NYC - PRR Parallel Mainlines in Chicago

Yesterday evening and again this morning, I did some further research on this entire subject and prepared a draft of a post which required a bit of proofreading before posting. I put aside the draft due to a doctor’s appointment, but I am now home and have proofread the post which reads as follows.

I believe that I have finally pinpointed the exact spot where the New York Central and Pennsylvania mainlines split off from one another.

Let me clarify my original intention in starting this thread. Way back in 2005, I learned about the race east from Englewood Station in Chicago between the NYC and PRR. What really made the race exciting was that each railroad had two mainline tracks and those four tracks ran parallel, side-by side. At some point about 5 to 6 miles east of Englewood Station, the mainline tracks of each railroad began to split off from one another although those tracks were still relatively parallel to one another. There is plenty of commentary online to indicate that the race ended at the point where that split occurred. So that was my question. Where exactly did that split take place?

The replies to this question have been most helpful including gpullman, matt_mcc, timz and MidlandMike, along with encouragement from Woke_Hoagland. But the topographical maps from MidlandMike sealed the deal along with Ed’s (gpullman) identification of Columbia Malting as the point of separation.

If you take a look at the close-up view of the first topographical map provided by MidlandMIke, you can see that the four mainline tracks of the NYC and PRR ran parallel, side-by-side until they reached their respective vertical lift bridges that crossed the Calumet River at 95th Street and for a short distance after crossing the bridges. But, then, they split at 100th Street which is obvious on the close-up view that follows.

That is the visual confirmation that I have been looking for. 100th Street on the far southeast side of Chicago! As far as exactly where the race ended, my guess would be when the two locomotives reached the bridges.

Now what was the reason for the split at 100h Street? Answer: Columbia Malting. The website Forgotten Chicago identifies the brewer as the Albert Schwill/Falstaff Malting Brewery (Plant 11). The massive facility was five blocks long, extending from 100th Street to 105th Street, situated directly in the path of the two railroads mainlines, necessitating a split at that point. (My earlier confusion on this situation was that I had mis-identified the location of Columbia Malting as being between 110th and 115th Streets).

Just beyond 115h Street was a railroad yard (an IHB yard, I believe) that ran from 106th Street to 110th Street. So, the separation of the two railroads mainlines continued until 111th Street at which point the tracks ran parallel once again, but not side-by-side.

Beginning at 117h Street in Whiting Indiana, the PRR tracks began to separate from the NYC tracks and no longer ran parallel.

Just west of Clarke Junction at Just south of Buffington Harbor above the NW corner of what is now Gary Airport, the PRR tracks began to turn sharply southeast, heading for Hobart, Valparaíso and Fort Wayne where the PRR tracks turned once again and headed east through Ohio and Pennsylvania and onto New York.

2 Likes

If I might make an observation from what I’ve gathered about ‘The Race’.
I really believe this is an over-hyped, almost imaginary event that was promulgated by several authors of the day. Mr. Lucius Beebe was well known for his provocative embellishment and I’m sure others followed suit. The idea of a ‘race between rivals’ would certainly draw readers’ attention and conversely result in greater popularity.

In both the Pennsy Keystone, the magazine of the Pennsylvania Railroad Historical and Technical Society and the Central Headlight, a similar magazine of the NYC’s Historical Society I’ve come across first-hand accounts from both head-end crews and train service employees and the general consensus there is “Race? What race? We were too busy to be concerned with any kind of race.”

If one considers the volume of trains on this multi-track stretch of real estate you’d have to concede that the chances of two (or more) trains running alongside at comparable speeds was quite frequent. In the case of the photos I submitted above of the Herron video you’d have to give some credence to the presence of a movie cameraman drawing some attention from the dining car crew that was filmed.

Century_life18 by Edmund, on Flickr

These guys were busy, plus it was a daily occurrence for the most part and after a few months on the job I’m pretty sure they weren’t too concerned about what was going on with the ‘other’ railroad a few tracks over.

Century_life43 by Edmund, on Flickr

Century_life49 by Edmund, on Flickr

Yes, it’s kind of a neat thing for us train ‘enthusiasts’ to romanticize over some eighty years later but my take is ‘back in the day’ it wasn’t all that big of a deal.

Cheers, Ed

1 Like

It may have originated from casual observers and embellished by writers, like Beebe. From the perspective of those just watching, it would appear to be just like a race.

Speaking of racing, there was an item in the Treasury of Railroad Folklore about trains of two paralling railroads. IIRC, it was on the old Mobile and Ohio and I forget the other. Officials put out notices prohibiting racing.

