Paul_D_North_JrI don't recall that he had much to say about electrification, one way or the other, besides praising it for the PRR's ability to run passenger trains like streetcars during World War II.
I actually do remember him mentioning electrification in this context at least once. The idea was that, since all the trackage was fully open-access on an equal basis, capital improvements on a Federal basis were thinkable as a public improvement. (I had the very strong impression that John intended the government to take over ownership and maintenance of the civil infrastructure, to make it 'competitive; on equal terms with Interstate highway and waterway traffic, and I believe he said so in a number of columns, but that might just be my filtered memory of things that, at this point, are many years and many beers in the past.) There was a brief spate of discussion around the time New Jersey Transit had some cat bridges installed as part of the permission for the Public Service utility company to build a new transmission line across the Meadowlands -- the overall question being what would be necessary to see catenary actually strung on bridges and other structure built that way. (I also raised the question at a point in the 1990s when general policy for cellular-radio and other service towers was to site them preferentially in utility and railroad ROWs; making some support or mast construction part of that effort was also a preliminary step toward more widespread infrastructure creation...)
I don't ever recall him saying that electrification was a priority for 'contemporary' privately-owned carriers; in fact, I remember his espousal of the distributed gas-turbine power was on occasion compared to electric MU versions of integral-train equipment, with the clear conclusion that net of all infrastructure development, the return on electrification vs. GT was very, very long if in fact ever present. This of course was long before OPEC and expedient manipulation of public perception regarding the value of oil, the 'dangers' of anthropogenically-generated carbon dioxide, and so forth made any gas-turbine system itself functionally obsolete...
I do remember John advocating that his "iron ocean" rail lines be operated on an essentially "open access" basis - i.e., similar to a turnpike, such that any user could run a train for payment of the appropriate 'toll'. I believe he viewed that as being a way to both acknowledge and then get around the 'traditional' railroad's practical monopoly on the use of its tracks, by paying a fee that would approximate what it would have earned by running similar tonnage trains in the normal manner over that same line (I don't suppose avoided losses or 'negative' revenue would have been part of those arrangements, though ).
But with respect, I don't remember John advocating Federal ownership maintenance of the tracks and ROW; that would have been anathema to him ! Perhaps you have in mind an article by one "R. Jay"* back in the same time frame:
Later, it came out that R. Jay was Robert Joseph Powers, who authored several columns and essays. On this point, one about 10 years later was:
- Paul North.
I'm glad Polish Falcon referred to JK as the Rush Limbaugh of railroading. Both of them always struck me as windbags full of hot air.
I won't comment on your comment concerning Limbaugh, but I doubt you will get much support concerning John Kneiling. I certainly disagree.
Again, though, Ed Hungerford was a good columnist, and he definitely approved of electrification. I recall his comments about the southern railroads' various streamliners coming into Uniont Station behind mutliple diesel units, and then at times simply being hitched to an already long string of Pennsy cars reprsenting a Washington - NY train, possibly an advanced or second section of one, and then ONE GG-1 taking the whole 25 or so cars at speeds up to 100mph up to NY. Having witnessed this on several occasions, I thought he was a good columnist indeed.
Iconoclasts like JK always receive a lot of negative reactions because they challenge the status quo of the often inbred establishment of the field in question.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Oh God! You can't compare Knieling to Limbaugh! Knieling never attacked individuals the way Limbaugh does, he always brought ideas to the table for discussion. Pompous, egotistical, arrogant, rough. Yes. But more progressive about changes and the need to change. And he didn't have undisclosed big business money behind him either.
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.
henry6 Oh God! You can't compare Knieling to Limbaugh! Knieling never attacked individuals the way Limbaugh does, he always brought ideas to the table for discussion. Pompous, egotistical, arrogant, rough. Yes. But more progressive about changes and the need to change.
Oh God! You can't compare Knieling to Limbaugh! Knieling never attacked individuals the way Limbaugh does, he always brought ideas to the table for discussion. Pompous, egotistical, arrogant, rough. Yes. But more progressive about changes and the need to change.
