[PRCo] Re: Politics of Traction Thread

Tue Aug 7 09:10:02 EDT 2001

There were many interurbans in the midwest that paralleled steam railroads.
The interurbans offered frequent (usually hourly, sometimes less frequent)
service whereas typical railroad "accommodation" trains ran once daily in
each direction, division point to division point, serving local stops.  If
you really HAD to go somewhere, you could, spending lots of time to do so.
But the interurban really opened up travel possibilities in rural areas,
provided that you lived proximate to the line.

I recall reminiscing with a CRI&P railroad traveling freight agent during
the 1950's about his traveling about Indiana on the Indiana Railroad
"carrying my 25 pound Gladstone Bag full of Jack Daniels from the car stop
to the elevators" which he handed out to grain elevator shippers.  That was
salesmanship in the 1930's.   But he did a lot of walking carrying his
Gladstone Bag.  He was pleased when he got a car.

I do agree with whoever wrote it that the interurban era is ignored by many
historians.  While it was brief, it was very important in certain areas.
Even though the interurbans paralleled steam roads in many cases, they
served intermediate points not well served by the steam roads. And they did
so far more frequently and almost always at a lower fare (unless the steam
road cut its fares to match).   See Harwood and Korach's Lake Shore book.

Bill V.  native Ohioan.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Swindler [mailto:j_swindler at hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 10:20 AM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: Re: [PRCo] Re: Politics of Traction Thread

The interurbans were built because they were a tremendous technological 
advance.

And they disappeared because the automobile was a tremendous technological 
advance.

Under the category of 'things I never thought of/realized before':

How does one travel from Monongahela River valley towns to court house in 
Washington County to conduct business??

ans:  You take a steam packet from Monongahela to Pittsburgh (two trips 
daily (morning departure and late afternoon), or twice the frequency of most

Amtrak services); then take the Chartiers Valley train to Washington.  It 
was a two day trip.

ans #2:  With the opening of the Charleroi interurban line, equipped with 
the new 'big cars' (you know, the 3200-3209 series), one could now ride the 
interurban to Finleyville, and take B&O to Washington.  It cut the travel 
time to Washington in half.

ans #3:  As automobiles became available, and roads were improved - and this

was occuring as early as circa 1905 - it was becoming possible to drive to 
Washington to conduct business, in less then a day.

Why this example?  The 1895-1898 newspapers from Monongahela were 
interesting in that there was a determined effort to create a new county in 
the Monongahela Valley because of the transportation problems associated 
with conducting business in the county seats of Uniontown, Greensburg, 
Pittsburgh and Washington.  The discussion and pending legislation seemed to

die out at about the time trolleys appeared on the scene.

One final observation.  Couple years ago on a drive to mother-in-laws in 
Indiana, we stopped at a former C&LE freight house that had been converted 
into a store.  The owner's mother was there, and yes, she remembered the 
interurban cars as a small child.  But a more vivid memory was her father 
having to walk two miles to catch the interurban to Lima, Ohio.  Eventually 
the family managed to acquire an automobile, and this afforded the father 
with the option of driving direct to Lima, rather then depend on C&LE.

So my question to those of us who lament the passing of the interurban era, 
"what don't you understand about being condemned to walking two miles to 
catch a trolley?"  "What don't you understand about walking two miles in all

sorts of weather - snow, rain, hot summer days - just to ride the trolley 
and thereby support continued trolley operation?"  Why are we critical of 
others who sought to avoid hardships, and in the process brought about the 
demise of our favored mode of transportation?

John with apologies for some 'venting'.