The prohibition was, at times, forgotten. An engineer saw the other railroad’s train and the race was on. The engineer was able to noae ahead of the other train until the tracks moved apart. At the next stop an official, unbeknownst to the engineer, had been riding and came forward. He admonished the engineer for racing, but said he’d overlook this time, seeing how he “won” the race.

Did it really happen? Who knows, but it’s a good story.

Jeff

Back in the day, the B&O and PRR generally had schedules leaving Washington Union Station at the same time. B&O & PRR mains are parallel for about three miles from the bumping blocks at Union Station until the lines diverge just past a point known on the B&O as F Tower.

According to my father who was 14 when the Fair of the Iron Horse was held in 1927 when the B&O bought their P7 President Pacific’s. Before the Presidents started handling B&O trains, the PRR K4’s would walk away from the B&O trains. After the P7’s the B&O would walk away from the PRR trains. When the PRR electrified and started using the GG1’s there was no contest.

Of course the opposite of a race was when the Federal could not stop in January 1953 and ran through the bumping block and the GG1 ended up in the basement of Union Station shortly before the 1953 Inaugural. Dad had been sent to Washington from his regular assignment of Pittsburgh for Inaugural assistance and brought the family along - he took me down the basement to see the activities that were taking place in getting the station ready for all the Inaugural passenger traffic.

1 Like

That could occupy a thread all its own! The amazing thing is the fact that the Pennsy sharpened their pencil and came to the conclusion that $200,000 was worthwhile to spend to put the 4876 back together again.

GG1 #4876 Jan 15, 1953 photo 6 007 by John W. Barriger III National Railroad Library, on Flickr

It was chopped up into ‘bite sized’ pieces, IIRC in order to fit the baggage elevator at WUT, and put back together at Altoona. Quite a feat I would say.

PRR 4876 GG1 by Sal Piro, on Flickr

Cheers, Ed

Not the PRR, I believe, but their then insurer… Lloyd’s of London.

And I heard a number of stories about how most of the locomotive was not, in fact, welded back together… despite having stood next to the locomotive when it was stored outside the Public Service plant in Hackensack and clearly tracing the vertical seams in the skin plating.

The engine was probably still held in trust. The Pennsy certainly had some say in weather or not the motor was rebuilt as it was their people who wrote up the estimate at the “body shop”.

GG1 #4876 Jan 15, 1953 data 002 by John W. Barriger III National Railroad Library, on Flickr

I didn’t mean to imply that every piece was patched together. There were shop people at WUT for the disassembly and they determined what should be salvaged and what could be scrapped. I can provide a list if you’d like to see it.

GG1 #4876 Jan 15, 1953 photo 3 by John W. Barriger III National Railroad Library, on Flickr

The replacement driving truck frames were the highest expense at $28,750.00 the pair. 4876s depreciated value was $140,620 but a new GG1 would cost $425,000.

The final cost to rebuild 4876 was below the estimate at $138,270.00.

Regards, Ed

Although it might be possible that the trustee bank and not PRR formally made part of the decision, I was looking strictly at where the decision to fund the rebuilding came from. The shop estimates would have been critical information for the insurance underwriters, but it would have been their decision to ‘total’ the locomotive or have it rebuilt… with the priority being entirely how much they’d have to pay out…

I’d be highly interested to see exactly what was salvaged and what was replaced. PRR had distinctive competence in the late Forties in welding thick-section cast steel – see the patents associated with the T1a conversion, of which they were rightly proud. On the other hand the GSC facility in Granite City would still have been in business, and perhaps the one at the Baldwin complex (‘adaptively used’ for Centipede underframes only a few years prior) so the capability to make cores and castings for the underframes might have still been cheaper than jigging and welding.

I believe one has to remember, in this general time frame, carriers were ‘rebuilding’ steam locomotives by ‘jacking up the engine number’ and building virtually a new locomotive under it. Going from built up frames to cast steel frames and other similar changes. There were a lot of sharp pencils at work on any number of carriers in the years and decades after WW II.

Yes, but there’s a difference between, say, 1947 and 1953. By the time ‘rebuilding’ of 4876 was in the works, PRR had enthusiastically joined the ranks prioritizing ‘diesel-style’ B and C trucks (as touted, for example, with that 16-axle shark nose electric in the 1948 Westinghouse catalog), and I think all those postwar rectifier engines that were such flops had been built.

I do suspect there were tax and depreciation concerns involved with the rebuild-in-kind decision. That would, I think, be a decision for both the trustee and insurer, as you mention, as the value of the engine as collateral would have to be preserved.

