 thru 1921 which I don't think was coincidence. WWI and the Federal government's meddling no doubt took it's toll
Who has access to the Centennial History of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company? It would have the definitive legal arrangement in there.
Vern Moore Something about the TP&W keeps turning on a light with me. Didn't TP&W originally own track all the way to Marion, OH that Pennsy acquired? To me, any ATSF interest in the TP&W as a Chicago bypass likely had a goal of reaching the Erie Lackawanna (or successor) for its east coast connection. I think of it as one of the great "What ifs" of modern railroad history.
A connecting passenger train is a possibilty, or "coordinated connections" for freight. There was no single line service Logansport to Marion OH.
I also reviewed 1858 and 1880 Indiana RR Map, and TP&W is not mentioned. Any tracks were already in the PRR sphere of influence.
Try Logansport, Peoria & Burlington Railroad (CB&Q)... Wabash and CB&Q had their fingers in the collective pie with the Pennsy. That line is full of quirky history.
LP&B got to Efner in 1859 and later fell into the PRR camp (in 1867) and in 1880 into the Wabash camp. Went independent in 1887 after one of Gould's many failures. Got friendly (affiliated) with PRR again after WW2 and split between ATSF and PRR in 1960 at the end of the McNear saga.
-ICC GO-20 For TP&W, ICC Valuation Docket #462 (22-ICC[val]-1 and 23-ICC[val]-1954)
I was recently poking around looking to flesh out the meaning of "affiliated" as the descriptor for the relationship between PRR and TPW.....nothing really concrete. At best it appears that a "community of interest" between the two existed as owners of adjoining properties. Then I guess there always is the possibility of stock ownership.
One thing I did find interesting is that the mileage markers remained separate in the two systems.
Running west from Logansport (mp 0.0) you have Monitcello (mp 21.2), Reynolds (mp 27.2), Remington (mp 41.6), and ultimately at the State line Effner (mp 61.3)
While running west from Effner (mp 0.0) you have Watseka (mp 11.1), Forrest jct (mp 46.4), Gridley (mp 71.2), Streator Jct (mp 91,6) and East Peoria (mp 108.0)
I've not seen evidence that the mileage was ever resolved into a single system. Perhaps someone with access to better resources can confirm?
MCRR_1960 My understanding is that Conrail based their line rationalization on yards and the lines radiating from them. Hence the ex-NYC route was kept east and west of Indianapolis to access Avon yard. West of Terra Haute it wasn't needed and was a more indirect route to St Louis, going out of the way to the north. That portion of the ex-NYC from St. Louis to Pana was jointed used, C&EI had trackage rights which MoPac simply bought from Conrail when the rest of the line was abandoned.
Vern MooreSomething about the TP&W keeps turning on a light with me. Didn't TP&W originally own track all the way to Marion, OH that Pennsy acquired? To me, any ATSF interest in the TP&W as a Chicago bypass likely had a goal of reaching the Erie Lackawanna (or successor) for its east coast connection.
I don't suppose you might have meant Marion INDIANA by any chance?
A combination of T,P,&W and Panhandle tracks could get you to Marion Indiana, which if combined with the surplus Cloverleaf route between Marion and Decatur IN. could get you to Erie rails.
Not an air line route to be sure, but definitely gets you from point A to point B on rails that other railroads were finding less use for.
Was the Pennsylvania R. R. branch from Terre Haute, IN. to Peoria, IL considered part of the Panhandle Route? How much interchange freight at Peoria went via the TP&W, or via Terre Haute?
Peoria Branch was part of the Vandalia (St. Louis-Indy was part of the Vandalia Route Panhandle Main Line).....Logansport was the PRR's prized hub with 5 lines coming together there (Vandalia's Peoria Branch being just one)
Vern Moore Something about the TP&W keeps turning on a light with me. Didn't TP&W originally own track all the way to Marion, OH that Pennsy acquired? To me, any ATSF interest in the TP&W as a Chicago bypass likely had a goal of reaching the Erie Lackawanna (or successor) for its east coast connection.
