Date
1 - 20 of 28
Early train length laws
|
al.kresse <water.kresse@...>
Folks,
Maybe this a new subject? Do we have any information on State Legist's attempting to mandate maximum number of freight cars allowed per train? Andrew Dow's great N&W Coal Car book refers to that being a driving reason for building 120-ton and 90-ton "Battleship Gons" in the late teens and early twenties. Do we have copies of specific proposed rules? Were there Federal proposes also? Al Kresse
|
|
|
|
al_brown03
-- 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 enforced. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h tml (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.
|
|
|
|
James F. Brewer <jfbrewer@...>
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.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Jim Brewer Glenwood MD
----- Original Message -----
From: al_brown03 To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:12 PM Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws -- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "al.kresse" <water.kresse@...> wrote: > > Folks, > > Maybe this a new subject? > > Do we have any information on State Legist's attempting to mandate > maximum number of freight cars allowed per train? 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 enforced. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h tml (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. > > Andrew Dow's great N&W Coal Car book refers to that being a driving > reason for building 120-ton and 90-ton "Battleship Gons" in the > late teens and early twenties. Do we have copies of specific > proposed rules? > > Were there Federal proposes also? > > Al Kresse >
|
|
|
|
water.kresse@...
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). Al Kresse
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "James F. Brewer" <jfbrewer@comcast.net> 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. Jim Brewer Glenwood MD ----- Original Message ----- From: al_brown03 To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com 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 enforced. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h tml (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.
|
|
|
|
gary laakso
The state laws had much more to do wth union politics then coupler strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or overtime. The unions were pushing for federal laws to do the same thing.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
gary laakso south of Mike Brock vasa0vasa@earthlink.net
----- Original Message -----
From: To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com Sent: 9/17/2008 9:32:35 AM Subject: Re: [STMFC] 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? 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). Al Kresse -------------- Original message -------------- From: "James F. Brewer" <jfbrewer@comcast.net> 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. Jim Brewer Glenwood MD ----- Original Message ----- From: al_brown03 To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com 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 enforced. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h tml (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.
|
|
|
|
water.kresse@...
Gary,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
First, I don't doubt your very logical conclusion. Do you have any pre-WWI "original source" documentation to back that up? . . . or even a general book on railroad history during those times? Longer trains would mean less train crews per ton moved. Looking at the State of Virginia Laws and Codes on the internet I find that the ministers were more influential in trying to ban movements of trains "not completely filled" with interstate commerce on Sundays (1908), or banning train crews from not being brought home before Sunday services (1890s), or prohibiting sales of liquor on trains, or even prohibiting passenger trains to pull reefers . . . because they might carry German-style beer from Cincinnatti down to Newport News (1890s). Plus, there were the Jim Crow laws. Us Northerners up here in Michigan (born in Ashland, Kentucky) aren't suppose to say anything about Southern Culture without references to back it up. Thanks, Al Kresse
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@earthlink.net> The state laws had much more to do wth union politics then coupler strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or overtime. The unions were pushing for federal laws to do the same thing. gary laakso south of Mike Brock vasa0vasa@earthlink.net ----- Original Message ----- From: To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com Sent: 9/17/2008 9:32:35 AM Subject: Re: [STMFC] 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? 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). Al Kresse -------------- Original message -------------- From: "James F. Brewer" <jfbrewer@comcast.net> 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. Jim Brewer Glenwood MD ----- Original Message ----- From: al_brown03 To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com 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 enforced. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h tml (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.
|
|
|
|
gary laakso
I spent 20 years in the ESPEE legal department and everyone there, including the olde timers when i was a pup, told me it was union lobbying for more work not coupler strength that was involved. If you look at class 1 railroad employment and the timing of the laws, there is a striking (no pun intended) correlation. There ought to be some mention of the views of the parties in the Supreme Court case and the briefs of the parties.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
gary laakso south of Mike Brock vasa0vasa@earthlink.net
----- Original Message -----
From: To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com Sent: 9/17/2008 10:36:30 AM Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws Gary, First, I don't doubt your very logical conclusion. Do you have any pre-WWI "original source" documentation to back that up? . . . or even a general book on railroad history during those times? Longer trains would mean less train crews per ton moved. Looking at the State of Virginia Laws and Codes on the internet I find that the ministers were more influential in trying to ban movements of trains "not completely filled" with interstate commerce on Sundays (1908), or banning train crews from not being brought home before Sunday services (1890s), or prohibiting sales of liquor on trains, or even prohibiting passenger trains to pull reefers . . . because they might carry German-style beer from Cincinnatti down to Newport News (1890s). Plus, there were the Jim Crow laws. Us Northerners up here in Michigan (born in Ashland, Kentucky) aren't suppose to say anything about Southern Culture without references to back it up. Thanks, Al Kresse -------------- Original message -------------- From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@earthlink.net> The state laws had much more to do wth union politics then coupler strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or overtime. The unions were pushing for federal laws to do the same thing. gary laakso south of Mike Brock vasa0vasa@earthlink.net ----- Original Message ----- From: To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com Sent: 9/17/2008 9:32:35 AM Subject: Re: [STMFC] 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? 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). Al Kresse -------------- Original message -------------- From: "James F. Brewer" <jfbrewer@comcast.net> 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. Jim Brewer Glenwood MD ----- Original Message ----- From: al_brown03 To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com 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 enforced. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h tml (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.
|
|
|
|
water.kresse@...
Gary,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Old timer guidance and historical recollections are great "original sources" in my book. If it was not for "old timer sargents" steering us straight we wouldn't have servived in the war zones either. The final briefs are rather pure: statistically proving additional safety risks vs. impeding free trade across the states. Al Kresse
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@earthlink.net> I spent 20 years in the ESPEE legal department and everyone there, including the olde timers when i was a pup, told me it was union lobbying for more work not coupler strength that was involved. If you look at class 1 railroad employment and the timing of the laws, there is a striking (no pun intended) correlation. There ought to be some mention of the views of the parties in the Supreme Court case and the briefs of the parties. gary laakso south of Mike Brock vasa0vasa@earthlink.net ----- Original Message ----- From: To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com Sent: 9/17/2008 10:36:30 AM Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws Gary, First, I don't doubt your very logical conclusion. Do you have any pre-WWI "original source" documentation to back that up? . . . or even a general book on railroad history during those times? Longer trains would mean less train crews per ton moved. Looking at the State of Virginia Laws and Codes on the internet I find that the ministers were more influential in trying to ban movements of trains "not completely filled" with interstate commerce on Sundays (1908), or banning train crews from not being brought home before Sunday services (1890s), or prohibiting sales of liquor on trains, or even prohibiting passenger trains to pull reefers . . . because they might carry German-style beer from Cincinnatti down to Newport News (1890s). Plus, there were the Jim Crow laws. Us Northerners up here in Michigan (born in Ashland, Kentucky) aren't suppose to say anything about Southern Culture without references to back it up. Thanks, Al Kresse -------------- Original message -------------- From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@earthlink.net> The state laws had much more to do wth union politics then coupler strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or overtime. The unions were pushing for federal laws to do the same thing. gary laakso south of Mike Brock vasa0vasa@earthlink.net ----- Original Message ----- From: To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com Sent: 9/17/2008 9:32:35 AM Subject: Re: [STMFC] 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? 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). Al Kresse -------------- Original message -------------- From: "James F. Brewer" <jfbrewer@comcast.net> 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. Jim Brewer Glenwood MD ----- Original Message ----- From: al_brown03 To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com 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 enforced. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h tml (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.
|
|
|
|
ATSF1226
This law was put in place by the people of AZ when developing the AZ
State Constitution in 1912 and voted on by the people of AZ. I've not seen any reference to union involment. Santa Fe and SP railroads sued the state of AZ in 1924 to get it overturned. Didn't work. Law was set aside in 1942 because of WW2 and then later thrown out by Federal Supreme Court in 1945, as was mentioned earlier. Some information on this subject appears in David Myrick's book " Railroads of Arizona, Vol 4, pg 192-194" Several states have their own agencies that oversee railroad operations in their states and have been sucessful in maintaining those laws above what union or railroad wants. George A Walls Gary,sources" in my book. If it was not for "old timer sargents" steering us straight we wouldn't have servived in the war zones either. safety risks vs. impeding free trade across the states. including the olde timers when i was a pup, told me it was union lobbying for more work not coupler strength that was involved. If you look at class 1 railroad employment and the timing of the laws, there is a striking (no pun intended) correlation. There ought to be some mention of the views of the parties in the Supreme Court case and the briefs of the parties. pre-WWI "original source" documentation to back that up? . . . or even a general book on railroad history during those times? Longer trains would mean less train crews per ton moved. Looking at the State of Virginia Laws and Codes on the internet I find that the ministers were more influential in trying to ban movements of trains "not completely filled" with interstate commerce on Sundays (1908), or banning train crews from not being brought home before Sunday services (1890s), or prohibiting sales of liquor on trains, or even prohibiting passenger trains to pull reefers . . . because they might carry German-style beer from Cincinnatti down to Newport News (1890s). Plus, there were the Jim Crow laws. aren't suppose to say anything about Southern Culture without references to back it up. strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or overtime. The unions were pushing for federal laws to do the same thing. car freight train length limit. Rationale appears to be to minimize coupler failures resulting from higher slack-loads from longer trains? 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). Supreme Court decision declaring it to be a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act and therefore, unconstitutional. mandate won.maximum number of freight cars allowed per train?Yes. Arizona had a law limiting freight trains to 70 cars and The law dated to 1912; I don't know how consistently it'd beenhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h tmldriving reason for building 120-ton and 90-ton "Battleship Gons" in the[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
|
|
gary laakso
Its very odd to have a train length provision in a state constitution and its not something the usual politically connected interests want. The question is then "who benefits" and i don't think its the local coupler sales guy. Smell test remains a good test. My money says a couple of union members were on the drafting committee and they did some trades to get support for the provision. The post convention rationalizations by politicians tend to be camouflage.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Does the law apply to Mike Brock's layout? gary laakso south of Mike Brock vasa0vasa@earthlink.net
----- Original Message -----
From: George A. Walls To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com Sent: 9/17/2008 12:44:55 PM Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws This law was put in place by the people of AZ when developing the AZ State Constitution in 1912 and voted on by the people of AZ. I've not seen any reference to union involment. Santa Fe and SP railroads sued the state of AZ in 1924 to get it overturned. Didn't work. Law was set aside in 1942 because of WW2 and then later thrown out by Federal Supreme Court in 1945, as was mentioned earlier. Some information on this subject appears in David Myrick's book " Railroads of Arizona, Vol 4, pg 192-194" Several states have their own agencies that oversee railroad operations in their states and have been sucessful in maintaining those laws above what union or railroad wants. George A Walls Gary,sources" in my book. If it was not for "old timer sargents" steering us straight we wouldn't have servived in the war zones either. safety risks vs. impeding free trade across the states. including the olde timers when i was a pup, told me it was union lobbying for more work not coupler strength that was involved. If you look at class 1 railroad employment and the timing of the laws, there is a striking (no pun intended) correlation. There ought to be some mention of the views of the parties in the Supreme Court case and the briefs of the parties. pre-WWI "original source" documentation to back that up? . . . or even a general book on railroad history during those times? Longer trains would mean less train crews per ton moved. Looking at the State of Virginia Laws and Codes on the internet I find that the ministers were more influential in trying to ban movements of trains "not completely filled" with interstate commerce on Sundays (1908), or banning train crews from not being brought home before Sunday services (1890s), or prohibiting sales of liquor on trains, or even prohibiting passenger trains to pull reefers . . . because they might carry German-style beer from Cincinnatti down to Newport News (1890s). Plus, there were the Jim Crow laws. aren't suppose to say anything about Southern Culture without references to back it up. strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or overtime. The unions were pushing for federal laws to do the same thing. car freight train length limit. Rationale appears to be to minimize coupler failures resulting from higher slack-loads from longer trains? 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). Supreme Court decision declaring it to be a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act and therefore, unconstitutional. mandate won.maximum number of freight cars allowed per train?Yes. Arizona had a law limiting freight trains to 70 cars and The law dated to 1912; I don't know how consistently it'd beenhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h tmldriving reason for building 120-ton and 90-ton "Battleship Gons" in the
|
|
|
|
water.kresse@...
