Re: Early train length laws
Thanks for finding support material relative to the 1912 Arizona 70-car freight train length limit. Rationale appears to be to minimize coupler failures resulting from higher slack-loads from longer trains?toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
My question is why would this affect C&O, N&W, and Virginian coal traffic between Kentucky, Ohio, WV, and Virginia . . . and Tidewater? Were other states considering maximum train length laws at the same time? Ohio seemed to be progressive in mandating 24-ft, 8-wheeled cabooses on interchange service circa 1914. it seems that these railroads at that time had enough problems just finding loco power to pull loaded coal trains up their grades . . much less making trains longer than 70-cars (even though they were going towards 100-car tracks in their coal classification yard improvements in the early 20s).
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "James F. Brewer" <email@example.com>
I believe this law was the basis for litigation that led to a Supreme Court decision declaring it to be a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act and therefore, unconstitutional.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws
-- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "al.kresse" <water.kresse@...> wrote:
Yes. Arizona had a law limiting freight trains to 70 cars and
passenger trains to 14; in the forties the SP tested it, and SP won.
The law dated to 1912; I don't know how consistently it'd been
(Found this by googling "train length law". If the link wraps, you
may need to type in the last few characters.)
Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.