Convicted OneI don't suppose you might have meant Marion INDIANA by any chance?
I'm pretty sure he's mixing them up. Marion Ohio, which is famous on the EL, is about 40 miles north of Columbus, and I think it has had PRR present from very early on. It is hard to believe the TP&W ever had track running that far east, or that the PRR would have a need to 'acquire' it from them at a presumably later point in time. However, I'm always prepared to be surprised, especially concerning 'natural' railroad routes that, for some combination of reasons, never succeeded ... the Philadelphia and Erie, the Reading Combine, the Hampden Railroad, and the Milwaukee east of Chicago being four perhaps interesting examples.
Meanwhile Marion INDIANA (which is a few miles west and south of Fort Wayne) sure did have an Ohio connection ... but it was apparently with New York Central traffic from places like Cincinnati or Columbus going pretty nearly due north to Elkhart. There is nothing out of town now that appears to go at all in even the remote direction of Chicago, although of course that's no guide to what used to be in Indiana ... Perhaps the PDF map of Indiana railroad routeshere:
https://www.in.gov/indot/files/MAIN-RR-11_V1.pdf]
in conjunction with the historical traces in the Open Railway Map might be useful in deconvolving a possible route that involves the Indiana Marion.
The period when TP&W involved PRR (including the Santa Fe connection that I think was the reason for those light 4-8-4s in 1937) went from 1918 to 1960 (when PRR and ATSF split up ownership). A quick look at the Library of Congress map indicates some of why PRR had four yards in Logansport, but no compelling reason I can see to have its own 'northern route' out of Marion when the part of the PCC&StL I see runs straight west from Logansport in a line connecting over to Keokuk...
Overmod Marion Ohio, which is famous on the EL,
That's what makes his comment so intriguing. Normally when you hear "Erie" and "Marion" in the same sentence, you normally think "Ohio".
IF as he proposes, ATSF's primary goal would be to employ the T,P,&W as a bridge to get to the Erie, you could do that through Marion IN by repurposing the old Cloverleaf segment mentioned earlier. (much of which was a "bring your chainsaw" right-of-way the last time I saw it)
When segments of the Cloverleaf were slated for abandonment, this spawned some of ther most contentious anti-abandonment hearings to have taken place in Indiana.
For any major railroad to come through back in that day and propose to continue service, would have been received as a "white knight" by lineside interests.
The only possible downside being, I don't think the segment of the Panhandle between Marion In and Logansport was seen as surplus quite in time to make the rest of this happen smoothly.
But it's still a heck of an idea. Too bad no fruit ever came out of it.
However, I personally do not believe this was even remotely the reason for the big western road's interest in the TP&W east of the Indiana State line.
I think that all they ever wanted from that was the "Hoosier lift" intermodal terminal. It was a strategy to help trucks avoid the congestion of Chicago, by making the tire to rail innerface out in the middle of the soybean fields.
Shame that never worked out, either.
Convicted OneI think that all they ever wanted from that was the "Hoosier lift" intermodal terminal. It was a strategy to help trucks avoid the congestion of Chicago, by making the tire to rail interface out in the middle of the soybean fields.
Key to this would be to see where the highway and improvement projects were going to be built or improved during the period (after 1960) that Santa Fe was taking more of an interest in high-speed high-efficiency TOFC.
One of the things that torpedoed the original 10-pack Fuel Foilers was that they needed the special equipment to load and unload vans or other trailers. With a sufficiently large dedicated transload facility, adjacent to enough new Interstates going 'everywhere' with low congestion, this might have paid, especially if there was relatively little 'infrastructure' or interest in running lightweight equipment 'through' without going near Chicago ... or St. Louis either.