>From: "Edward H. Lybarger" <twg at pulsenet.com>
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: Politics of Traction Thread
>Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:21:59 -0400
>
>
>Oakdale-McDonald was the only link built in a grand scheme to connect
>Bridgeville with Holliday's Cove (Weirton) and Steubenville; Pittsburgh
>Railways was to have built south to Bridgeville to enable the connection.  
>I
>think it is remarkable that the company lasted at all!
>
>Ed
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
>[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of Fred
>W. Schneider III
>Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 6:30 PM
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: Politics of Traction Thread
>
>
>
>The whole West Penn mainline was paralleled by the Pennsylvania
>Railroad; the B&O also competed with the mainline between Fairchance,
>Uniontown, and Connellsville.  And, of course, the B&O offered much
>faster service to from points on the West Penn in Fayette County to
>McKeesport than the trolley did. The Greensburg - Irwin - Trafford
>service was right beside the Pennsy and, at one time, the PRR had very
>decent local service.  Because most people were not going from town
>(station) to town (station), the West Penn was strong competition to the
>railroad.
>
>Your suggestions were correct.  The trolleys ran more frequently and at
>lower cost and stopped more often to pick up the farmer than the trains
>did.  (And before you digest that sentence, I've even known the Penn
>Central to stop train 616 in eastern Lancaster County on a very regular
>basis to drop a certain Amish farmer.)  This sort of service worked as
>long as economics mattered.  When we want something really bad, like
>using a car, then we dismiss economics saying that depreciation doesn't
>count because I need the car anyway.
>
>The Oakdale and McDonald was no at anomoly in any way.  The state was
>filled with trolley lines from no where to no place and many of them ran
>parallel to railroad lines.  Of course, they were the ones that got torn
>up earliest.  If you wish examples, Cititzens Traction from Rouseville
>to Oil City to Franklin (versus PRR and Erie); Conneaut and Erie or
>Cleveland and Erie (the NYC mainline was the competitor), the Jersey
>Shore Electric Street Railway (this actually fed a railroad yard but
>didn't have enough business to survive); the Jersey Shore and Antes Fort
>(this creature connected the Northern Central or PRR with the city of
>Jersey Shore ... a Toonerville that Met All Trains.  And how about the
>original Penn Central that ran beside the Pennsy mainline in Cambria
>County.  Most of these were gone in the 20s, PC or South Fork -
>Summerhill I think quit in 1918.
>
>There was a lot of mileage north of Philadelphia in Bucks County (most
>of the Bucks County Interurban Railway), the Doylestown and Easton or
>Philadelphia and Easton depending on which year, and the PRT Willow
>Grove - Hatboro line that also vanished in the 1920s.  These lines
>didn't compete with railroads.  Simply if one farmer in ten could afford
>an auto, it was apparently too much competition.  There just were not
>enough people in suburban Philly in them thar days.
>
>Derrick J Brashear wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Kenneth Josephson wrote:
> >
> > > This isn't Western Pennsylvania-related (unless you count the 
>mentioning
>of George
> > > Westinghouse), but there is an excellent thread going on about the
>economic failure of the
> > > interurban industry on Laura Heiden's North Shore Line discussion 
>board.
> >
> > Well, I can easily bring such a thing on-topic.
> > >From what appears to be the first message in the thread:
> > "why do historians of U.S. industry, transportation and even railroads
> > ignore the Interurban Era?"
> >
> > In many cases much as there were redundant steam railroad lines 
>interurban
> > lines in the context of the existing steam lines. At least that's the 
>way
> > it looks from here. For reasons which aren't really appropriate for
> > discussion here I found myself going through Oakdale and McDonald 3 
>times
> > this week.(*) There was a remote part of the West Penn here; The 
>Panhandle
> > Division of the Pennsylvania Railroad also connected the two towns along
> > with Pittsburgh, Steubenville, and other places.
> >
> > What did the trolley bring to the table?
> > -Cheaper fares
> > -I lack railroad timetables of the right era, but probably more frequent
> > headways
> >
> > The question then is what impact it had on travel in the area. I'm not
> > sure.
> >
> > The wise among you will rightly point out that a small operation in
> > isolation like Oakdale-McDonald isn't really a fair example for an
> > interurban as neither Oakdale nor McDonald (nor Noblestown) is urban. I
> > can only agree, but it was a fine example of an operation entirely
> > paralleled by a steam railroad which was fresh in my head. If you want
> > other examples, Trafford-Irwin is a good one, and was part of a network
> > which connected Pittsburgh with Greensburg (those are both urban, right?
> > ;-) Yet that portion fell over early compared to the rest.
> >
> > Aside from local historians and people like us, this sort of line is
> > forgotten.
> >
> > Extrapolate.
> >
> > -D
> > (*) If you're curious why I ended up out there 3 times this week I'll be
> > happy to amuse you offlist. It's not any of the obvious reasons.
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp