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 North.
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.
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. . . .
I believe it was, 1982 or 1983 as I recall, and Claytor went to Amtrak in 1982.
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.
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. . . .
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! )
daveklepper [snipped - PDN] . . . the Big six-and-a-half. . . .
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. . . .
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
I would say that Kneiling was a troll, depending on the definition of troll.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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_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...
Overmod [snipped - PDN] . . . I had to chuckle at the post that condemned him over regulated rates, but did not mention his advocacy of the 'iron ocean' over which his trains were intended to run, divorced of any concern over routings that might need to be externally economically regulated. The latter was far more 'unthinkable' then (and actually more so, in many cases, now), but represents among other things about the only framework under which wider adoption of electrification might develop...
He envisioned - after abandonments and other plant rationalizations - a nationwide network or system of about 40,000 to 50,000 miles on mainline tracks, similar in size and scope to the Interstate highway system. I think if you look at a traffic density map or the STRACNET system, that's about where we are now. He also wanted interchange to be more fluid and less of a slow and cumbersome process, and we're partway to that goal now (except maybe Chicago).
I 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. Perhaps electrification's capital intensive need - in an industry that was already wasting capital, in his oft-stated opinion - would have been even more of an unwise choice.
Some 15 years after John first suggested gas-turbines, the Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine became the engine for the U.S. Army's M1 Abrams series of Main Battle Tanks. Although I've heard that their fuel consumption is prodigious* when compared to a diesel, perhaps cycling some of them in a train on-and-off - to be running only when needed - would address that issue. Otherwise, at 2,500 lbs. for 1,500 HP (1,200 HP per ton tare weight), and 66.5" long x 39" x 31.8" size, it could probably fit on a freight car or locomotive truck or at the end of a car (like under a hopper car slope sheet) fairly well.
*10 gals just to start it, 10 gals. / hr. when idling, 60 gals. per hour when running cross-country, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Tactical
See also:
http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/myaerospacecatalog-documents/SurfaceSystems/AGT1500_Turbine_Technology.pdf
http://turbotrain.net/en/m1tank.htm
Railroad use simulation - http://turbotrain.net/en/ifm1powerpackavailable.htmv
http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/252174-m1-abrams-fuel-consumption/
http://www.g2mil.com/abramsdiesel.htm
Paul_D_North_JrHis proposed system of gas-turbines on individual power trucks, coupled by either side-rods or large chains, has seen zero interest.
It does have to be said, in all fairness, that gas turbines at the time Kneiling took them up were seen as inexpensive ways to provide lightweight distributed power to go on modular integral trainset equipment, and the associated hydromechanical transmissions were cheap and could be made reliable. He made a good case for a type of operation that has only JUST been re-introduced by Don Oltmann -- for the 2040s -- operating different parts of a train in 'blocks' for rapid reassignment to other consists without the need of touching any of the containers or trucks in the block.
I had to chuckle at the post that condemned him over regulated rates, but did not mention his advocacy of the 'iron ocean' over which his trains were intended to run, divorced of any concern over routings that might need to be externally economically regulated. The latter was far more 'unthinkable' then (and actually more so, in many cases, now), but represents among other things about the only framework under which wider adoption of electrification might develop...
I would say he had a pretty good vision of railroading in this era.
Thanks Paul for the listing.
Ed
CShaveRR On the other hand, I wonder what he would have thought of some of the things that have happened to railroading since the end of his columns. He lived, but (as far as I can remember) didn't comment, into the era of containerization that began around 1983 or so. Double-stacking was a concept he didn't hit on, but I'm certain he would have approved of. Distributed Power and Positive Train Control (whenever we get to that), and electronic air brakes (whenever we get to that) are all things he would have approved of.He'd still be grousing about yards and how much they slow down operations. He'd be sorely disappointed that the Michigan Central line from Joliet to Porter didn't become a major bypass route around Chicago (I remember that column--he was disappointed at the time, but since then most of the line has disappeared completely). Rotary dumpers would take too long for unloading coal. He'd probably have ideas for passenger rail that other people have had already, but nobody wants to spend the money on. He'd still be stirring the pot...only difference is that the pot is at least simmering now.
I too bought the book - lent it to a friend who's in the management of a regional. It's probably doing more good with him than with me.
Many - but not all - of John's ideas have been adopted. Some are still valid and will be widespread someday, I think; others, not so much. And some things have happened that he didn't anticipate. A few examples (in no particular order):
Radio-Controlled Locomotives by belt packs and one-man operation are changes he advocated.