Kneiling did bring ideas to the table, as you say, but it was hardly as neutral as that characterization implies. Keiling was fiercely confident with strong opinions. In order to set the table for his ideas, he set fire to a lot of cherished beliefs within the industry. Kneiling was a bomb thrower, and I am quite sure that those individuals who resisted Kneiling’s ideas did indeed feel that they were being “attacked” by him.
Euclid henry6 Oh God! You can't compare Knieling to Limbaugh! Knieling never attacked individuals the way Limbaugh does, he always brought ideas to the table for discussion. Pompous, egotistical, arrogant, rough. Yes. But more progressive about changes and the need to change. Kneiling did bring ideas to the table, as you say, but it was hardly as neutral as that characterization implies. Keiling was fiercely confident with strong opinions. In order to set the table for his ideas, he set fire to a lot of cherished beliefs within the industry. Kneiling was a bomb thrower, and I am quite sure that those individuals who resisted Kneiling’s ideas did indeed feel that they were being “attacked” by him.
But he didn't repeatedly attack individuals in public by singling them out and naming them. But still he more attacked ideas than people. I don't remember one name he used in fact. But I do remember that he was saying railroaders, their unions, and the government had to start thinking, panning, and operating with 19th Century technologies and rules. Those who resisted him were not named and hung out to dry or defend themselves. No, you cannot compare Knieling to Limbaugh. Entirely different program.
henry6 Euclid henry6 Oh God! You can't compare Knieling to Limbaugh! Knieling never attacked individuals the way Limbaugh does, he always brought ideas to the table for discussion. Pompous, egotistical, arrogant, rough. Yes. But more progressive about changes and the need to change. Kneiling did bring ideas to the table, as you say, but it was hardly as neutral as that characterization implies. Keiling was fiercely confident with strong opinions. In order to set the table for his ideas, he set fire to a lot of cherished beliefs within the industry. Kneiling was a bomb thrower, and I am quite sure that those individuals who resisted Kneiling’s ideas did indeed feel that they were being “attacked” by him. But he didn't repeatedly attack individuals in public by singling them out and naming them. But still he more attacked ideas than people. I don't remember one name he used in fact. But I do remember that he was saying railroaders, their unions, and the government had to start thinking, panning, and operating with 19th Century technologies and rules. Those who resisted him were not named and hung out to dry or defend themselves. No, you cannot compare Knieling to Limbaugh. Entirely different program.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I would say that Kneiling was a troll, depending on the definition of troll.
Kneiling reminded me of a character in a Paddy Chayefsky movie such as Network. Such characters were common in the Seventies, someone frustrated with the paralysis of large organizations. When Kneiling was in the magazine I would scan his articles quickly for the mention of an actual railroad, otherwise I would generally skip his anti-union screeds. As I recall, the article that got him fired was called "But is it a railroad? No." which was an attack on Amtrak workers. I think Morgan was sympathetic to his anti-union position too, and so I wasn't upset when he retired. I don't miss the editorial content of those days, if I miss anything it was the wide variety of railroads they still had to cover in the late seventies.
DwightBranch ...if I miss anything it was the wide variety of railroads they still had to cover in the late seventies.
Don't we all...
Progress notwithstanding, being able to see three or four railroads represented in a given city was cool.
Now back to your regular programming.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Didn’t Trains once run an article in the 1980s disparaging the train watching of the 1970s?
This thread has got me thinking about Kneiling and what he stood for. I had to dig out a few back issues to refresh my memory. I recall that he once proposed torch modifying some rolling stock for a different purpose. That seemed like kind of a home spun idea.
He also advocated trains composed of semi-permanently coupled cars that stayed in the same order within the train. That way, each car could be lighter than the one ahead of it. The idea was that, with loose car railroading, every car has to be strong enough to be the first car in a 200-car train and withstand transferring the locomotive tractive effort to the collective load of the 199 cars behind it.
