Topics

Early train length laws


water.kresse@...
 

Brian,

It became interesting with join C&O-Chinchfield brouchers with I believe the Clinchfield going N-S and C&O going E-W but have coordinating fast freights No. 95 and No. 97 schedules. I might be wrong there about the Clinchfield.

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "bflynnd1" <bflynn562@aol.com>
Al,
I don't know why they they listed the C&O as North and South lines, but
that is the way it is listed in the booklet.

Brian Flynn

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, water.kresse@... wrote:

Folks,

Good find. However, the C&O "officially" ran East-West. Does "C&O
line north" mean heading West or in the C&O Northern (Ohio) region? It
would be logical for the C&O to have longer sidings heading east (your
south ref) to Tidewater, and mostly downhill.

Al Kresse


bflynnd1
 

Al,
I don't know why they they listed the C&O as North and South lines, but
that is the way it is listed in the booklet.

Brian Flynn

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, water.kresse@... wrote:

Folks,

Good find. However, the C&O "officially" ran East-West. Does "C&O
line north" mean heading West or in the C&O Northern (Ohio) region? It
would be logical for the C&O to have longer sidings heading east (your
south ref) to Tidewater, and mostly downhill.

Al Kresse


water.kresse@...
 

Folks,

Good find. However, the C&O "officially" ran East-West. Does "C&O line north" mean heading West or in the C&O Northern (Ohio) region? It would be logical for the C&O to have longer sidings heading east (your south ref) to Tidewater, and mostly downhill.

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Armand Premo" <armprem@surfglobal.net>
This thread should be considered out of scope and be directed to
OPS.Armand Premo
----- Original Message -----
From: <bflynn562@aol.com>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

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:?
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









------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links


----------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.136 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1675 - Release Date: 9/16/2008
7:06 PM


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Ben Hom wrote:
Tony Thompson wrote:
"Nope. I get mail in "plain text" and it's still full of question
marks."

Brian is correct - it's a result of AOL formatting at the SENDER, not
the recipient.
Yes, sorry for the confusion.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
 

Tony Thompson wrote:
"Nope. I get mail in "plain text" and it's still full of question
marks."

Brian is correct - it's a result of AOL formatting at the SENDER, not
the recipient.


Ben Hom


armprem
 

This thread should be considered out of scope and be directed to OPS.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: <bflynn562@aol.com>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws


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:?
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








------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.136 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1675 - Release Date: 9/16/2008 7:06 PM


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Brian Carlson wrote:
Brian: The question marks are a by product of AOL's email program. If I recall correctly it is a by product of their HTML set up. If you switch to plain text it should be eliminated.
Nope. I get mail in "plain text" and it's still full of question marks.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
 

Brian: The question marks are a by product of AOL's email program. If I
recall correctly it is a by product of their HTML set up. If you switch to
plain text it should be eliminated.

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY

----- Original Message -----
From: <bflynn562@aol.com>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws


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:?
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









------------------------------------

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:

--- 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?

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,

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
 

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:?
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


water.kresse@...
 

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

-------------- 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
 

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?


devansprr
 

--- 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?

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,

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


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


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.
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,
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:

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@...


----- 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,

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@>
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@

----- 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@>
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@

----- 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@>
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:

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













------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



water.kresse@...
 

I've pictures of C&O gondolas in Los Angeles in the 1950s.

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:

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@...


----- 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,

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@>
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@

----- 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@>
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@

----- 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@>
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:

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



















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:

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@...


----- 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,

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@>
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@

----- 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@>
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@

----- 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@>
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:

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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





water.kresse@...
 

Gary,

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,

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@...>
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@...

----- 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@...>
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@...

----- 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@...>
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:

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















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.
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,

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@...>
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@...

----- 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@...>
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@...

----- 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@...>
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:

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















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,

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@...>
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@...

----- 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@...>
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@...

----- 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@...>
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:

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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]