From the memo on file at the PRR T&HS:

The most expensive parts needed were new frame castings as the originals had been damaged in the wreck and also had to be cut up for removal. The cost for these had been estimated at $28,750. Another item from the archives reported that an order for new main frames had been placed with General Steel Castings on March 19, 1953 with delivery promised in about 60 days. Other parts needing to be replaced were the cab underframe, except for the reusable body bolsters, the entire cab superstructure, pantographs, and couplers.
Italics mine.

It is believed that the loan had been paid off by the time of the wreck so no trustee involvement was needed. The pile of parts arrayed at Altoona was done mainly for the insurance adjusters if they needed to investigate further.

Amazingly the ‘basement’ baggage room where the GG1 was laid on its side was completely removed by January 28th! Just under two weeks after the wreck.

[edit] One other factor regarding insurance. I seem to recall (pending verification) that both the New Haven and Pullman Standard shared financial liability in this wreck since it was a P-S design and a New Haven owned 8600 coach that was the cause of the wreck. I believe I have the ICC investigation around here that shows how the angle cock bracket was somehow interfering with a coupler hangar which caused the angle cock to eventually close effectively blocking the train line (3rd or 4th car from the head end).

Cheers, Ed

1 Like

Was there a particular issue you had with them, Rich?

I always thought they did a remarkable job, what with the bucket of rusty bolts they inherited, and in a relatively short time they turned around years of mismanagement, deferred maintenance, and, yes, even corruption (Penn-Central’s ultimate undoing). An early version of Enron!

Conrail paid back the 2.1 Billion Federal loan in 1987 and paid the Treasury a 579 Million dividend. That’s not a bad financial picture from a company that inherited a million dollar-a-day loss when it began in 1976.

I sort of always had an admiration for Conrail and in many ways miss its existence.

CR 5072 at Springfield, PA by Bruce Gage, on Flickr

Cheers, Ed

From all indications, from management down to the union members, that team did quite the job.

Stanley Crane - heck of a leader from what I have read.

Ed

I confess to a certain bias as Sally Blodget was a classmate, and Mr. Crane told me to take the flapping PC off his train April 1st 1976…

While I think it’s unfortunate that they cut so much multiple track and tore up so many of the mainline routes … did they really have that much of an option in those years?

No, they really didn’t. How on earth could the Erie, for one example, have survived? Once the mills and metal fabricating plants from Pittsburgh to Chicago closed up (“the heart of industrial America” as the Erie touted it in the 1950’s), the economics didn’t justify Conrail having three parallel lines.

As a Clevelander in those years, I recall what a breath of fresh air, so to speak, Conrail brought to their properties. Things got fixed and things got repaired. I even bought some stock in Conrail, but I sold it too soon. I have to agree about Crane being a mensch.

Nevertheless, there was one thing about Conrail I never liked: that unimaginative paint scheme and awful shade of blue they used. It looked cold and ugly to me, but even it was a distinct improvement over Penn Central black.

Hurricane Agnes played a big role in desecrating the trackage of the “Anthracite Roads” as well. Washouts and bridge damage well beyond what any costs to repair could recover.

Wikipedia:

Agnes had a devastating impact on the already-bankrupt railroads in the northeastern United States, as lines were washed out and shipments were delayed:

  • The Erie Lackawanna Railway (EL) estimated that damage between Binghamton and Salamanca, New York, amounted to $2 million. EL filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
  • The Penn Central Railroad sustained nearly $20 million in damages

The resulting cost of repairing the damage was one of the factors leading to the creation of the federally financed Conrail. Some Americans sardonically referred to the storm as “Hurricane Agony”.

Cheers, Ed

1 Like

Absolutely true, Ed. Hurricane Agnes might be called the Erie Lackawanna’s coup de grace.

Agnes didn’t only strike the bankrupt NE carriers. B&O and WM got hit too. B&O lost the Old Main Line and WM had serious damage on both their lines on either side of Emory Grove.

Old Main Line was out of service from June 1972 until the Spring of 1975 and was knocked out again (to a lesser extent) in the Fall of 1975 by another storm. When it was restored they wanted to eliminate the signal system but the ICC mandated the signals had to be restored too.

1 Like

I am not sure where you heard the “B&OCT only exists because of paperwork errors during the merger”, however that is not even close to being true. The B&OCT was kept because it gave Chessie back in the day, and CSX still, powers of a terminal railroad in the Chicago Terminal District. It allows CSX to charge other railroads more to switch a car, tariff other railroads that refuse or delay interchange, and charge for recrews.

Despite its name, the B&OCT was, and still is, a “neutral” switching road. It’s less visible than it was in times past since any local service is operated using CSX power. The CSX/B&OCT side of the Western Avenue corridor is still a vital piece of Chicago railroad that is part of several CREATE projects.