Chuck.Weinstock@a.sei.cmu.edu (01/30/86)
I'm told that the real reason that the C&NW runs left handed has absolutely nothing to do with English investors. It seems that when the line was single track in the suburban Chicago area, many (most?) of the stations were built on the right (heading away from Chicago.) When they double tracked the commuter lines they decided to run lefthanded to give the commuters shelter while awaiting the train on cold winter mornings. Passengers are likely to arrive at the station some minutes ahead of the expected train arrival in the morning, but leave it essentially immediately after arrival in the afternoon, so this makes sense.
cb@hlwpc.UUCP (Carl Blesch) (02/07/86)
> I'm told that the real reason that the C&NW runs left handed has absolutely > nothing to do with English investors. It seems that when the line was > single track in the suburban Chicago area, many (most?) of the stations were > built on the right (heading away from Chicago.) When they double tracked > the commuter lines they decided to run lefthanded to give the commuters > shelter while awaiting the train on cold winter mornings. Passengers are > likely to arrive at the station some minutes ahead of the expected train > arrival in the morning, but leave it essentially immediately after arrival > in the afternoon, so this makes sense. Yes, but the North Western did left-handed running everywhere they had double track -- not just in Chicago suburban commuter territory. For example, the line from Chicago to Milwaukee to Minneapolis was once double-trackked all the way, and left-handed running was the norm. For over-the-road passenger trains and for freight trains, it doesn't matter which side of the tracks the station is on. So I'd discount the above explanation for left-handed running. Carl Blesch
nels@astrovax.UUCP (Nels Anderson) (02/08/86)
British influence has been cited as the reason for left-handed operation
of some railroads in Europe, if not also the US. If this is true, then
why does the European continent not also use the same gauge as the
British?
--
Nels Anderson Princeton University, Astrophysics
{allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!nelsjis1@mtgzz.UUCP (j.mukerji) (02/09/86)
> British influence has been cited as the reason for left-handed operation > of some railroads in Europe, if not also the US. If this is true, then > why does the European continent not also use the same gauge as the > British? > -- > Nels Anderson Princeton University, Astrophysics > {allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!nels Huh???? European continent DOES use the same gauge as the British! That is Standard Gauge 4' 8.5"! There are exceptions of course, like the Iberian Peninsula where Broad Gauge 5' 6" is used. But then that could be British influence too! Do not forget that the British laid an extensive railway network in the Indian subcontinent using the Broad Gauge! Of course, the Ruskys are different, they use a 5' 0.5" or something like that. Jishnu Mukerji AT&T Information Systems Labs Middletown NJ mtgzz!jis1
roma@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (02/10/86)
> > I'm told that the real reason that the C&NW runs left handed has absolutely > > nothing to do with English investors. It seems that when the line was > > single track in the suburban Chicago area, many (most?) of the stations were > > built on the right (heading away from Chicago.) When they double tracked > > the commuter lines they decided to run lefthanded to give the commuters > > shelter while awaiting the train on cold winter mornings. Passengers are > > likely to arrive at the station some minutes ahead of the expected train > > arrival in the morning, but leave it essentially immediately after arrival > > in the afternoon, so this makes sense. > > Yes, but the North Western did left-handed running everywhere they had > double track -- not just in Chicago suburban commuter territory. > For example, the line from Chicago to Milwaukee to Minneapolis was > once double-trackked all the way, and left-handed running was the norm. > For over-the-road passenger trains and for freight trains, it doesn't > matter which side of the tracks the station is on. So I'd discount the > above explanation for left-handed running. > > Carl Blesch First, I don't think the entire Chicago-Minneapolis line was double track. I'd have to check some of my old employee timetables to be sure, but I recall reading about the tight schedule the "400" passenger trains had to keep in order to make meets along the way. As for the main issue, I'll agree that for freight trains and mainline passenger trains, it doesn't matter which side the station is on. But for operational consistency, it's best that, within a crew division, all trains run one way or the other! Indeed, I've seen C&NW stations outside of the Chicago area that are situated on the "wrong" side of the tracks, but this probably indicates that there was a fairly even distribution of east- and westbound traffic at those points. Though right-hand running may be more common, it's no better or worse than left-hand running. So, as C&NW extended their tracks westward, they continued to use left-hand operation. Any changeover would have incurred a great deal of expense (even in those days) and no benefit. (This is the explanation that C&NW gives for its tradition of