Gary,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I agree with you again. Apparently they had hearing in Washington, DC, May 1916, which the N&W folks participated in. That would be as the War in Europe was just unfolding and the US was being requested to supply our allies with war materials. It is the 50-car limit being proposed to Virginia State General Assembly was exactly half of the railroad management stated 100-car yard and passing siding track length improvements being reported on in their annual reports at the time. Al
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@earthlink.net> Its very odd to have a train length provision in a state constitution and its not something the usual politically connected interests want. The question is then "who benefits" and i don't think its the local coupler sales guy. Smell test remains a good test. My money says a couple of union members were on the drafting committee and they did some trades to get support for the provision. The post convention rationalizations by politicians tend to be camouflage. Does the law apply to Mike Brock's layout? gary laakso south of Mike Brock vasa0vasa@earthlink.net ----- Original Message ----- From: George A. Walls To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com Sent: 9/17/2008 12:44:55 PM Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws This law was put in place by the people of AZ when developing the AZ State Constitution in 1912 and voted on by the people of AZ. I've not seen any reference to union involment. Santa Fe and SP railroads sued the state of AZ in 1924 to get it overturned. Didn't work. Law was set aside in 1942 because of WW2 and then later thrown out by Federal Supreme Court in 1945, as was mentioned earlier. Some information on this subject appears in David Myrick's book " Railroads of Arizona, Vol 4, pg 192-194" Several states have their own agencies that oversee railroad operations in their states and have been sucessful in maintaining those laws above what union or railroad wants. George A Walls Gary,sources" in my book. If it was not for "old timer sargents" steering us straight we wouldn't have servived in the war zones either. safety risks vs. impeding free trade across the states. including the olde timers when i was a pup, told me it was union lobbying for more work not coupler strength that was involved. If you look at class 1 railroad employment and the timing of the laws, there is a striking (no pun intended) correlation. There ought to be some mention of the views of the parties in the Supreme Court case and the briefs of the parties. pre-WWI "original source" documentation to back that up? . . . or even a general book on railroad history during those times? Longer trains would mean less train crews per ton moved. Looking at the State of Virginia Laws and Codes on the internet I find that the ministers were more influential in trying to ban movements of trains "not completely filled" with interstate commerce on Sundays (1908), or banning train crews from not being brought home before Sunday services (1890s), or prohibiting sales of liquor on trains, or even prohibiting passenger trains to pull reefers . . . because they might carry German-style beer from Cincinnatti down to Newport News (1890s). Plus, there were the Jim Crow laws. aren't suppose to say anything about Southern Culture without references to back it up. strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or overtime. The unions were pushing for federal laws to do the same thing. car freight train length limit. Rationale appears to be to minimize coupler failures resulting from higher slack-loads from longer trains? 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). Supreme Court decision declaring it to be a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act and therefore, unconstitutional. mandate won.maximum number of freight cars allowed per train?Yes. Arizona had a law limiting freight trains to 70 cars and The law dated to 1912; I don't know how consistently it'd beenhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h tmldriving reason for building 120-ton and 90-ton "Battleship Gons" in the
|
|
|
|
ATSF1226
Gary,
I think it probably had more to do with economics then any thing else. The big voter turnout was from Cochise Couunty, which had large mining interests, a lot of railroads. Shorter trains means more money from taxes, expenses, more crews, etc:. Would like to find out more about the reasons behind the law but haven't had a lot of success since I no longer live in AZ. Mike, makes his own laws. Just like UP. Operate in their own little world. hehehe Wonder if we can find N&W hoppers on the Santa Fe in AZ? George A Walls --- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@...> wrote: constitution and its not something the usual politically connected interests want. The question is then "who benefits" and i don't think its the local coupler sales guy. Smell test remains a good test. My money says a couple of union members were on the drafting committee and they did some trades to get support for the provision. The post convention rationalizations by politicians tend to be camouflage. Does the law apply to Mike Brock's layout?AZ State Constitution in 1912 and voted on by the people of AZ. I'venot seen any reference to union involment. Santa Fe and SP railroadssued the state of AZ in 1924 to get it overturned. Didn't work. Law wasFederal Supreme Court in 1945, as was mentioned earlier. Some informationon this subject appears in David Myrick's book " Railroads of Arizona,great "original sources" in my book. If it was not for "old timer sargents"steering us straight we wouldn't have servived in the war zones either.additional safety risks vs. impeding free trade across the states.there, including the olde timers when i was a pup, told me it was unionyou look at class 1 railroad employment and the timing of the laws,there is a striking (no pun intended) correlation. There ought to be somethe briefs of the parties.any pre-WWI "original source" documentation to back that up? . . . oror even prohibiting passenger trains to pull reefers . . . becausethey might carry German-style beer from Cincinnatti down to Newport Newscoupler strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or70- car freight train length limit. Rationale appears to be to minimizetrains? Tidewater?traffic between Kentucky, Ohio, WV, and Virginia . . . and Were other states considering maximum train length laws at the sameto pull loaded coal trains up their grades . . much less making trainshttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h youtml may need to type in the last few characters.)driving
|
|
|
|
water.kresse@...