There is variety in railroading today. It is provided by the short lines and regionals. And by the geography encountered by the Big six-and-a-half. And by the commuter railroads. We may bemoan the lack of standardization among commuter railroad passenger equipment, leading to higher costs, but the variety makes it more interesting.
Regarding the comments on Kneiling vs.Limbaugh, I'll just point out that both of them -- and most people of a basic libertarian (small 'l', please) orientation, myself among them -- see the free markets, the natural interplay of supply and demand, as a natural (and usually optimal) state of things, and that it's the nature of most men and women in the street to see themselves as disempowered, at least in part, and believe that a "safety net" of some sort, is essential.
That, in a nutshell, is what we call politics -- and the rest is, hopefully, just a war of words which can't be allowed to get too rough.
John Kneiling stepped on a lot of sore toes, and made a lot of enemies, but over the long run, the markets, and the changes in the industry attributable to those market forces. are proving that he was on to something. The "smoothing off" of the imbalances and "rough edges" that emerged in the process is what forums like this one, and democratic (small 'd', please) pluralism itself is all about.
Thanks to all who have joined this thread so far -- please keep the posts coming.
daveklepper [snipped - PDN] . . . Again, though, Ed Hungerford was a good columnist, and he definitely approved of electrification. I recall his comments about the southern railroads' various streamliners coming into Uniont Station behind mutliple diesel units, and then at times simply being hitched to an already long string of Pennsy cars reprsenting a Washington - NY train, possibly an advanced or second section of one, and then ONE GG-1 taking the whole 25 or so cars at speeds up to 100mph up to NY. . . .
daveklepper [snipped - PDN] . . . the Big six-and-a-half. . . .
schlimm Iconoclasts like JK always receive a lot of negative reactions because they challenge the status quo of the often inbred establishment of the field in question.
(*If not him, then Robert Townsend, CEO of Avis Rent-a-Car, in his book from the same time frame Up the Organization! )
DwightBranch [snipped - PDN] . . .As I recall, the article that got him [Kneiling] fired was called "But is it a railroad? No." which was an attack on Amtrak workers. . . .
Euclid [snipped - PDN] . . . I recall that he [Kneiling] once proposed torch modifying some rolling stock for a different purpose. That seemed like kind of a home spun idea. . . .
Railfans are liberal, moderate or conservative; sometimes politics does come into our discussion, but hopefully only on the periphery. We do like trains and that is what is important. David P Morgan understood railroading and had strong opinions about which direction the industry should go. I didn't agree with him on everything among them was running Kneiling's column; but he was the editor. I also didn't like Morgan's support of FEC management in the strike of 1964 either; but in retrospect isn't FEC one of the rail industry's success stories. I didn't like him taking a shot at Minnesota's State Government for high personal income taxes that might cause Burlington Northern to move its headquarters out of St Paul, once the home of both GN and NP, and lose 3,000 jobs; but that is what BN did. Never doubt Morgan's passion for railroading. He lamented the loss of the welterweights of the industry like Wabash,Erie and GM&O ete, but understood why it happened. I think he was never comfortable with Amtrak and was very sad when Southern finally gave up operating the Southern Crescent and deferred to Amtrak. I think that Morgan knew that some of his readership carried union cards but was willing to say what he thought needed to be said about the industry and remained objective doing it. Kneiling didn't always sadly. You always had the option not to read him, but if you decided not to subscribe, you would miss out on so much else.
Paul_D_North_Jr DwightBranch [snipped - PDN] . . .As I recall, the article that got him [Kneiling] fired was called "But is it a railroad? No." which was an attack on Amtrak workers. . . . Was that during the time when W. Graham Claytor, Jr. was CEO of Amtrak ? He wouldn't have tolerated that kind of insult for a second, and had enough credibility with Morgan that discontinuing John's column might have been the result - though I don't really know (yet). - Paul North.
I believe it was, 1982 or 1983 as I recall, and Claytor went to Amtrak in 1982.