left-hand operation.) Today, the distinction between left- and right-hand operation is largely moot because of the advent of CTC. Much double track has been replaced by passing sidings or has been made more flexible by bi-directional signaling. An interesting sidelight is that on part of the C&NW system, right-hand running was the norm. The Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha (known as the "Omaha Road") started out running right-handed. When C&NW purchased it, they kept it that way. Again, the expense of a changeover would have been prohibitive. The Omaha Road was a distinct operating division, so no confusion developed. I have a 1953 C&NW rulebook that states: On C&NW, trains will use the left-hand track. On CStPM&O, trains will use the right-hand track. The CStPM&O lost its corporate identity around 1959, but as far as I know, the division lines remained. I don't know if there is any double track left on the lines that were once Omaha Road tracks. Jon Roma Computing Services Office, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!roma ARPANET: roma%uiucuxc@uiuc.arpa CSNET: roma%uiucuxc@uiuc.csnet
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (02/11/86)
> > I'm told that the real reason that the C&NW runs left handed [is]... > > that when the line was > > single track in the suburban Chicago area, many (most?) of the stations were > > built on the right (heading away from Chicago.) ... > Yes, but the North Western did left-handed running everywhere they had > double track -- not just in Chicago suburban commuter territory. > For example, the line from Chicago to Milwaukee to Minneapolis was > once double-tracked all the way, and left-handed running was the norm. ... Yes, but if the first piece of double-track on the railway is left-hand running, you'll naturally make all the rest the same. Easier on the drivers, for instance. So the question becomes: which was the first piece of their system to be double-tracked? Or, does anyone feel like contacting the railway (or their successor) and finding out? Mark Brader
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (02/12/86)
> British influence has been cited as the reason for left-handed operation > of some railroads in Europe, if not also the US. If this is true, then > why does the European continent not also use the same gauge as the > British? > Nels Anderson I'll refrain from razzing you excessively, but in fact the only European countries that _don't_ use 56.5 inch gauge are Spain/Portugal, Ireland and Russia, which all have slightly wider gauges. (Sorry, I don't know if they're all the same.) Why was it that Britain could sell 4-8-1/2 all over Europe, (and America!) but not in Ireland, which it controlled at the time? Were you maybe thinking of "loading gauge", the outline of the largest stock allowed on a system? This is certainly different (smaller) in Britain than in Europe and smaller in Europe than in America. Modern marvellous mechanical motions allow through running of some trains from France to Spain without stopping. One of Hitler's more grandiose fantasies was a network of ~12-foot gauge railroads to tie his 1000-year empire together. Some design work was done and there was an article about it in "Trains" some time last year.
essachs@ihuxl.UUCP (Ed Sachs) (02/12/86)
Maybe we're looking for a *logical* reason when there isn't one. Not all railroads ran right hand, does there necessarily have to have been a good, logical reason to choose left hand vs. right hand running? For example, when Chicago's Elevated lines were built, there were four different companies which built lines. Two of them (the South Side and the Metropolitan) used right hand running, the other two (the Lake St. and Northwestern) used left hand running. Before the unification of these lines (around 1913 I believe), the Union Loop (used by all four lines) ran left hand. After the lines were unified under a single management, the Lake St. and Northwestern lines were converted to right hand running, and the Union Loop was made one-way. -- Ed Sachs AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxl!essachs
cb@hlwpc.UUCP (Carl Blesch) (02/12/86)
> First, I don't think the entire Chicago-Minneapolis line was double track. > I'd have to check some of my old employee timetables to be sure, but I > recall reading about the tight schedule the "400" passenger trains had > to keep in order to make meets along the way. Maybe not the whole line, but I believe most of it was. At least to Wyeville. I know that the line from Chicago to Milwaukee was double (I rode on it a number of times), as was the line north of Milwaukee (thru the northern suburbs to the Wiscona interchange, where the two lines to Green Bay and the line to Minneapolis diverged). Also, at various points along the line, you can see evidence of once-double-track. For example, if you take U.S. Highway 51 north of Madison to Stevens Point, you go under the North Western line and can see bridge supports that were wide enough to accommodate two parallel spans. Now there's only one span (even that may have been reconstructed, since I believe they are widening highway 51 into a freeway I haven't traveled that highway since I moved to New Jersey two years ago). Likewise, cross the tracks on Wisconsin Hwy. 13 at Adams, and you can tell from the roadbed that the tracks were once double. Carl Blesch