I've pictures of C&O gondolas in Los Angeles in the 1950s.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Al Kresse
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "George A. Walls" <atsf1226@yahoo.com> Gary, I think it probably had more to do with economics then any thing else. The big voter turnout was from Cochise Couunty, which had large mining interests, a lot of railroads. Shorter trains means more money from taxes, expenses, more crews, etc:. Would like to find out more about the reasons behind the law but haven't had a lot of success since I no longer live in AZ. Mike, makes his own laws. Just like UP. Operate in their own little world. hehehe Wonder if we can find N&W hoppers on the Santa Fe in AZ? George A Walls --- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@...> wrote: constitution and its not something the usual politically connected interests want. The question is then "who benefits" and i don't think its the local coupler sales guy. Smell test remains a good test. My money says a couple of union members were on the drafting committee and they did some trades to get support for the provision. The post convention rationalizations by politicians tend to be camouflage. Does the law apply to Mike Brock's layout?AZ State Constitution in 1912 and voted on by the people of AZ. I'venot seen any reference to union involment. Santa Fe and SP railroadssued the state of AZ in 1924 to get it overturned. Didn't work. Law wasFederal Supreme Court in 1945, as was mentioned earlier. Some informationon this subject appears in David Myrick's book " Railroads of Arizona,great "original sources" in my book. If it was not for "old timer sargents"steering us straight we wouldn't have servived in the war zones either.additional safety risks vs. impeding free trade across the states.there, including the olde timers when i was a pup, told me it was unionyou look at class 1 railroad employment and the timing of the laws,there is a striking (no pun intended) correlation. There ought to be somethe briefs of the parties.any pre-WWI "original source" documentation to back that up? . . . oror even prohibiting passenger trains to pull reefers . . . becausethey might carry German-style beer from Cincinnatti down to Newport Newscoupler strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or70- car freight train length limit. Rationale appears to be to minimizetrains? Tidewater?traffic between Kentucky, Ohio, WV, and Virginia . . . and Were other states considering maximum train length laws at the sameto pull loaded coal trains up their grades . . much less making trainshttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h youtml may need to type in the last few characters.)driving
|
|
|
|
Larry Jackman <Ljack70117@...>
They had these laws in several states. The train crews had their hand in it. The shorter the trains the more train would have to be run and more trainman would be working. One state had a law you could have so many cars with a 5 man crew. Then as you added cars you had to add extra crew members.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On the Kansas Pacific owned by The Un Pac, the steepest grad between KC and Ogden was between Salina and Hayes Ks. THe engine crews got a rule that the RR could not put more tonnage on a train that one engine could pullover the division. They could use a helper on the main grade. So the Un Pac just killed the Kansas division. (Kansas Pacific). They built the Menoken cut off to Marysville and all traffic from from Kansas for Denver and west went up the cutoff to the main line and the Kansas trackage became a branch line. Thank you Larry Jackman ljack70117@comcast.net
On Sep 17, 2008, at 1:31 PM, George A. Walls wrote:
Gary,
|
|
|
|
Jason Hill
Two 50-car trains will not fit in a 100-car siding... you're forgetting about the engine and caboose lengths. Two 50-car trains may fit in a 106-car sidings, or two 47-car trains may fit in a 100-car siding. Of course, that's if your talking about fouling lengths of the sidings which is what is marked in the timetables, not the additional signal viewing length required if searchlight signals are used.