Eddie SandIt's been nearly fifty years since Trains ran a cover story entitled "This Train can Save Railroading; Why Isn't it Used?" The story dealt with a proposal by the late John G. Kneiling, an industrial engineer, for s service which would have gone one step beyond the unit trains which were under development at the time -- single-commodity services shuttling from one shipper to one customer, and eschewing most of the things which seemed to make railroading such a fascinating business. The article, and several others which followed it, generated a lot of controversy . . . [snipped - PDN.]
"THIS TRAIN CAN SAVE RAILROADING . . . why isn't it used? - see page 3" on the cover, but "A TRAIN FOR SURVIVAL" on the inside at the top of page 3, March 1965 issue (Vol. 25, No. 5), pages 3, and 6 - 8. It was written as an editorial by David P. Morgan, but consisted of mostly quotes or "talking points" from Kneiling, together with several 'elevation' type sketches at the top of page 6 credited to staff artist John Swatsley based on patents held by Theodore J. Kauffeld.
The article/ editorial is not indexed under Kneiling's name in the Trains Magazine Index, thus it can be hard to find.
Paul_D_North_JrBoth CP and CN did just that, one with old boxcars, the other with old passenger cars, to carry containers.
The concept was (old baggage cars, in particular) to try and regain some of the old head-end traffic for passenger trains. The operations department did the conversions, but the marketing department was never able to put a viable plan together.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
Paul:
Maybe you recall back in the 1950s/60's the Southern Railway had an excess number of 50' steel boxcars,and Intermodal needs were begining. Highway trailers were growing from about 40' to 45' in length.
The Southern Rwy.pulled a large number of their 50' boxes into Haney HANE Shops[THANX ! Johnnie), and converted them to 50' length, single trailer intermodal cars. They were a pretty slick conversion for cars that were sitting around their system, for a lack of freight...I think this was about the time when many railroads were "rationalizing" their systems.
These cars lasted for some time until the highway trailer size started creeping out, lengthwise (to 48'). I think also that I remember CNW did something similar with some of their boxcar fleet(?).
John Kneiling's idea of cutting cars down became a reality in many cases as the railroads retrenched and repurposed their fleets when service demand was down.
Here is a link to one such car's photo (not mine !)
@http://southern.railfan.net/images/archive/southern/freight/inter/sou155512.html
The mention of "Haney" (the correct name is Hane) reminds me of the day that I rode down and up Saluda, from Asheville to Hane and back. It may have been the same day that I asked a trainman what the "HE" on a car meant, and he told me that work had been done at the Hane car shops. Hane is just south (on the Washington-Columbus, Mississippi, line) and west (on the Asheville-Hane line) of Spartanburg. I had a roundtrip ticket from Asheville to Spartanburg, but the conductor out of Asheville told me I should get off at Hane so I could be sure to get back to Asheville the same day--the train crew also got off at Hane and went back to Asheville the same day.
Johnny
DwightBranch Paul_D_North_Jr DwightBranch [snipped - PDN] . . .As I recall, the article that got him [Kneiling] fired was called "But is it a railroad? No." which was an attack on Amtrak workers. . . . Was that during the time when W. Graham Claytor, Jr. was CEO of Amtrak ? He wouldn't have tolerated that kind of insult for a second, and had enough credibility with Morgan that discontinuing John's column might have been the result - though I don't really know (yet). - Paul North. I believe it was, 1982 or 1983 as I recall, and Claytor went to Amtrak in 1982.
No, a fine Southern gentleman like Mr. Claytor wouldn't have gotten someone fired over a percieved insult, not at all.
If he DID feel insulted it would have been "pistols for two, coffee for one", if you get my drift.
Hey, in the Old South if you wanted to be a journalist you needed two things, a printing press and a cased set of duelling pistols!
The article in question was in the Jan, 5, 1986 Trains. It published only three more Kneiling columns after that, a second article in Jan., and in Feb.and March.
A similar article by John appeared 3 years later, on the eve of the publication of his book:
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.