DPU's are a significant step towards his idea of the power being under the load-carrying cars.
He was definitely in favor of ECP brakes, and a step further - the separate "high-air" line used by some of the steel / iron ore railroads, sometimes called "Orinoco brakes" (see page 91 of John Leonard's book on the Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway, MBI Publishing Co., 2005); see also http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?10,2778844
http://www.altamontpress.com/discussion/read.php?1,95925,95925
Domestic containerization and the involvement on non-rail marketers and "3PLs" - J.B. Hunt, Schneider National, Pacer Intermodal, etc. - in chartering the intermodal trains was definitely something he was in favor of.
Drawbars between intermodal well cars conform to his vision.
He did not approve of the big, expensive, intermodal terminals - felt they were too expensive and not close enough to the traffic origins/ destinations. the CPR "Expressway" / CSX "Iron Highway" and RoadRailer are more what he had in mind. Side-loading container trucks are manufactured and used in other parts of the world, and he would not understand why they haven't taken hold here.
Proposed crude-by-rail for the Alaskan oil, and would no doubt be somewhat happy with present operations.
Many of the unit train (coal, iron ore, grain, potash, containers, auto-racks/ multi-levels, etc.) and run-through operations have adopted his principles - leave the power on for the entire trip, and just service it at a run-through facility.
He claimed to have invented "flood-loading" of coal as it's now practiced. He despised rotary car dumpers as being more for the benefit of the hardware salesman than any user, and instead advocated bottom-dump rapid-discharge systems (Miner's Auto-Mec, Trinity's RDL, etc.) to unload and turn a train far more quickly.
But he would not be happy with present-day car utilization and average train speeds, and hence the excessive amount of capital needed, poorer service, higher costs, and lower returns.
Deregulation (Staggers Act) seemed like it followed what he wrote.
He would have approved of the many line abandonments and turn-overs to regionals and short-lines.
His social rhetoric made clear that he could have been a presidential candidate for the Libertarian and/ or Tea Parties - or at least the chief theoretician for their platforms. Likewise for the "Right-to-Work" advocates.
Despite his inveighing against ConRail - which might have been justified in the early years - it managed to survive and then thrive long enough to refute his dire predictions, and be sold at an apparent profit.
But Amtrak is still here, along with many more commuter agencies and light rail operations, chief among them the NYC subway and Long Island RR which he loved to hate.
His proposed system of gas-turbines on individual power trucks, coupled by either side-rods or large chains, has seen zero interest.
He did not foresee AC-drive locomotives.
He did foresee the increase in car weights, and the challenge of evaluating whether the benefits outweigh the added costs.
His biggest criticism was the ignorance of costing in rail managements, but that now appears to be a critical part of the decision-making process for almost all purposes.
The decline of the boxcar and many more shippers owning their cars is something he advocated, to get the railroads out of that no-win, money-losing proposition.
He would have eliminated "loose car" / general freight railroading, instead using either containers or unit trains. I think we can see now that freight cars have a niche for volumes and O-D pairs that are not big enough for a dedicated train, but would take way too many containers to be economic (3 to 5 containers worth of freight can fit in 1 freight car).
That's about all I can think of right now, but I'm sure there are many more in each category.
On this cold spring day with snow alternating with sun, I will grab a handful of Trains from the 70s and read a few of his columns. They were informative to me at the time...and he did stir the pot. Oh, my the letters to the editor.
Trains did enter the dark ages upon the retirement of DPM. What a master. While I do not have the article at hand, my favorite article of his dealt with encountering steam west of Mattoon, Il and his aging. Look away, look away.
I always read Knieling with interest. If any thing his message was to "think outside the box" as if he were the inventor of the phrase. At any rate, he implored railroad management, shippers, and governing agencies to look for new and different ways to provide economical transportation that would benefit all. He wanted them to think not in terms of the heritage of the gauge, the automatic coupler, air brakes, diesels, work rules, and the ICC but of how things could be or had to be done as if none of that existed, as if they had to start new, as if they had to reinvent themselves for the future. The same old same old, he warned, was not going to last, was not the future of railroading or transportation, that they had to make new friends and new enemies in order to move forward. His unit train theory was just an example. He asked about keeping the 5 ft 6 and one half inch gauge as well as the marketing strategies of the time as well as the strangling ICC. Every business and every industry has had or has their Knielings. If it weren't for the likes of them, the whole country would still be back in the 90's. the 1890s. While offering up their own ideas and programs their real aim was to make the leaders and shakers think about what and how to change for the future.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.