Also I seem to remember that AZ had a 100-car law, so all the trains in AZ had to be no longer than 99-cars. Hmmm... interesting. I wonder if that law was updated before it was suspended in WWII and thrown out in 46. Regards, Jason Hill
|
|
|
|
devansprr
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "al.kresse" <water.kresse@...> wrote:
Al, I think I remember reading something about limitations in train length due to air brake performance. Not sure where I read it, but I thought the PRR, prior to WWII, had train length limits for K brakes because of concerns over the speed/effectiveness of air brake applications in long trains. Can't remember where the rule came from (I think it was 100 cars) - could be regulatory, or could have been self-imposed - the PRR had a few nasty runaways on the east slope just west of Altoona in the early 1900's. My aunt (born in Altoona in 1920) remembers several incidents as a child where runaways would crash into Altoona. Her father was a PRR shop foreman, so I think her recollections were likely accurate - my grandfather was a dedicated PRR employee (57 years). I think the rule was relaxed as AB brakes came into use - and I thought I remember reading that the train limit could be exceeded if less than some percentage of cars were K brake equipped. Could take me a while to remember the source of this. Anyone else? Dave Evans
|
|
|
|
bflynnd1
I have a 62 page booklet dated 1955 titled "Railroad Safety-Long Trains, Before the ICC".? It?list the Brotherhood of Locomotive Fireman and Engineers, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen as petitioners for "The promulgation and enforcement of rules, standards, and instructions for installation, inspection, maintenance, and repair of power brakes".? The booklet came from my great grandfather who was a conductor for the Mopac in St Louis from the 20's to the 60's.? The booklet contains a lot of nice tables and information such as average length of trains 1921, 1938, 1940,1945,1950,and 1955, and average speed, average gross weight?and revenue tons per train hour for the same dates.? It also list by railroad, voluntary car limits by railroad.? There is also a section listing the hazards to public, employees, and property due to longer trains, and the "collateral detrimental effects of long trains contrary to public interest" such as long delays at grade crossings.? The booklet has?a lot of interesting information and?data.
Brian Flynn?
|
|
|
|
water.kresse@...
Brian,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
That sounds like a great booklet! I would be interested in the 1921 data which would be applicable to the purchasing by C&O/N&W/Virginian of Hi Capy Gons in that era and did any of the railroads have voluntary limits WAY BACK THEN. Many thanks, Al Kresse
-------------- Original message --------------
From: bflynn562@aol.com I have a 62 page booklet dated 1955 titled "Railroad Safety-Long Trains, Before the ICC".? It?list the Brotherhood of Locomotive Fireman and Engineers, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen as petitioners for "The promulgation and enforcement of rules, standards, and instructions for installation, inspection, maintenance, and repair of power brakes".? The booklet came from my great grandfather who was a conductor for the Mopac in St Louis from the 20's to the 60's.? The booklet contains a lot of nice tables and information such as average length of trains 1921, 1938, 1940,1945,1950,and 1955, and average speed, average gross weight?and revenue tons per train hour for the same dates.? It also list by railroad, voluntary car limits by railroad.? There is also a section listing the hazards to public, employees, and property due to longer trains, and the "collateral detrimental effects of long trains contrary to public interest" such as long delays at grade crossings.? The booklet ha s?a lot of interesting information and?data. Brian Flynn?
|
|
|
|
bflynnd1
Not sure how all the question marks ended up in my post.? There is no date for the maximum train lengths but I can give you the following information:?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
C&O?lines north? 160 C&O lines south? 175 N&W 175 Virginian? 175 Brian Flynn
-----Original Message-----
From: water.kresse@comcast.net To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 7:20 am Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws Brian, That sounds like a great booklet! I would be interested in the 1921 data which would be applicable to the purchasing by C&O/N&W/Virginian of Hi Capy Gons in that era and did any of the railroads have voluntary limits WAY BACK THEN. Many thanks, Al Kresse ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links
|
|
|
|
Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
A 1936 ETT for the Canada Division of the NYC has restrictions on
train length when cars with K brakes were handled. Steve Lucas. when cars in it had K brakes--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "devansprr" <devans1@...> wrote: mandate drivingmaximum number of freight cars allowed per train? latereason for building 120-ton and 90-ton "Battleship Gons" in the rules?teens and early twenties. Do we have copies of specific proposed lengthAl, due to air brake performance. Not sure where I read it, but Ithought the PRR, prior to WWII, had train length limits for K brakes becausein long trains. Can't remember where the rule came from (I think it wasthe PRR had a few nasty runaways on the east slope just west of Altoonain the early 1900's. My aunt (born in Altoona in 1920) remembersseveral incidents as a child where runaways would crash into Altoona. Heryears).
|
|
|