Back in the heyday of passenger trains, what was typically considered the maximum distance between two cities for a passenger train to be labaled a ‘local’? In other words just how far could, say a four or five car train with a single F7 or GP7, travel?
Also did most locals go round-trip on the same day?
When I think of local passenger trains my first thought isn’t distance. My first thought is that a local train stops at all stations (scheduled or flagged stop) along the line. On the other hand, limited trains had fewer stops so they could make better time (higher average speed) than a local. I’ve never heard of a “rule of distance” in defining trains other than the difference between a long-distance train and a short-distance train, but obviously local trains often didn’t travel as far as trains with limited stops.
Mark
I agree with Mark that distance does not determine a local. The train I am thinking about was the Burlington’s train between Lincoln, Nebraska and Billings, Montana which was several hundred miles with not much population.
Andy Sperandeo’s book The Model Railroader’s Guide to Passenger Equipment and Operation (from Kalmbach) classifies passenger trains into these types.
Accommodation trains
Commuter trains
Day trains
Local trains
Long-distance-trains
Mail and express trains
Milk trains
Mixed trains
Overnight trains
Pool trains
Sperandeo describe local trains as generally short-distance and serving every station along a portion of a railroad.
The longest-distance local train I’m aware of was on the Western Pacific. Its equipment consisted of an RDC and it ran the length of the railroad (between Oakland and Salt Lake City).
Mark
Typically, passenger trains required a source of steam to control the interior environment. The steam source was usually the locomotive; however, most Fs and GPs didn’t have one. Of course, those intended to serve on passenger trains did have boilers. They would be equipped with a boiler which exhausted out of a short steam stack, giving the fireman something to do. Some B units (cabless Fs) had boilers, and if one was part of the train, the A (cab) unit would not need a boiler although it would need controls for it. So, if you’re planning to use F and GP units on your passenger trains, make sure the models have the steam stack detail.
Mark
In other words just how far could, say a four or five car train with a single F7 or GP7, travel?
The FP7s and Passenger Geeps would be changed in at division points while the train would continue to its destination…However,like all things railroad there where exceptions…
The last NYC passenger train that ran from Cleveland to Cincinnati* never changed locomotives.In fact the same locomotive(s) would be used on the return trip…In the early 60s the remnants of this passenger train was down to a single unit and 3-4 cars by the mid 60s these train was down to a single RDC.
*In the hay day there was 9 passenger trains that polish the rails between Cleveland and Cincinnati including the Ohio State Limited and there was also a Cleveland to Columbus train as well.
Not sure if you are looking for how far an engine could travel or how far a crew could get because there is a difference. ATSF used F units on their runs from Chicago to and from LA. Obviously during one or more of the stops they had to refuel the engines. Someone more familiar than I can tell you where. I would take a guess and say that diesels could probably travel 500 miles or more without refueling subject to the size of the fuel tank. Railroads learned early on that a small fuel tank was not a wise investment. As far as crews an agreement with the union during steam days established how far and how long a crew could travel. These are subject to correction also but I believe a crew was limited to 200 miles maximum before requiring a new crew. There is also a time limit on crews which is either 12 or 16 hours before a crew “outlaws” and requires a new crew to take over where ever the train is at that time. So obviously a long distance train would be refueled and recrewed on its journey.
Asking multiple questions here. Pretty much the whole passenger network was covered by locals since they made the smaller stops.
A single GP7 or F7 would have a range somewhere in the 500-700 mile range, which would far exceed the range of the crew (typically 100-200 miles).
Trains operate as turns, double daily or triweekly service. Any could be used depending on the situation. Depends on the territory, the demand, etc. Near a major city they might run 50-100 locals a day on one route. During rush hour they might run a local every 15-20 minutes, with expresses in between.
I agree that “local train” designation primarily makes me think of a train that makes a lot of stops as opposed to an express or limited that makes limited stops. For example Great Northern ran two trains each day between Minneapolis/St.Paul and Duluth/Superior each day (a trip of about 150 mi.): the Badger which was a slow all-stops train, and the Gopher which made fewer stops and made the same trip in about half the time.
Normally the same equipment was used on both, usually an E7 with about 5 cars including a solarium parlor car with drumheads for both trains on the rear. A train set would start at the Twin Cities in the a.m. and run to Duluth / Superior as the Badger, then turn around and come back in the p.m. as the Gopher. Another train would do the same thing at the same time, only starting and ending in Duluth / Superior.
Neighboring railroads Soo Line and Northern Pacific ran similar short trains between MSP and D/S, often using an FP-7, although the Soo had a fair number of steam-generator equipped high nose GP’s too.
I would say that although the definition of a “local” might have a lot to do with making a lot of stops, it was often the case that “local” trains only ran a moderately short distance. As someone noted in remote areas that could cover hundreds of miles, but I don’t think you could run a “local” train from Chicago to New York for example. In many cases I’m sure the train ran entirely within one division, going from point A to point B and returning.