I don't think ATSF was much engaged in 'roadable' COFC other than those weird little containers on ex-Pullman underframes at that point, so I think concentrating on high-effectiveness TOFC in that pre-HPIT era might be the strategy to follow in analyzing what the actual 'killer app' going via Keokuk to avoid Chicago would be.
I don't think there was too much that would provide full-train transloading in reasonable time to some 'other' fast TOFC consist going to an appropriate central location in, say, the New York/New Jersey area. I sure don't think that destination would have been Croxton on the EL!
I guess we are back to that same ol' stumbling block". If the railroads are at all serious about finding means of by-passing Chicago, they are sure playing a stealth hand.
That said, back in context with this thread. I can't really imagine Conrail being overly excited with the idea of inviting one of the western giants righgt into their midst.
I suspect that rather than cooperate, their preferred strategy would be the more typical "abandon a segment/spin off a segment to a short line/ hold onto just enough of a segment to interrupt continuity" as has been done, just to assure that no one gets ahold of a big enough piece to be dangerous.
The Chicago Problem is financial problem more than a operating problem. The rate divisions based on a Chicago interchange prevent the carriers from seeking alternative operating routes because someone would lose out on the division of the through rates. If and when we have single carrier from the Atlantic to the Pacific the Chicago rate divisions will cease to be creating the Chicago Problem.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I think the 'stealth hand' is what it's always been: the trouble and politics to set up one of these schemes, and the capex costs to implement it, aren't worth the 'big savings' in actual, safe dollars. See the proposal, not too long ago, for up to 20 tracks of 'green'-optimized railroad through the fields. Even with government subsidies and grants there were few plans to work.
Then there was the relative absence of being able to 'monetize' practical higher speed/shorter timing. If there was one thing the Super C proved in spades, it was that a record-breaking fast freight train couldn't be made to pay "enough" -- and that was before the embargo crisis.
Conrail should have been fascinated with ATSF sharing first the Foilers, then the A-frames ... except that the lines that would have been most optimal for 'bridge' there-and-return intermodal moves, EL looming quite large among them, were the ones most slated to be single-tracked or otherwise downgraded in the late '70s to early '80s.
In a word, some truly awful timing: EL or the Apollos could probably have benefited dramatically from some of the high-speed intermodal experimentation underwritten by ATSF ... in the period before Agnes. Imagine the same advantage that a 'fifth system' of Nickel Plate butt-ending into Truesdale's improved Lackawanna might have had ... connecting through Keokuk with a guaranteed high-speed provider and then east with 'no excuses.' Might be even more interesting if the old Erie high clearances could be used for A-frame stack runthroughs ... we've discussed some places for the satellite 'transload facilities' that would replace conventional yards for these obligate craned/lifted trailer trains.
Done for the Auto-Train, with private money, right smack in the appropriate timeframe! But few were listening with the correct ears on...
Being born and raised in the Panhadle of West Virginia I would like to add a little about the eastern end of the Panhandle line. The track between Weirton WV and slightly west of Pittsburgh has been abandoned. The double track bridge over the Ohio River between Weirton and Steubenville is still in operation however one track has been removed. The second track west of Steubenville has been removed although I do not know the western end of the removal. Traffic to Pittsburgh is routed in the line that follows the River. Heard that there was a hill near Colliers that required helpers but I cannot verify that. The PRR line south fro Weirton to Benwood has been abandoned south of Wellsburg. Sad day to see these all gone. I was able to be in my bedroom at night and see the illuminated passenger trains on the PRR main line go by. Miss all of this.
ATSF had another eastern option using the NYC Streator connection. It didn't have to go all the way to the water level route. It could have swung onto the EL in North Judson, In if that is who they wanted to partner with. North Judson also was also where the same NYC line crossed the Panhandle Line, if the EL didn't work out. interesting fact about NJ, the NYC/C&O diamond was between the EL mains. (Demonstrating the built-in high/wide clearances on the EL.)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.