Often a local would be used to connect a branch line with a mainline. For example Northern Pacific used RDCs to run trains from Superior WI to the NP mainline at I think Brainerd MN (right about in the middle of the state) where passengers could transfer to the North Coast Limited or Mainstreeter.
You might not run a single train or a single crew, but by definition you pretty much have to run local service all the way from Chicago to New York. Since a local is a train that stops at intermediate points, if you have a section of the railroad that you don’t run a local then you have a section of the railroad where you don’t stop at the smaller intermediate locations. If you don’t have a train that stops at a station, then you don’t have a stop at all. So by definition some train is the local on any given stretch where there are smaller intermediate stations.
I think the real question isn’t how far does a local run, I think the real question is the OP has a train with a single 4 axle unit and a couple coaches and he is wanting to know what the typical operation is for a train with that type of consist.
The answer to that question is probably a hundred miles or less, probably closer to 50-75 and it probably does turn every day. I am sure though that people can come up with an example of virtually every operating pattern possible.
Well really he did ask “how far can a train run and still be considered a local?” or words to that effect. I do think in a literal sense the word “local” means an area close to you, so there is a point at which distance would make a difference. But yes you could run an “all stops” train between two cities 1000 miles apart, but technically I don’t know that you could call it a local…unless it originally meant a train that made “all the local stops”?? [%-)]
One thing that would factor in from a railroad’s point of view might be the crew. IIRC if an engineer ran a train 100 miles, he would qualify (at least back in steam/transition days) for a full day’s pay, even if it only took a few hours to run that far. So if a train went 125 miles, the RR would have to pay one crew for 100 miles, and then a second crew for the last 25 I guess. Unless the train was making a good profit the RR might decide the extra crew expense didn’t justify continuing the train.
I know of situations where an engineer would get on a passenger train and run it say 40-50 miles to a town, get off the train, and take over a train on the same line going back the towards “home”, with him running it back to his starting point where he would get off, completing his day’s work.
I would consider around 400-500 miles between endpoints to be a reasonable run for a passenger local with lots of positive and flag stops. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, a lot of these longer locals lived on the strength of their mail contracts so a good amount of head-end equipment would be appropriate for the consist.
Yes, you should call it a local because it makes “local” stops along the route. While a local train could travel a very long distance, it doesn’t mean that the railroad intended the service for passengers wanting to travel a long distance. Individual passengers were expected to ride the train a shorter distance. Locals didn’t provide adequate sleeping or food service to passengers for a very long train ride. On the other hand, “accomodation” trains usually did have those facilities for long-distance travel yet would make many local stops. These trains carried mail and express and needed to make local stops for that traffic.
Change of crews and equipment along the route has no relevance in determining whether the train is a local or not.
Mark
No, I agree it wouldn’t. I was speculating whether crew costs would be a factor on whether or not a railroad would maintain a local train into the diesel era, a time when passenger numbers were dropping severely. If a train goes from point A to point B, and it requires three changes of crew to deliver say 10 passengers to point B, it might be losing money for the railroad, whereas a local that only requires one crew on a shorter trip for 10 people might be breaking even or making a profit??
As you note, one reason many locals made it into the sixties was they had a mail contract to subsidize the train. After those contracts went away, many trains were discontinued and in fact helped lead to Amtrak…but that’s another story!!
I agree, but add that government regulators had the final say… Railroads kept losing money after deciding that cutting back service was desirable when they weren’t permitted to do so.
Mark
Yes there are a couple of railroads for certain (or at least pretty certain) still running locals. The Alaska Railroad goes places roads don’t and gives door to door service for back country residents and makes arrangements with campers/hikers to drop them off and pick them up at certain locations and dates. I believe the British Columbia RR does the same thing.
Unfortunately passenger service on BC Rail ended in 2002, just prior to the railway’s sale to CN. But yes, when passenger service was running, you could arrange to be picked up or dropped off at any railway crossing.
Getting back to the OP, a local could really be anything as has been stated, what makes a local a local is it will makes stops at all stations along its route. A local could be anything from a mixed train, one locomotive with four cars, or a four unit lash up with coaches, sleepers, meal service and the whole nine yards. Some locals would do 50 mile out and back runs, while others would travel over 900 miles. The modeling possibilities are nearly endless. Like a friend of mine is fond of saying, there is a prototype for everything.
If that 125 miles was within one crew district, they would only use one crew. Unless they ran out of time on their hours of service.
The 100 mile rules deal with how pay and overtime is figured. Many crew districts were longer than 100 miles. It’s not a maximum on how much you can work in a day, but more a minimum of what you are going to get paid for that day.
Jeff